Gay Marriage - Canada and the US

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - A Saskatchewan court ruling Friday made the Canadian prairie province the country's seventh jurisdiction to allow homosexuals to wed. :thumb:



Justice Donna Wilson sided with courts in five other provinces and one territory, saying existing marriage laws discriminate against gay couples and were unconstitutional.



The Saskatchewan ruling came after five gay couples went to court seeking the right to wed. At least one couple have said they plan to say their vows as early as this weekend.



Courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already ruled in the same way.



There are currently two couples challenging the law in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Supreme Court of Canada is in the process of evaluating a draft federal law that could make gay weddings legal from coast to coast. The high court is expected to rule next year.



The decision came after many American voters showed their disapproval over the issue as 11 states on Tuesday supported constitutional amendments rejecting legal marriage for homosexual couples. :mad:





One Eyed Cat

The problem in the U.S. is they are trying to sell the idea the same way you're sold a used car. Both sides jump on the "love" and "sacred" part of marriege instead of focusing only on the legal aspects of it. Hell I'm all for it but it makes me shake my head when gay activists totally screw up their arguments and label anyone that does not support their view as homophobic. If they would actually LISTEN to the other side for about 5 minutes they would see many are in favor of CIVIL UNIONS...basicly the traditionalist and conservatives want to keep the image and word marriage more than anything.

Gotta compromise...if you go with the attitude "They don't accept me cause they are hateful"...well then not only do you re-enforce the views of the truly close minded but you completely alienate those who want to work the issue out.

It's sickening how both sides spend more time trying to piss each other off then getting anything done. Kinda like the attitude some have of labeling anyone who voted for bush a redneck...way to be open minded and oh so liberal.

One thing to note is that unlike Canada you have to deal with at least 5 times more legal red tape on this issue. Canada does not have 50 state courts and the legislative branches in those states to deal with...this makes a bit harder to say the least.

For Gay Marriege to pass in the U.S. it needs to be in the hands of the states not the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

The problem in the U.S. is they are trying to sell the idea the same way you're sold a used car. Both sides jump on the "love" and "sacred" part of marriege instead of focusing only on the legal aspects of it. Hell I'm all for it but it makes me shake my head when gay activists totally screw up their arguments and label anyone that does not support their view as homophobic. If they would actually LISTEN to the other side for about 5 minutes they would see many are in favor of CIVIL UNIONS...basicly the traditionalist and conservatives want to keep the image and word marriage more than anything.

-- The vast majority of the state initiatives ruled out civil unions as well. That is actually what I support in the US also.

Gotta compromise...if you go with the attitude "They don't accept me cause they are hateful"...well then not only do you re-enforce the views of the truly close minded but you completely alienate those who want to work the issue out.

-- I believe simply in equality under the law, including civil union between consenting adults. I don't even believe it should be based on public opinion. I don't personally care what people think of gays in general.

It's sickening how both sides spend more time trying to piss each other off then getting anything done. Kinda like the attitude some have of labeling anyone who voted for bush a redneck...way to be open minded and oh so liberal.

-- I don't dislike republicans, just disagree with the mainstream of their party on social issues

One thing to note is that unlike Canada you have to deal with at least 5 times more legal red tape on this issue. Canada does not have 50 state courts and the legislative branches in those states to deal with...this makes a bit harder to say the least.

For Gay Marriege to pass in the U.S. it needs to be in the hands of the states not the federal government.

---

-- That is probably true save a constitutional amendment that will never pass. I still believe the courts should have the final say. America was created as a republic so no majority faction could ultimately trample the rights of a minority. We have had many failures along the way, but I am honestly simply embarassed by this.



OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

-- That is probably true save a constitutional amendment that will never pass. I still believe the courts should have the final say. America was created as a republic so no majority faction could ultimately trample the rights of a minority. We have had many failures along the way, but I am honestly simply embarassed by this.

OEC

---

Well if we're gonna see this as a true minority issue then to be blunt it needs to take a back seat to everything from immigration and the deplorable conditions minority workers are subjected too daily. It's better to label it as a social issue for a changing society or whatever spin sounds best. None trampled on anything in this case...it was up for a vote and gay rights activists dropped the ball...next time they should spend less time alienating entire voters by bitching out an Eminem song lyric. It comes off as "Equal rights unless it offends us" and makes that entire side of an issue seem unwilling to accept anythig that is now 100% in their favor.

Anyone with a bit of time knew this was gonna royally fail since NO candidate was for it 100%...no one made it an issue for more than a few sound bites.

The midwest needs to be won over...and with a midwestern style at that. That's gonna be tough...but it's not gonna happen when the biggest supporters (The West and East Coast) keep calling these people rednecks and idiots. I mean come on...how is behaviour like that to anyones benefit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

Well if we're gonna see this as a true minority issue then to be blunt it needs to take a back seat to everything from immigration and the deplorable conditions minority workers are subjected too daily. It's better to label it as a social issue for a changing society or whatever spin sounds best. None trampled on anything in this case...it was up for a vote and gay rights activists dropped the ball...next time they should spend less time alienating entire voters by bitching out an Eminem song lyric. It comes off as "Equal rights unless it offends us" and makes that entire side of an issue seem unwilling to accept anythig that is now 100% in their favor.

-- Yeah, I suppose it is better framed as a social issue. I would still argue that equal rights would imply at least a recognition of civil unions. I think it is homosexuality that ultimately offends the majority of this country. I can't speak to how gay activists handled these initiatives. I know the tendency is towards hyperbole and offending opponents on both sides.

Anyone with a bit of time knew this was gonna royally fail since NO candidate was for it 100%...no one made it an issue for more than a few sound bites.

The midwest needs to be won over...and with a midwestern style at that. That's gonna be tough...but it's not gonna happen when the biggest supporters (The West and East Coast) keep calling these people rednecks and idiots. I mean come on...how is behaviour like that to anyones benefit?

---

-- It isn't. I believe it should be a simple legal issue. Call them civil unions give em the bennies and that's that. Obviously, there are more pressing problems in the country.


OEC

its pretty sick that in this day and age people think they can say who gets to be allowed to be married..
and bush is gonna focus on faith in this term as president.. good luck america.. we will store the run away americans in my guestbedroom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamathirteen

its pretty sick that in this day and age people think they can say who gets to be allowed to be married..
and bush is gonna focus on faith in this term as president.. good luck america.. we will store the run away americans in my guestbedroom

---

Web traffic to the Canadian Immigration site by Americans is up 6 fold since Bush won. I was amazed to find out that even same sex marriage between a Canadian and a foreigner would qualify under the family category of immigration. You should be prepared for an influx.:thumb:


OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

Web traffic to the Canadian Immigration site by Americans is up 6 fold since Bush won. I was amazed to find out that even same sex marriage between a Canadian and a foreigner would qualify under the family category of immigration. You should be prepared for an influx.:thumb:


OEC

---

I think somehow we'll manage. I'm still backing the "Export Violent American Gangs To Canada" initiative. Not for any malicious reason mind you...it just seems they'd be a natural and loving fit.

we have enough problems with gangs and a government that fowled up a gun control bill....to be honest Canada is not perfect either and you don't see me cryin' The fucking beuruecrats fucked us over once more I am moving to Austrilia...or anywhere else but here...cause I can't deal with it...no I am here reading and trying to be aware and be involved...as fro gay marriage It's nto a big deal to me in the sense gay people don't offend me...so its a mute subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CPRB

we have enough problems with gangs and a government that fowled up a gun control bill....to be honest Canada is not perfect either and you don't see me cryin' The fucking beuruecrats fucked us over once more I am moving to Austrilia...or anywhere else but here...cause I can't deal with it...no I am here reading and trying to be aware and be involved...as fro gay marriage It's nto a big deal to me in the sense gay people don't offend me...so its a mute subject.

---

If you head way way way down south tell me...I know a few gals down there that will make it very worthwhile.

Though recently I did get an offer to head to New Zealand...very very very tempting.

NZ is Beautiful I am kinda lots on the way way down south thing...unless you're talking fag hags and well I don't lie even though I have been thin on the servings of womanly companioship these last few months I think once Lange is doen whith His midget wenches I am going to take the sloppy seconds...

It's not a big issue unless you are in a long term monogomous homosexual relationship, then suddenly is strikes you as more important than immigration. Funny how that works.

Also, why should civil unions be an acceptable answer? It is just language to some people but it is divisive language. It continues the seperation of homosexuals from hetrosexuals. Replace the word homosexual with say black and see how hateful it sounds. "Black people can't marry, but they can get civil unions that afford them the same rights." Doesn't sound to good does it? How about, "Allowing blacks to marry erodes family values." Eeew, sounds pretty bad doesn't it?

Yes the homosexual community should be civil and well reasoned in thier arguements but when you hear people say hurtfull hateful things that they would never say in public about other people as casually as if they were discussing herd animals, then it tends to make them bigots in your mind.

There is no reason equal rights should be decided at the state level. Either this nation believes that all men were created equally or it doesn't states don't get to choose that.

I can see where you're coming from but the thing is you really can't use the same argument used against racism...in this case toward Blacks. A gay white guy is still treated better on average than your average black guy (or any racial minority to be honest.)

Sexual preferance and racial background are NOT on the same level. Are they treated as bad as each other? Sure...a level of hatred and ignorance toward both sides exists but you can't compare the two beyond that. That's where many gay issues lose ground with the average citizen...it's not cause they homophobic or it goes against their ideals...it's simply presented in a manner that is trying too hard to attach itself to everything from the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's to Minority issues of today.

Not trying to sound crass about it but as much as the gay rights movement wants to be heard they do just as much not to be critiqued...and most tune out of the topic because they know if they challenge the issue they are "redneck homophobes" or "Ignorant" instead of being accepted as not agreeing with the stance, policy, or idea.

Honestly the issue of gay marrige is not that high on my list of social priorities...I'm all for giving it to them and moving on. But the fact remains that they need to move out of their political safe zones to do it.

Making it to be a racial thing...not gonna work...you can hide the fact you are gay...you can't hide your racial identity (Hollywood not withstanding). May sound a bit crass but sorry...I've heard this argument used for years and it just does not hold water.

Though I will readily admit if you are gay AND part of a minority you rea REALLY screwed and I say this from personal experience cause if you think Homosexuality is looked on bad in the states...it's looked at even worse in nations where many immagrents come from these days.

I'm all for Gay Rights but it seriously needs a new battle plan, image, and focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

Either this nation believes that all men were created equally or it doesn't\.

---

sorry, but this nation NEVER believed that all men (let alone everyone else) were created equal and until the day when Bush invites me to brunch a the white house to discuss how I feel about the governing process, I don't see it ever going to be any different.

oh yeah and the word up from the land down under is that they just elected a jackass dickhead too, so it's not too fun there right now either. bummer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

sorry, but this nation NEVER believed that all men (let alone everyone else) were created equal and until the day when Bush invites me to brunch a the white house to discuss how I feel about the governing process, I don't see it ever going to be any different.

---

Why? This taps into an interesting form of behaviour people in the know or political commentators get into. They disect and form ideas on how a system should work or it's flaws...yet never seem to have either the skill, social position, or desire to really get to that high level of power. Excuses always arise saying "my family ain't rich" or "The man keeps me down" or "I'm really tired and need a nap".

As dumb and idiotic as we all thing politicians are...they're in positions that we're not and when you start diggin deeper you get a picture that it's not that these people are better...or smarter...they just want it more.

it's not for a lack of trying. there's a reason why there's never been anyone besides a rich white guy as president, and it's not because no one else has the ambition or the drive. It's because all the other rich white guys that came before want it that way, and want to make sure it stays that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

it's not for a lack of trying. there's a reason why there's never been anyone besides a rich white guy as president, and it's not because no one else has the ambition or the drive. It's because all the other rich white guys that came before want it that way, and want to make sure it stays that way.

---

See that's not entirely true...white part yeah...but ones has to look at the balcground of many presidents. At one point or another their ethnic background would have prevented them from even being in office...like JFK...at one point the thought of an Irish Catholic in the office was absurd...NEVER would have happened...even as JFK ran it was an issue. Granted he got killed off but he was in office none the less. Black congressmen and cabinet members? Half centuury ago that was insane...Colin Powell"s position alone was impossible in those days....the old white guard is falling...one generation at a time.

Eventually it'll be a rich black guy or a rich mexican guy....or maybe a rich half black half mexican guy. It'll happen eventually...hopefully I still have a pulse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

Making it to be a racial thing...not gonna work...you can hide the fact you are gay...you can't hide your racial identity (Hollywood not withstanding). May sound a bit crass but sorry...I've heard this argument used for years and it just does not hold water.

---

Ok, scrap black for Catholic, or athiest or (for sympathy on this board :wink2: ) part of the Church of Satan. You can hide any of those things, but why should you? And, you can hide your racial identity when it is say italian, mexican, irish or jewish a good amount of time, but again no one would use that arguement to say it is ok to discriminate against them. Also, it gets a little tricky to hide your sexual prefrence when say, you go out on a date.


If you say racist things, or bash the Jewish religion people don't need to tiptoe around calling you on it, why is this different? Because they are a smaller or less visible minority?

Also, when you say a gay white guy is treated better than a straight black guy, that only holds if people don't know he is gay. Run an openly gay man for office against a black man and watch the polls. Have a gay openly gay man apply for a job in a traditionally guy related field such as construction. Have an openly gay man join a major league sports team. Or try this experiment, have a black man in the army admit openly that he is black, not repeate the experiment with a gay man. Interesting, the gay white man doesn't seem to be treated better does he? Now comes the big one, accuse a black man and a gay white man of **********.... .... ... not going real well for the gay man is it? Oh, yeah, and how many states still have laws on the books against a black man having consentual sex?

The thing is, when you think it is ok to descriminate against a segment of society you are a bigot. Sure the homosexual community might need to stop calling them bigots, but it is not because they are wrong, but because they need more allies for the fight.

Why get married anyway ?

And that goes for anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

Ok, scrap black for Catholic, or athiest or (for sympathy on this board :wink2: ) part of the Church of Satan. You can hide any of those things, but why should you? And, you can hide your racial identity when it is say italian, mexican, irish or jewish a good amount of time, but again no one would use that arguement to say it is ok to discriminate against them. Also, it gets a little tricky to hide your sexual prefrence when say, you go out on a date.


If you say racist things, or bash the Jewish religion people don't need to tiptoe around calling you on it, why is this different? Because they are a smaller or less visible minority?

Also, when you say a gay white guy is treated better than a straight black guy, that only holds if people don't know he is gay. Run an openly gay man for office against a black man and watch the polls. Have a gay openly gay man apply for a job in a traditionally guy related field such as construction. Have an openly gay man join a major league sports team. Or try this experiment, have a black man in the army admit openly that he is black, not repeate the experiment with a gay man. Interesting, the gay white man doesn't seem to be treated better does he? Now comes the big one, accuse a black man and a gay white man of **********.... .... ... not going real well for the gay man is it? Oh, yeah, and how many states still have laws on the books against a black man having consentual sex?

The thing is, when you think it is ok to descriminate against a segment of society you are a bigot. Sure the homosexual community might need to stop calling them bigots, but it is not because they are wrong, but because they need more allies for the fight.

---

All right I'll simplify it to prove my point why this is not a racial issue...being gay does not constitute as a racial or more accurately a racial background in any way, shape, or form. You can be gay if your black, white, purple...whatever...however you cannot be Italian then come out of the closet as black. Your argument focuses too much on the fact being gay gets you a raw deal in some social situations...like your office example. It can also be said it' d go the other way entirely with people choosing the safe gay guy over a shady minority.

Your first two statements are grossly inaccurate...you can't hide your ethnic identity as easily as you can sexual preference...you can't say your white when your black....chinese when you are mexican. Their are physical traits that go with your ethnic background...and many a story exists of gay men leading and living striaght lives married to women only to come out years later.

The hate and discrimination may be the same as racism...but it's not a racial issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

All right I'll simplify it to prove my point why this is not a racial issue...being gay does not constitute as a racial or more accurately a racial background in any way, shape, or form. You can be gay if your black, white, purple...whatever...however you cannot be Italian then come out of the closet as black. Your argument focuses too much on the fact being gay gets you a raw deal in some social situations...like your office example. It can also be said it' d go the other way entirely with people choosing the safe gay guy over a shady minority.

Your first two statements are grossly inaccurate...you can't hide your ethnic identity as easily as you can sexual preference...you can't say your white when your black....chinese when you are mexican. Their are physical traits that go with your ethnic background...and many a story exists of gay men leading and living striaght lives married to women only to come out years later.

The hate and discrimination may be the same as racism...but it's not a racial issue.

---

I see it more as an issue of social tolerance. Personally I call people on homophobia as much as I do racism/antisemitism. I think cpm was trying to make the point that one bigotry is not better or worse than others, albeit with examples that differ in the specifics.



OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

I see it more as an issue of social tolerance. Personally I call people on homophobia as much as I do racism/antisemitism. I think cpm was trying to make the point that one bigotry is not better or worse than others, albeit with examples that differ in the specifics.



OEC

---

That's a given really. I can sympathize with what he's trying to get at but for the benefit of the cause...in this case Gay Rights...it needs to be treated and addressed in it's own unique way...it's the only way to raise tolorence for it...maybe not acceptance but tolorance.

it's not even an issue of tolerance, it's a bottom line of imposing your beliefs on other people, and that's wrong, and that goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. It's saying "Well,l I don't want to be in a same sex marriage, so no one else should either". Show me one gay person who thinks that gay marriage should be illegal... It's no different from denying people freedom to pratice religion, or public license rights, both of which marriage is, and in the case of any other subject or any other "minority" group it would be ludicrous and unthinkable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

it's not even an issue of tolerance, it's a bottom line of imposing your beliefs on other people, and that's wrong, and that goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. It's saying "Well,l I don't want to be in a same sex marriage, so no one else should either". Show me one gay person who thinks that gay marriage should be illegal... It's no different from denying people freedom to pratice religion, or public license rights, both of which marriage is, and in the case of any other subject or any other "minority" group it would be ludicrous and unthinkable.

---

That's a two way street though...what's the diffrence of the minority wishing the majority to accept something of follow something that benefits them if they see a fundemental problem with it? Sorry but you're not gonna get the Anti-Gay Marriage side to accept it untill they can stomach it first...so it's very much a toloreance issue. Much moe than a public license kinda thing...what the pro gay marriege side fails at with regularity and to the dismay of onlookers is the inability to break out of the arguments that majority will should not bare down on them...It's unrealistic to think a vocal majority is gonna be dismissed on everything from a legal to a social level.

It's unfair...but can't slay goliath by saying he shouldn't be there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

That's a two way street though...what's the diffrence of the minority wishing the majority to accept something of follow something that benefits them if they see a fundemental problem with it? Sorry but you're not gonna get the Anti-Gay Marriage side to accept it untill they can stomach it first...so it's very much a toloreance issue. Much moe than a public license kinda thing...what the pro gay marriege side fails at with regularity and to the dismay of onlookers is the inability to break out of the arguments that majority will should not bare down on them...It's unrealistic to think a vocal majority is gonna be dismissed on everything from a legal to a social level.

It's unfair...but can't slay goliath by saying he shouldn't be there in the first place.

---

That is very true. I believe tolerance can pave the road to the legal ok. However, tolerance does only go so far. I think if people could stay out of each others business and mind their own a lot of these type things would be non-issues.

It's more than stupid to me that so many people are up in arms over what is essentially something between two people when there are so many worse things going on to worry about. If people put half as much energy into getting educated or doing some real good as they do trying to legislate morality I believe this country would be a hell of a lot farther along.

There are so many other things that need fixing and addressing, it boggles me that people spend so much time arguing about who should and shouldn't marry whom. It makes me very very sad.

"I take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 9/28/04


On that note... I say "Start the fucking"

... most people fuck up a good thing by getting married... I've seen it happen waaaaaaaay too many times, things are fine - life couldn't be any better then "BAM" - sign on the line and slip those rings on - turns into a living hell. The problem is for the most part the Victorian ideas of ownership when those vows are exchanged, I think once everyone gets over that, divorce rates would go down.

But I would have to say that gays should have the exact same right to enrich or completely fuck up their lives just as much as everyone else does, why should it be any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HempKnight

"I take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 9/28/04

-- Scalia said that?? Maybe there is hope yet given the sexual proclivity attributed to Scalia and Clarence "I'm Long Dong Silver, Anita Hill" Thomas.


On that note... I say "Start the fucking"

... most people fuck up a good thing by getting married... I've seen it happen waaaaaaaay too many times, things are fine - life couldn't be any better then "BAM" - sign on the line and slip those rings on - turns into a living hell. The problem is for the most part the Victorian ideas of ownership when those vows are exchanged, I think once everyone gets over that, divorce rates would go down.

But I would have to say that gays should have the exact same right to enrich or completely fuck up their lives just as much as everyone else does, why should it be any different?

---

Agreed. I have to look at it as a political issue. I don't think it should really even be up for popular vote, tho. Let them marry, divorce etc. Freedom exercised is inevitably going to be the freedom to fuck up a lot of the time.



OEC

no, it's not a "two way street" because gays are not trying to ban straight people from getting married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

no, it's not a "two way street" because gays are not trying to ban straight people from getting married.

---

That's not what makes it a two way street...this statement however is part of the problem.

The two way street is using the argument that a majority should not impose its will on the minority. A Majority has power and will exercise it so to simply say it's unfair and should not be allowed is unrealistic. A minority posing it's will on a majority will run into stiff resistence if they do not win over that majority first...that's why this is very much a tolorence issue. Their are dangers with both sides pushing their ideals and views on one another...what ever side you take on the issue should not cloud one on the fact that both sides must compromise their views and ideals to reach starting point to build on.

In this case both sides have quickly gone to the all or nothing strategy.

why get married in the first place, and what exactly is marriage? you mean like getting locked into a legal or spiritual framework that has been created by others in order to fit into some .... whatever.
sounds like some sort of strange control thing to me, and I suppose people like control in thier lives of course since it's a club made by other people it's always by someone elses rules and naturaly someone elses control

bah marriage, why be part of someone elses psychic synthetic spiritual generator when you can make your own

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Karl

why get married in the first place, and what exactly is marriage? you mean like getting locked into a legal or spiritual framework that has been created by others in order to fit into some .... whatever.
sounds like some sort of strange control thing to me, and I suppose people like control in thier lives of course since it's a club made by other people it's always by someone elses rules and naturaly someone elses control

bah marriage, why be part of someone elses psychic synthetic spiritual generator when you can make your own

---

Double talk aside...the legal implications are vast and important. From Health Care to Estate...a married couple gain many benefits and more importantly it allows them to protect each other. That's the reason many want to marry...the technicalities of it all are quite severe.

Imagine being with a person all your life and being told you have no say in anything ranging from what they leave behind, their last wishes, health, etc. Too many tales of Gay couple being seen as inconsequantial to one another in legal eyes is a real key here...and marriege would give them and their relationship much more weight and power.

Their are benefits to marriege...ignore them if you wish...but it's cut down many.

all you've done is turned the argument around to say that the minority is pushing it's views on the majority... which is true if you consider that the "view" expressed here is that people shouldn't push thier views onto others, but other's wise that's total bullshit, which myself and other's have allready demonstarted. homosexuals aren't "pushing" anything on anyone else, how the fuck does the relationship between two people effect anyone else besides them? fucking britney spears was married twice ( and on a side note is also a self-proclaimed christian. so much for the sanctity of marriage. why don't we ban her?) and that had no effect on me at all, other than wasting a few breif moments of my time having to hear about it. you homophobic assholes need to mind your own fucking business, I don't go into your trailors and interupt you during nascar and tell you how to raise your 8 kids, so stop telling other people how to live thier lives.

and to those that would contest such narrow-minded stereotyping is not going to pursuad the conservatives to my point of view.. all I have to say is shut the fuck up, you little babies. you don't like being blanketed by broad debasing generalisations? you can sure dish it out, but you can't take it. how's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot then, eh?

Here's a few thoughts from a Hetero, married, white, more republican that democrat guy..............
I support gay marrige. I dont see how two homosexuals being married, civily joined, or just living together affects me one bit. If they want to get married, for better or worse, go for it says I. However, it's time for a reality check here. "Mainstream" America is not and will not be ready for this for some time now. I agree that dosent mean that the gay community should just stop fighting for it, but I think they need to rethink their stategy if they want to accomplish anything. And just a side note here, I am going to make a few broad statements that may seem stereotypical for simplicitiy's sake, I dont think that all homosexuals are millitant, in yer face hetero-haters. I think that they should focus on getting America used to the concept of Civil unions first. Most people I know had just begun to hear about such an arrangement when the controversy of gay marrige hit the news. I'm still not positive of the actual legal difference between that and marriage, but I understand it to be similar with a few notable exceptions. I'm not saying that they should stop there, but take the small victories first. America is still getting used to thinking that homosexuals are not circus people. I work with a large number of people that are Hard Core right wing zealots who stll believe that gays are sinners, etc....this type of mentality will not allow gay marriage because they feel (or are told by thier minister/priest/whatever the fu*k the have) that gay marriage infringes on the sanctity of their own marriage. I dont get the logic, but it's still there. Hearing them talk makes me want to shine a flashlight in one ear to see the light come out of the other. However, this attitude will not be overcome by protests and marches. If anything, this will further alienate them to red neck types. Black people in America didnt ( honestly still havent) get equal rights overnight, but there has been real progress I think. They were granted their rights one issue at a time. I'm not saying these statements represent my personal views, I just think that reality dictaes that sometimes you must make a few compromises along the way to eventually get to where you want to go.

lying down and letting the pricks step all over you doesn't acomplish anything. how can you say that accepting anything less than equal rights is a reasonable compromise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

and to those that would contest such narrow-minded stereotyping is not going to pursuad the conservatives to my point of view.. all I have to say is shut the fuck up, you little babies. you don't like being blanketed by broad debasing generalisations? you can sure dish it out, but you can't take it. how's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot then, eh?

---

How's it on the other foot when they are the majority and control whether or not it passes? Call them names and get pissed all you want...but ultimately you've displayed the same narrow minded anger. You think calling them names and trashing them will get them to listen?

What's getting lost here is that it's not just rich christian republicans in the bible belt who are rejecting gay marriege...it's even amoung liberals and other minorities. So the opposition is much bigger than many want to admit. Amoung minorities it's really hard to see gay marriege as an important issue when they are getting fucked over on more important issues relating to their own civil rights...and in many minority communities being gay is not exactly gonna win you much support anyhow.

You ask:

"how can you say that accepting anything less than equal rights is a reasonable compromise?"

Such things are always compromised and take generations to change. Blacks in america didn't get equal rights till the 1960's....Gay Marriege may not occur till OUR generation are old enough to fill congress. For now compromise is smart in keeping the issue in the minds of people and earning at least something like recognized civil unions.

As far as this statement goes:

"all you've done is turned the argument around to say that the minority is pushing it's views on the majority... which is true if you consider that the "view" expressed here is that people shouldn't push thier views onto others, but other's wise that's total bullshit"

It's not about people shouldn't be pushing their views on people...it's about trying to sell an image connected to traditional values to people who keep sayin no. Any retail guy will tell you that if you want to sell soemthing you gotta make it appeal to people first. Gay Marriege is not being forced on anyone...cause if that was the case it'd be legal. It's simply being sold badly...view marrieage as you will but it's IMAGE of being traditional and sacred outweights statistical divorce and yes...even Britney Spears.

You gotta sell the idea of it before it can go anywhere influential.

Plus lets be truthful Gay Issues have really only been coming to light since the 90's...before then it was very much an in the dark thing with few really talking about it outside of AIDS related issues. It's well organized and well funded but when it diverts more attention to bitchin about an Eminem song or homophobic music than it does to bring important stuff like gay marriege to more people...it's easy to lose serious support. Without true focus and mainstream awareness what the Gay Community asks for will not go past a few minor laws to protect them and help them. They need their equivalent of Civil Rights leaders to really take chances and go into areas like the Bible Belt...the funny gay people on TV thing only goes so far with the mainstream audience they need on this issue. Just on an entertainment level Queer as Folk and Tales from the City make more sense to people than the now insulting Will & Grace...cause at this point Will & Grace looks like old blackface skits from the 20's and 30's.

yeah, I understand your point. I think we are both in aggrement that what they are doing just simply isn't working. but I guess that's what has to be expected, like everything else in our society, people think they can make a differene by playing the game, by working within the system, but the system is designed to be self-perpetuating, and to use the old expression, thier system doesn't work for you. it's a sellers market, and playing thier game only serves to reinforce the same old rules where everything is whitewashed behind miles of beurocratic abd media red tape, and the bottom line is at the end of the day "gay" just doesn't sell- even to some of the more-opened minded straight folks, because, well, they just aint it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

What's getting lost here is that it's not just rich christian republicans in the bible belt who are rejecting gay marriege...it's even amoung liberals and other minorities. So the opposition is much bigger than many want to admit. Amoung minorities it's really hard to see gay marriege as an important issue when they are getting fucked over on more important issues relating to their own civil rights...and in many minority communities being gay is not exactly gonna win you much support anyhow.

---

Sad but true.

In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved Proposition 22, also dubbed the Defense of Marriage Act, which declared, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If the GOP is the homophobic party for opposing same-sex marriage, then California is the homophobic state. - Debra Saunders.

The first thing I would do is to create some sort of gay NGO that would recognize marriages even if government would not. From there, I'd bargain collectively with companies and government for partnership benefits.

My ideological position is that any union between consenting adults should be given the same status under the law. Regardless, I think the above is the first step in a long battle for an unpopular cause.


OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

lying down and letting the pricks step all over you doesn't acomplish anything. how can you say that accepting anything less than equal rights is a reasonable compromise?

---

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it isn't reasonable. Its just the way it is. It isn't reasonable that so many people are without health care coverage, but the fact that its not reasonable isn't gonna get them Blue Cross tomorrow. I'm not happy that those one might call my peers feel this way, but they do. So does a large portion of America. I'll bet that a lot of people who went to the polls prepared to vote in support of gay marriage had second thoughts and couldn't "pull the trigger" once they got in the booth. It's just a mentality that has been ingrained into peoples heads for generations, and it's not going to change just because being openly gay is slightly more acceptable today than it was 10 yrs ago. I have a few gay friends and I have discussed this with them, and I've heard your argument before. I can't argue with the validity of your statements, just at the feasibilty of selling it to blue collar America at large right away. I hope that I am proven wrong, but I wouldn't bet the house on it. I don't mean to come off sounding angry or homophobic or anything, I just think that Joe Sixpack and June Cleaver still feel threatned by the idea, and they are the ones in control....