The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by ErikL
BrianD,
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that it sounds like one of the arguments made against interracial marriages in the South (of the US). That is, the pressures at school, in the community, etc will be too great to overcome (but in that case for the kids and the parents), and not worth the battle.
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that it sounds like one of the arguments made against interracial marriages in the South (of the US). That is, the pressures at school, in the community, etc will be too great to overcome (but in that case for the kids and the parents), and not worth the battle.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
Brian -- I think we've pretty much reached the end point here and there is little point in contiunuing.
I'll just re-iterate for one final time that my only motive here is to engage you in a debate by finding out your views and exploring and challenging them. I don't wish you any harm or offence and apologise for any I may inadverntently caused. At the same time I make no apology for the sometime forceful nature of my arguments which have always been made in good faith.
I do not take particularly kindly to your continual aspersions on my character, hints at dark motives and veiled threats about getting a good kicking and so on but, hey ho, each to their own I suppose.
"Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade"
A statement I stand by fully. In my experience such people are either stupid or unpleasant, and frequently both, and are almost exclusively homophobic, racist, sexist arseholes. I cite as my prime example the Cheerleader in Chief of this particularly noxious group, Mr Richard Littlejohn.
And, for good measure, here is their website.
Matthew
I'll just re-iterate for one final time that my only motive here is to engage you in a debate by finding out your views and exploring and challenging them. I don't wish you any harm or offence and apologise for any I may inadverntently caused. At the same time I make no apology for the sometime forceful nature of my arguments which have always been made in good faith.
I do not take particularly kindly to your continual aspersions on my character, hints at dark motives and veiled threats about getting a good kicking and so on but, hey ho, each to their own I suppose.
"Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade"
A statement I stand by fully. In my experience such people are either stupid or unpleasant, and frequently both, and are almost exclusively homophobic, racist, sexist arseholes. I cite as my prime example the Cheerleader in Chief of this particularly noxious group, Mr Richard Littlejohn.
And, for good measure, here is their website.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Aye. I agree, it does. Bear in mind that I never said I was right, it is an opinion is all.
quote:
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that it sounds like one of the arguments made against interracial marriages in the South (of the US). That is, the pressures at school, in the community, etc will be too great to overcome (but in that case for the kids and the parents), and not worth the battle.
Aye. I agree, it does. Bear in mind that I never said I was right, it is an opinion is all.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Phil Barry
Europe has a history of established religions. My sense is that for Europeans, a purely civil sphere of activity is relatively new. So it may make some sense to reserve the religious term 'marriage' for unions sanctioned by either church or state.
In the US, we have a deep tradition of separation of church and state. The State has historically used the religious term 'marriage' to refer to couples who are bound by marriage contracts, even though, as far as the state is concerned, the union is entirely outside religious authority.
That is, in the US the term 'marriage' no longer has a religious implication. Yes, some idiots talk of the 'sanctity' of marriages sanctioned only by the state; in doing so, they indicate a willingness or desire to circumvent our Constitution and our historical practices.
So in Europe a 'registered partnership' is at least a defensible use of language, unless the same sex union is sanctioned by religious as well as state authority.
In the US, however, because 'marriage' has a strong non-religious connotation, 'marriage' is the term that should be used for all state-sanctioned unions, no matter what the genders of the contracting parties may be.
As for children, I know one child of a gay father. She's creative, bright, and assertive. Her independence of mind and refusal to accept the preachings of Establishments clearly mark her as a failure in child-rearing - funny, though, the last time I saw her she was great to be with.
I can't help thinking that a stable gay couple are likely to provide a better environment for a kid than an unsatble straight couple or single parent.
There is little discernible rhyme or reason to many successful and unsuccessful traditional marriages. I would not even suggest that straight is more or less healthy than gay. I tend to think we're all about the same - too much craziness no matter what sexuak orientation is involved.
Regards.
Phil
In the US, we have a deep tradition of separation of church and state. The State has historically used the religious term 'marriage' to refer to couples who are bound by marriage contracts, even though, as far as the state is concerned, the union is entirely outside religious authority.
That is, in the US the term 'marriage' no longer has a religious implication. Yes, some idiots talk of the 'sanctity' of marriages sanctioned only by the state; in doing so, they indicate a willingness or desire to circumvent our Constitution and our historical practices.
So in Europe a 'registered partnership' is at least a defensible use of language, unless the same sex union is sanctioned by religious as well as state authority.
In the US, however, because 'marriage' has a strong non-religious connotation, 'marriage' is the term that should be used for all state-sanctioned unions, no matter what the genders of the contracting parties may be.
As for children, I know one child of a gay father. She's creative, bright, and assertive. Her independence of mind and refusal to accept the preachings of Establishments clearly mark her as a failure in child-rearing - funny, though, the last time I saw her she was great to be with.
I can't help thinking that a stable gay couple are likely to provide a better environment for a kid than an unsatble straight couple or single parent.
There is little discernible rhyme or reason to many successful and unsuccessful traditional marriages. I would not even suggest that straight is more or less healthy than gay. I tend to think we're all about the same - too much craziness no matter what sexuak orientation is involved.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
Yes, I did say this earlier this evening.
Fine. That's fair enough.
I've no problem with 'forceful' argument. I just didn't take kindly to your first reference to me, that's all.
All I can say is I would have been quite happy participating in this thread without any references of a personal nature. As I said, the "you're that BrianD" wound me up instantly and still does now. I'm certain anyone reading who had never seen a post from me would have had negative thoughts about me when they read that.
I never threaten people, Matthew. It was an observation.
quote:
Brian -- I think we've pretty much reached the end point here and there is little point in contiunuing.
Yes, I did say this earlier this evening.
quote:
I'll just re-iterate for one final time that my only motive here is to engage you in a debate by finding out your views and exploring and challenging them. I don't wish you any harm or offence and apologise for any I may inadverntently caused.
Fine. That's fair enough.
quote:
At the same time I make no apology for the sometime forceful nature of my arguments which have always been made in good faith.
I've no problem with 'forceful' argument. I just didn't take kindly to your first reference to me, that's all.
quote:
I do not take particularly kindly to your continual aspersions on my character,
All I can say is I would have been quite happy participating in this thread without any references of a personal nature. As I said, the "you're that BrianD" wound me up instantly and still does now. I'm certain anyone reading who had never seen a post from me would have had negative thoughts about me when they read that.
quote:
hints at dark motives and veiled threats about getting a good kicking and so on
I never threaten people, Matthew. It was an observation.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
Really?
Well, here are some facts for you to mull over just so you know I don't come from some imaginary perfect environment.
My parents separated when I was 10, I used to go and see my father every weekend and be beaten black and blue by my mother when I came home because I wouldn't tell her "what he said".
He was buried on my 16th birthday, which I was naturally thrilled about, both my brother and I were effectively brought up by our mother and by the rest of my family members such as my grandparents, my aunts and uncles.
For a long time before they separated my mother and father used to argue to the point of fighting.
How the hell do I know? I don't even know if you're making this up. If you want some facts instead of asking me to guess what may or may not happen to somebody under some hypothetical circumstances, just read my paragraph above again. My family was what helped both my brother and myself grow up into normal, law abiding people who now have normal law abiding children of our own.
For those who have seen the original Get Carter, my father is in the Crematorium that is used as a scene in the film. We lived in the street that runs right alongside that crem' and I recall them making the film. Just thought I'd add that.
quote:
I was raised single handedly by my mother. My parents divorced when I was 3.
Really?
Well, here are some facts for you to mull over just so you know I don't come from some imaginary perfect environment.
My parents separated when I was 10, I used to go and see my father every weekend and be beaten black and blue by my mother when I came home because I wouldn't tell her "what he said".
He was buried on my 16th birthday, which I was naturally thrilled about, both my brother and I were effectively brought up by our mother and by the rest of my family members such as my grandparents, my aunts and uncles.
For a long time before they separated my mother and father used to argue to the point of fighting.
quote:
Am I:
- worse off than I would have been had my parents remained in a loveless marriage?
- better off than children raised in households of two loving partners that share a gender?
Please show workings out.
ag
How the hell do I know? I don't even know if you're making this up. If you want some facts instead of asking me to guess what may or may not happen to somebody under some hypothetical circumstances, just read my paragraph above again. My family was what helped both my brother and myself grow up into normal, law abiding people who now have normal law abiding children of our own.
For those who have seen the original Get Carter, my father is in the Crematorium that is used as a scene in the film. We lived in the street that runs right alongside that crem' and I recall them making the film. Just thought I'd add that.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Mathew, I agree with you; Littlejohn is a hypocryt and in my view an inverted
one which makes him even worse, I do watch his show on occassion though only to
see where he's coming from (also a link on my website, but many others too, I like to attempt at some kind of balanced bullshit ). Living here in Germany and being non German in contrast to Germans who don't live here and pretend they do, I have some local interest in the Berlin Gay scene and know it very well INDEED. In contrast to what the law here or anywhere else for that matter dictates on the subject of Gay Marriages/Legal partnerships I prefer to use my own opinions based on real expereience and street level fact, not Littlejohnesque tittle-tattle attempts at childish smarty point one-upmanship, I trust you'll agree, and if not I'll respect your right to do so, obvious innit as Tom would say.
And it's Goodnight from me. Fritz Von Starroving
Piss² My Father's name's Brian and he's a Yorkshireman, can't win em all I
suppose, my buddy Scarborough Lez reckons it's because we were all Magic
Roundabout fans as kids, I'm not so sure though ?
Piss³ And the good news is folks, no more Fritz on this thread, cos it's
outlived its fuckin life bigstyle, innit:
one which makes him even worse, I do watch his show on occassion though only to
see where he's coming from (also a link on my website, but many others too, I like to attempt at some kind of balanced bullshit ). Living here in Germany and being non German in contrast to Germans who don't live here and pretend they do, I have some local interest in the Berlin Gay scene and know it very well INDEED. In contrast to what the law here or anywhere else for that matter dictates on the subject of Gay Marriages/Legal partnerships I prefer to use my own opinions based on real expereience and street level fact, not Littlejohnesque tittle-tattle attempts at childish smarty point one-upmanship, I trust you'll agree, and if not I'll respect your right to do so, obvious innit as Tom would say.
And it's Goodnight from me. Fritz Von Starroving
Piss² My Father's name's Brian and he's a Yorkshireman, can't win em all I
suppose, my buddy Scarborough Lez reckons it's because we were all Magic
Roundabout fans as kids, I'm not so sure though ?
Piss³ And the good news is folks, no more Fritz on this thread, cos it's
outlived its fuckin life bigstyle, innit:
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Whatever makes you think I'm a Yorkshireman?
Dum de dum dum
Dum de dum dum
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by throbnorth
Hard though it is to drag ourselves away from the seemingly endless yet undeniably diverting spectacle of BrianD's extended public humiliation, I would like to discuss a little more what we feel about the way things may or may not pan out in the States [the topic] and a few other pertinent issues.
Although the course taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has unassailable logic and justice on its side, given the federal nature of America, its practical application would surely mean imposing a decision on the rest of the country in what cannot help but be seen by many people as an underhand way, which I would not have thought would lead to successful sustained legislation.
I know the Defense of Marriage Act gives all sorts of loopholes to avoid states having to actually put this into practice, but that feeling of unfairness would surely continue to be felt by large sections of a population who don't seem to have yet formed a favourable majority opinion for various reasons, which might be generally counter-productive. If large sections of the UK feel outraged by EEC straight banana/sausage/chocolate decisions etc., something which is emotive and seemingly so important to many in the U.S., and so particularly able to be exploited by various powerful and eccentric groups [AFA et al.], is surely not best served by being introduced in this way? Is there any case for 'good' legislation being imposed on an undecided and hostile majority? My memory isn't quite good enough to remember the detail of black civil rights struggles [and although the two issues are not exactly comparable, there is enough common ground to make the comparison more than valid] - maybe Judd could fill me in on the consensus of public opinion at the time of various bits of legislation?
I agree with you Matthew, in that the word 'marriage' is a red herring, but I would say it's the type of monstrous herring [a bloater in fact] that assumes such proportions in many minds that it becomes a great big stumbling block, with that black and yellow 'DO NOT CROSS' tape strung all around it. 'Marriage', as a word, has so many associations, implications and baggage that I think consideration of it are essential to the [what passes for a] debate that we are having. Although there have been explanations here about the separation in the U.S. between church and state and the consequent irrelevance of the term when applied to same sex unions, I do find this hard to believe. I think the ramifications of this word certainly and entirely explain BrianD's [for want of a better word] argument, and actually have to confess that in fact I'm really quite uncomfortable with it myself. If I'm going to have the chance to be 'married', I would like to be able to identify with some of the process that confers this happy state. Currently I don't, and frankly I don't know a gay man who does. 'I throbnorth, do take thee, Bruce Willis, to be my lawful ....' makes me a bit queasy [and goodness knows what the effect would be on Bruce]. There are a lot of significant if cosmically irrelevant issues to do with the actual wording of any form of ceremony that have to be sorted out. I called my last post 'words' for very good reason. Words are powerful things, and the particular differences and subtleties they possess are entirely significant. Happily, I expect that Language, being what it is will eventually sort things out, and any problems will eventually become gigglesome and the stuff of retro-kitsch Sunday columnists. In the meantime however, I suspect that it is this word which will continue to give difficulty. The U.K. looks set to avoid the obvious difficulty by a bit of adroit avoidance, which I have no problem with at all. I have vivid memories of the kerfuffle the last time this issue was raised, and am amazed at the way in which it has currently been handled to the extent that Conservatives are to be given a genial and approving free vote, and even the rightest of right-wing newspapers have given their guarded approval. There has not been any controversy of any sort, and there is a general air of approval from every side for siding with the causes of decency and common sense. How odd that victory can be so muted and yet so satisfying. It's all to do with recognising and responding to the radical change in public opinion.
Meanwhile in America, as far as I can see until recently mid-western men have been almost waiting by their front doors for the Fab Five to descend and Carson to start dissing their underwear. Charmed by Will, vaguely disconcerted by Jack and filled with lustful thoughts for Grace, American public opinion looks to have been turning undeniably pro-Anacreontic, and I would hate to see this blissful state subverted by a bit of cack-handed if well meaning legislature. It is sad to say that programmes such as these may seem to have done more for gay rights than any amount of well meaning activism. It's the same here - we should have posters of Peter Tatchell on our walls [not pretty, I'd agree, although he is impressively tall if you actually come across him], but there's only room for Brian Dowling and Graham - but in the event, who cares - real life is always a bugger, and we can't always be the right-on control freaks we'd like to be. Replacing one set of stereotypes for another which is infinitely more flattering - good looking, gym-savvy, incredibly witty and a firm line on French Pleats I think I can cope with. Paedophilic and Predatory wasn't me really, so it's fair exchange, on the whole. It seems to me that America might be in danger of squandering this unfocussed but well meaning attitude on the altar of judicial nicety, which would be a pity. I agree with Judd, in that eventually things will fall into place through sheer logic if nothing else. However, meanwhile countless people will be faced with unjust situations beyond their control which a cynic might be tempted to say were unduly influenced by the vagaries of major channels and their programming with a bit of pre-election meaningless posturing. That's not right, surely?
I have a very personal stake in this last aspect of my argument in that my partner of ten years [whom I've always just referred to as Partner on the forum, but actually was called Andru - not his given name by the way, but one he chose in an effort to disassociate himself from all sorts of previous bad experience] died on Christmas day. I really didn't want to talk about this, partly because discussion of my personal anguish is not appropriate for an anonymous hi-fi forum [I take your condolences as read, BTW - you don't need to post them], and also because a breath of cold reality from stark personal experience sometimes has a dampening effect on meaningful but nevertheless comfortable armchair discussion [check out my post on AIDS drugs and their implementation in the third world if you have any interest - it was started by some wanker who happily doesn't seem to post any more]. Suffice it to say that my situation after Andru's death was extremely fragile. The sort of thing that most of you take for granted and wouldn't even consider worth a mention or a thought suddenly became very pertinent to me. Can I be with him when he dies? Can I even find out how he's doing if I phone? Can I carry on living where I do? Do I have any say as to the form of his funeral? Can I even come? Can I close his bank accounts? Do I even get his ashes or a say in what happens to them? If you can apply these questions to your own probably much more conventional situation without positive answers and don't feel any sense of outrage, then I despair. Any toss about 'can I have the original meaning of gay back' [almost as reliable a signifier in my experience as a mention of 'those people'] in these circumstances assumes its rightful despicable perspective, which explains my perhaps unduly waspish tone towards BrianD in my last post. To talk of financial gain as being the chief motivation of same sex 'marriage' or whatever, while significant, I find actually insulting and offensive. In the event however, my situation was very positive. I have a very good relationship with Andru's mother; she knits things and makes chutney and we are as one. I announced myself as next of kin to everyone from hospital bereavement liaison officer to funeral director to British Gas call centre operative, and was met with nothing but respect and sympathy. Maybe I had positive and supportive experiences because I'm in sadly hip metropolitan Fulham ? I don't know. Nevertheless, it could have been very very different. Chance is no substitute for legal certainty, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.
throb
Although the course taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has unassailable logic and justice on its side, given the federal nature of America, its practical application would surely mean imposing a decision on the rest of the country in what cannot help but be seen by many people as an underhand way, which I would not have thought would lead to successful sustained legislation.
I know the Defense of Marriage Act gives all sorts of loopholes to avoid states having to actually put this into practice, but that feeling of unfairness would surely continue to be felt by large sections of a population who don't seem to have yet formed a favourable majority opinion for various reasons, which might be generally counter-productive. If large sections of the UK feel outraged by EEC straight banana/sausage/chocolate decisions etc., something which is emotive and seemingly so important to many in the U.S., and so particularly able to be exploited by various powerful and eccentric groups [AFA et al.], is surely not best served by being introduced in this way? Is there any case for 'good' legislation being imposed on an undecided and hostile majority? My memory isn't quite good enough to remember the detail of black civil rights struggles [and although the two issues are not exactly comparable, there is enough common ground to make the comparison more than valid] - maybe Judd could fill me in on the consensus of public opinion at the time of various bits of legislation?
I agree with you Matthew, in that the word 'marriage' is a red herring, but I would say it's the type of monstrous herring [a bloater in fact] that assumes such proportions in many minds that it becomes a great big stumbling block, with that black and yellow 'DO NOT CROSS' tape strung all around it. 'Marriage', as a word, has so many associations, implications and baggage that I think consideration of it are essential to the [what passes for a] debate that we are having. Although there have been explanations here about the separation in the U.S. between church and state and the consequent irrelevance of the term when applied to same sex unions, I do find this hard to believe. I think the ramifications of this word certainly and entirely explain BrianD's [for want of a better word] argument, and actually have to confess that in fact I'm really quite uncomfortable with it myself. If I'm going to have the chance to be 'married', I would like to be able to identify with some of the process that confers this happy state. Currently I don't, and frankly I don't know a gay man who does. 'I throbnorth, do take thee, Bruce Willis, to be my lawful ....' makes me a bit queasy [and goodness knows what the effect would be on Bruce]. There are a lot of significant if cosmically irrelevant issues to do with the actual wording of any form of ceremony that have to be sorted out. I called my last post 'words' for very good reason. Words are powerful things, and the particular differences and subtleties they possess are entirely significant. Happily, I expect that Language, being what it is will eventually sort things out, and any problems will eventually become gigglesome and the stuff of retro-kitsch Sunday columnists. In the meantime however, I suspect that it is this word which will continue to give difficulty. The U.K. looks set to avoid the obvious difficulty by a bit of adroit avoidance, which I have no problem with at all. I have vivid memories of the kerfuffle the last time this issue was raised, and am amazed at the way in which it has currently been handled to the extent that Conservatives are to be given a genial and approving free vote, and even the rightest of right-wing newspapers have given their guarded approval. There has not been any controversy of any sort, and there is a general air of approval from every side for siding with the causes of decency and common sense. How odd that victory can be so muted and yet so satisfying. It's all to do with recognising and responding to the radical change in public opinion.
Meanwhile in America, as far as I can see until recently mid-western men have been almost waiting by their front doors for the Fab Five to descend and Carson to start dissing their underwear. Charmed by Will, vaguely disconcerted by Jack and filled with lustful thoughts for Grace, American public opinion looks to have been turning undeniably pro-Anacreontic, and I would hate to see this blissful state subverted by a bit of cack-handed if well meaning legislature. It is sad to say that programmes such as these may seem to have done more for gay rights than any amount of well meaning activism. It's the same here - we should have posters of Peter Tatchell on our walls [not pretty, I'd agree, although he is impressively tall if you actually come across him], but there's only room for Brian Dowling and Graham - but in the event, who cares - real life is always a bugger, and we can't always be the right-on control freaks we'd like to be. Replacing one set of stereotypes for another which is infinitely more flattering - good looking, gym-savvy, incredibly witty and a firm line on French Pleats I think I can cope with. Paedophilic and Predatory wasn't me really, so it's fair exchange, on the whole. It seems to me that America might be in danger of squandering this unfocussed but well meaning attitude on the altar of judicial nicety, which would be a pity. I agree with Judd, in that eventually things will fall into place through sheer logic if nothing else. However, meanwhile countless people will be faced with unjust situations beyond their control which a cynic might be tempted to say were unduly influenced by the vagaries of major channels and their programming with a bit of pre-election meaningless posturing. That's not right, surely?
I have a very personal stake in this last aspect of my argument in that my partner of ten years [whom I've always just referred to as Partner on the forum, but actually was called Andru - not his given name by the way, but one he chose in an effort to disassociate himself from all sorts of previous bad experience] died on Christmas day. I really didn't want to talk about this, partly because discussion of my personal anguish is not appropriate for an anonymous hi-fi forum [I take your condolences as read, BTW - you don't need to post them], and also because a breath of cold reality from stark personal experience sometimes has a dampening effect on meaningful but nevertheless comfortable armchair discussion [check out my post on AIDS drugs and their implementation in the third world if you have any interest - it was started by some wanker who happily doesn't seem to post any more]. Suffice it to say that my situation after Andru's death was extremely fragile. The sort of thing that most of you take for granted and wouldn't even consider worth a mention or a thought suddenly became very pertinent to me. Can I be with him when he dies? Can I even find out how he's doing if I phone? Can I carry on living where I do? Do I have any say as to the form of his funeral? Can I even come? Can I close his bank accounts? Do I even get his ashes or a say in what happens to them? If you can apply these questions to your own probably much more conventional situation without positive answers and don't feel any sense of outrage, then I despair. Any toss about 'can I have the original meaning of gay back' [almost as reliable a signifier in my experience as a mention of 'those people'] in these circumstances assumes its rightful despicable perspective, which explains my perhaps unduly waspish tone towards BrianD in my last post. To talk of financial gain as being the chief motivation of same sex 'marriage' or whatever, while significant, I find actually insulting and offensive. In the event however, my situation was very positive. I have a very good relationship with Andru's mother; she knits things and makes chutney and we are as one. I announced myself as next of kin to everyone from hospital bereavement liaison officer to funeral director to British Gas call centre operative, and was met with nothing but respect and sympathy. Maybe I had positive and supportive experiences because I'm in sadly hip metropolitan Fulham ? I don't know. Nevertheless, it could have been very very different. Chance is no substitute for legal certainty, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.
throb
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
throb
Seriously, I'm sitting here with pint glass in hand and I almost dropped it in laughter. God, what a stupid thing to say. You have no idea.
Having gone through your post, let down by yet again more childish digs toward me that people like Jeremy will no doubt fail to notice, I have to wonder why you disregard totally the fact that I may find your position that same-sex marriage is fine, to be insulting to me.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 22:48.]
quote:
Hard though it is to drag ourselves away from the seemingly endless yet undeniably diverting spectacle of BrianD's extended public humiliation,
Seriously, I'm sitting here with pint glass in hand and I almost dropped it in laughter. God, what a stupid thing to say. You have no idea.
quote:
To talk of financial gain as being the chief motivation of same sex 'marriage' or whatever, while significant, I find actually insulting and offensive.
Having gone through your post, let down by yet again more childish digs toward me that people like Jeremy will no doubt fail to notice, I have to wonder why you disregard totally the fact that I may find your position that same-sex marriage is fine, to be insulting to me.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 22:48.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Rasher
Oh for fucks sake...
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Phil Barry
I absolutely cannot see how someone can be insulted by the fact that someone supports same sex marriage, unless one is homophobic to the core.
The human race has done OK for an eon despite the homosexuals in our midst. We'll do better when we stop pretending 'they' are not 'us'.
Straight is different from gay - not better or worse. Sexual orientation - when action is mediated by consent of adults - has no necessary moral implication.
BrianD, If you can share other sources of insult from support for same-sex marriage, besides homophobia, I'd be interested.
Phil
The human race has done OK for an eon despite the homosexuals in our midst. We'll do better when we stop pretending 'they' are not 'us'.
Straight is different from gay - not better or worse. Sexual orientation - when action is mediated by consent of adults - has no necessary moral implication.
BrianD, If you can share other sources of insult from support for same-sex marriage, besides homophobia, I'd be interested.
Phil
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Phil
Why? Does the fact that I have no problem with same sex relationships, the only thing I would not like to allow is marriage, not mean something?
It's obviously escaped you as well that it is bloody insulting to me that it's a real struggle to hold an opposing view on this forum without being told I'm absurd, bollix or anything else people care to aim toward me. All on the basis that I have a different point of view.
I wish you lot would show some of what most of you claim to want from socieity. A bit of tolerance toward someone who just happens to disagree.
I am not homophobic at all and I am insulted that you make the accusation. Does it matter to you that I am insulted, or does it only matter to you that other people are insulted by me?
quote:
I absolutely cannot see how someone can be insulted by the fact that someone supports same sex marriage, unless one is homophobic to the core.
Why? Does the fact that I have no problem with same sex relationships, the only thing I would not like to allow is marriage, not mean something?
It's obviously escaped you as well that it is bloody insulting to me that it's a real struggle to hold an opposing view on this forum without being told I'm absurd, bollix or anything else people care to aim toward me. All on the basis that I have a different point of view.
I wish you lot would show some of what most of you claim to want from socieity. A bit of tolerance toward someone who just happens to disagree.
I am not homophobic at all and I am insulted that you make the accusation. Does it matter to you that I am insulted, or does it only matter to you that other people are insulted by me?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Johns Naim
Well,,,
I'm really quite stunned to be frank. Reading through all 8 pages of this post fills me for some unkown reason with a great deal of sadness.
Firstly, and importantly, whilst you take it as a given, I for one would very much like to publicly offer my condolences and support Throbnorth. I am sure that you have many loving friends around you, but none can quite assuage the sense of loss that you must surely feel I would think, and thus my words may mean little, but I am sure you have many friends here on the forum who feel as I do.
BrianD, I do not know you, and bear you no ill will, and respect the opinions you have offered.
Howver, IMHO, the fact that you read completely through Throbnorths last post as you have stated, and could only see fit to respond to what you felt were slights upon you re some implied sarcasm, shows the grossest insensitivity by you, IMHO, to Throbnorths own feelings and personal grief, - insensitivy which I find personally appalling, especially as you complain so vociferously of others seeming insensitiviy towards yourself.
I've read a lot of things on this forum over quite some time now, but I am quite flabbergasted by this, and I really do think you should have a quiet thought about offering an apology, or at least recognising his grief, as at the very least, surely that is not to much to ask of any reasonable person?
I recognise and understand your own hurt feelings in your posts, but scarecly see it as good reason to react to Throbnorth as you have, whilst completely dimissing his feelings in your response.
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but in recent working experience, I came into contact with many 'sensitive' people who would give you a good kicking, as you put it to Matthew earlier, if they didn't like the way one spoke. In the main, they were never the quiet, shy, timid type, but rather, boastful, arrogant, and bloody minded people sensitive only to their own pride and opinion, who wouldn't tolerate anything different and would defend their 'masculinity' with their fists.
Now I'm neither saying or implying that is you, heavens this is an internet forum after all, and we don't know each other, but putting your protests about Matthews seeming insensitivity towards you, followed by your remarks that inferred he would be the type of person to seemingly invite "a good kicking" and now your gross insensitivity towards Throbnorth, makes me wonder if indeed you may be the type of person I've outlined above. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and as I said, bear you no ill will, but as a newcomer to this post, needed to vent a little here, and meke my own point as it were.
I truly feel very saddened by Throbnorths situation, as I'm sure any reasonable and caring person would, and would've thought, being the sensitive person that you claim to be, that you would've recognised his feelings.
If my words seem condescending, or arrogant, or you choose to take umbridge with any of my words BrianD, well, fair enough, however I just needed to make my views known, as have you.
It's a democracy after all.
Best Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
I'm really quite stunned to be frank. Reading through all 8 pages of this post fills me for some unkown reason with a great deal of sadness.
Firstly, and importantly, whilst you take it as a given, I for one would very much like to publicly offer my condolences and support Throbnorth. I am sure that you have many loving friends around you, but none can quite assuage the sense of loss that you must surely feel I would think, and thus my words may mean little, but I am sure you have many friends here on the forum who feel as I do.
BrianD, I do not know you, and bear you no ill will, and respect the opinions you have offered.
Howver, IMHO, the fact that you read completely through Throbnorths last post as you have stated, and could only see fit to respond to what you felt were slights upon you re some implied sarcasm, shows the grossest insensitivity by you, IMHO, to Throbnorths own feelings and personal grief, - insensitivy which I find personally appalling, especially as you complain so vociferously of others seeming insensitiviy towards yourself.
I've read a lot of things on this forum over quite some time now, but I am quite flabbergasted by this, and I really do think you should have a quiet thought about offering an apology, or at least recognising his grief, as at the very least, surely that is not to much to ask of any reasonable person?
I recognise and understand your own hurt feelings in your posts, but scarecly see it as good reason to react to Throbnorth as you have, whilst completely dimissing his feelings in your response.
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but in recent working experience, I came into contact with many 'sensitive' people who would give you a good kicking, as you put it to Matthew earlier, if they didn't like the way one spoke. In the main, they were never the quiet, shy, timid type, but rather, boastful, arrogant, and bloody minded people sensitive only to their own pride and opinion, who wouldn't tolerate anything different and would defend their 'masculinity' with their fists.
Now I'm neither saying or implying that is you, heavens this is an internet forum after all, and we don't know each other, but putting your protests about Matthews seeming insensitivity towards you, followed by your remarks that inferred he would be the type of person to seemingly invite "a good kicking" and now your gross insensitivity towards Throbnorth, makes me wonder if indeed you may be the type of person I've outlined above. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and as I said, bear you no ill will, but as a newcomer to this post, needed to vent a little here, and meke my own point as it were.
I truly feel very saddened by Throbnorths situation, as I'm sure any reasonable and caring person would, and would've thought, being the sensitive person that you claim to be, that you would've recognised his feelings.
If my words seem condescending, or arrogant, or you choose to take umbridge with any of my words BrianD, well, fair enough, however I just needed to make my views known, as have you.
It's a democracy after all.
Best Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Markus S
I'd just like to say that threads like this one convince me that on this forum I'm mostly among people with whom I'd probably get along fine if I ever met them in real life.
Thanks, guys.
Thanks, guys.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by matthewr
Throb -- Many thanks for that post. As with your contribution to the 3rd World AIDS debate the sharp blade of personal experience often cuts through a lot of the twaddle (both well intentioned and not so well intentioned).
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by RandallE
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
Going back 8 pages to the original question.....
This has become 'a fuss' in the U.S. because pResident's Rove and Cheney badly need to steer everyone's attention away from the Iraq mess that they have created, the record deficit, and the most jobs lost of any administration. Elected or otherwise. Hence, the gay marriage issue pops up out of the blue.
What better way to rally the hardcore right wing than to scare them with (in so many words) "them Democrats want to destroy American values by *GASP* letting queers marry!!!"
No one appeals to the dumbest common denominator better than reTHUGlicans.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Throb, I am very sorry to learn of the loss of Andru, and sorry that this thread got to the point where you felt it necessary to relate what you would rather have kept to yourself.
Brian, I cannot find the words to express how shocked and saddened I am by your reply to Throb.
BTW, Brian, I object to your bringing my name into this in your attempt to suggest that anyone who bothered to read other people's posts would see that you were only responding in kind to their insults, real or imagined. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Quite frankly those who have continued to discuss this issue with you have, in my opinion, shown remarkable restraint and patience in attempting to communicate with you, which I for one find a deeply perplexing and frustrating process.
Brian, I cannot find the words to express how shocked and saddened I am by your reply to Throb.
BTW, Brian, I object to your bringing my name into this in your attempt to suggest that anyone who bothered to read other people's posts would see that you were only responding in kind to their insults, real or imagined. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Quite frankly those who have continued to discuss this issue with you have, in my opinion, shown remarkable restraint and patience in attempting to communicate with you, which I for one find a deeply perplexing and frustrating process.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by adamk
Respect to BrianD for daring to declare his thoughts on this subject.
It was obvious that the 'forum Politically Correct thought police' would unite in their outrage and condemnation.
Tolerance, freedom of speech, acceptance of other opinions: Only applicable if you are singing from the same song sheet it seams.
It was obvious that the 'forum Politically Correct thought police' would unite in their outrage and condemnation.
Tolerance, freedom of speech, acceptance of other opinions: Only applicable if you are singing from the same song sheet it seams.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Basil
adamk, go back and re-read throbnorth's post and BrianD's reply.
How can you respect this person?
How can you respect this person?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
You lost me.
quote:
By using the same method of evaluation that enables you to state that marriage should only be between man and woman and that same-sex relationships are not the right place to raise a child.
You lost me.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
John'sNaim
I'm sorry, but I must respond to this. For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.
In his post, Throbnorth said.....
I read the post from Throb, feeling a great deal of sympathy for him as he explained what had happened in his personal life, but I made no reference to it for 2 reasons. The first is quoted at the top of this post, it is what he requested. The second, and just as important or even more so, is that I was worried that any words of condolence from me might actually be deemed inappropriate given the way the thread has progressed. I considered that this may offend Throbnorth even more than anything else I’ve said so far. WHAT WAS IN MY MIND WAS TO TRY TO SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE MAN'S FEELINGS.
If Throbnorth reads what I've just posted and does not understand my reasons then I will be more than happy to apologise to him, even though there was absolutely NO INTENT AT ALL TO DISREGARD HIS FEELINGS in my post. That you believe I would do this is a disgrace. I wonder what kind of person and what kind of standards YOU have that you would so easily believe this of someone WHO YOU DON'T KNOW. With this accusation you have probably done me the biggest diservice I've ever suffered in my life. Thank you very much.
BTW This will be my last post on this thread, probably on the forum. I used to post on here for a long time until leaving when I was deemed a racist and in favour of killing children, despite the fact that I KNOW I'm not a racist and why on earth would I want to kill children?
It is clear that I'm not welcome here but I've popped in from time to time and the manner of some people seemed to have died down a bit. Well it looks like I was wrong. You people are unable to tolerate any kind of point of view that conflicts with your own. If you don't agree you claim that the arguments are absurd, bollix, poorly put forward or even don't exist at all. Some are flabbergasted, I am deemed 'not a reasonable person', god only knows what that implies about me. I am homophobic, despite the fact I have no problem with gay relationships, I just don't want to see them married.
I hope you all enjoy your forum and go on to have many happy agreements with each other.
Edited to correct some spelling mistakes.
I'm actually very sorry that I returned to this forum.
[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 14:39.]
quote:
However, IMHO, the fact that you read completely through Throbnorths last post as you have stated, and could only see fit to respond............shows the grossest insensitivity by you, IMHO, to Throbnorths own feelings and personal grief, - insensitivy which I find personally appalling
I'm sorry, but I must respond to this. For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.
In his post, Throbnorth said.....
quote:
I really didn't want to talk about this, partly because discussion of my personal anguish is not appropriate for an anonymous hi-fi forum [I take your condolences as read, BTW - you don't need to post them],
I read the post from Throb, feeling a great deal of sympathy for him as he explained what had happened in his personal life, but I made no reference to it for 2 reasons. The first is quoted at the top of this post, it is what he requested. The second, and just as important or even more so, is that I was worried that any words of condolence from me might actually be deemed inappropriate given the way the thread has progressed. I considered that this may offend Throbnorth even more than anything else I’ve said so far. WHAT WAS IN MY MIND WAS TO TRY TO SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE MAN'S FEELINGS.
quote:
I've read a lot of things on this forum over quite some time now, but I am quite flabbergasted by this, and I really do think you should have a quiet thought about offering an apology, or at least recognising his grief, as at the very least, surely that is not to much to ask of any reasonable person?
If Throbnorth reads what I've just posted and does not understand my reasons then I will be more than happy to apologise to him, even though there was absolutely NO INTENT AT ALL TO DISREGARD HIS FEELINGS in my post. That you believe I would do this is a disgrace. I wonder what kind of person and what kind of standards YOU have that you would so easily believe this of someone WHO YOU DON'T KNOW. With this accusation you have probably done me the biggest diservice I've ever suffered in my life. Thank you very much.
BTW This will be my last post on this thread, probably on the forum. I used to post on here for a long time until leaving when I was deemed a racist and in favour of killing children, despite the fact that I KNOW I'm not a racist and why on earth would I want to kill children?
It is clear that I'm not welcome here but I've popped in from time to time and the manner of some people seemed to have died down a bit. Well it looks like I was wrong. You people are unable to tolerate any kind of point of view that conflicts with your own. If you don't agree you claim that the arguments are absurd, bollix, poorly put forward or even don't exist at all. Some are flabbergasted, I am deemed 'not a reasonable person', god only knows what that implies about me. I am homophobic, despite the fact I have no problem with gay relationships, I just don't want to see them married.
I hope you all enjoy your forum and go on to have many happy agreements with each other.
Edited to correct some spelling mistakes.
I'm actually very sorry that I returned to this forum.
[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 14:39.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Thomas K
Adam,
Political Correctness makes me nauseous, yet I belong to the group of people you have neatly lumped together under the term "Politically Correct thought police". The world isn't quite as simple as that.
And for the 100th time -- most people here are less upset about Brian's view as such, but about his lack of stringent argument. "It's always been like that and we don't want change because change is dangerous" doesn't cut it, especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality.
Just as an aside, I would rather see a change in marital law altogether. In Germany, for instance, single, childless people are beginning to be stigmatised to a degree I personally find threatening. Married couples who consciously decide not to procreate seem to be exempt from the "fucking for the economy" jingoism, so they happily enjoy tax benefits and their double income/shared living costs status until they die. Meanwhile, the Bavarian conservatives are proposing pension cuts for childless people.
Thomas
[This message was edited by Thomas K on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:09.]
Political Correctness makes me nauseous, yet I belong to the group of people you have neatly lumped together under the term "Politically Correct thought police". The world isn't quite as simple as that.
And for the 100th time -- most people here are less upset about Brian's view as such, but about his lack of stringent argument. "It's always been like that and we don't want change because change is dangerous" doesn't cut it, especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality.
Just as an aside, I would rather see a change in marital law altogether. In Germany, for instance, single, childless people are beginning to be stigmatised to a degree I personally find threatening. Married couples who consciously decide not to procreate seem to be exempt from the "fucking for the economy" jingoism, so they happily enjoy tax benefits and their double income/shared living costs status until they die. Meanwhile, the Bavarian conservatives are proposing pension cuts for childless people.
Thomas
[This message was edited by Thomas K on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:09.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Phil Barry
BrianD,
Let me see if I understand:
The insult is that most of us appear not to respect your opinion.
The sense of insult does not derive from the various contributors' support of same-sex marriage. Is that right?
There's a difference between
respecting opinions with which one disagrees
and
respecting the right of a person to hold an opinion with which one disagrees.
The 2 are usually associated with each other, but they do not necessarily go together.
Yes, I am aware that you seemed to have changed significantly. Once you understood at least some of the issue, you came down on the side of all human beings, and that's laudable.
But in treating a group of people differently, with more limits, than anyone else is treated generally implies a sense that that group is somehow less human than the rest of of us.
Whenever we dehumanize a group, however slightly, we damage that group and ourselves (though the dehumanized group generally feels more pain than the rest of us).
So, you're entitled to your opinion. I would oppose the imposition of any sanction on you because the PTB dislike your opinions.
But so far you have not supported your belief that same-sex unions are 'not OK' with credible evidence or argument. It's virtually impossible to respect opinions that are based only on repitition.
You complain of being attacked often in this forum. I urge you to look at your style. Do your contributions communicate both your thoughts and your personal style? Are you as arrogant as much of your writing is?
Given your writing style, I was surprised at your change of opinion here, BTW. Your style may portray someone more rigid than you actually are, which may draw harsher responses than appropriate.
Randall,
Sure, Rove and Cheney are pushing a homophobic agenda, but I suspect strongly that they're being pushed by their fundamentalist supporters. Here are a couple of riffs on the theme 'religious fundamentalism is the major problem facing the world today.'
The Bible is a core cultural document for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The creator or compilers of Bible clearly had great difficulty with sexual pleasure.
Jews may have a slightly easier time with sexuality, since the Talmud reportedly provides a lot of support for sexual pleasure between man and wife. And the history of Jewish thought processes provide support for extanding that from 'man and wife' to 'loving sexual partners'. But the Talmud is far from a Tantric document. No, the Bible has cast a pall over sexuality for 1000s of years.
I suspect that fundamentalists (mainly Christian in the US, Christian and Muslim worldwide) are highly conflicted - puritanical in thinking but driven to violate their principles in practice. Perhaps there's some internal dynamic like:
All sex is evil
I like sex
Therefore I'm evil
Holy cow, there are some men who f*** other men
I don't want to do that
I don't want to think of myself as evil
So homosexuals are the evil ones, more evil than I am at any rate.
The only other explanation for homophobia that I can think of is that leaders are more aware of and more afraid of their attraction to other men (leaders being almost exclusively male until recently).
Perhaps, knowing that the vast majority of men tend to be exclusively heterosexual, these potentially bisexual leaders attack homosexuality to show the flock which they wish to lead that they're one of them.
But this explanation is awfully far-fetched,IMO.
Perhaps fundamentalist teaching is the actual cause of much of our (i.e. in the US) dysfunctional sexual behavior. Perhaps we're driven to adultery because sex is evil, so sex with the one we love most diminishes the one we love most.
And consider this: You're a 59 year old man, sitting in a bar. Someone looking for all the world like a woman comes on to you. You delight in the compliments you receive. Then 'she' tells you that 'she' is, in fact, a gay man in drag. How insulted will you feel? How insulted should you feel? How much has your sexual integrity been compromised?
Same bar, different night. An apparently male person - short hair, deepish voice, not curvaceous - comes on to you. How will you react? How should you react? What if the man is actually a mannish-looking woman?
Personally speaking, I think anyone should enjoy almost any sexual compliment from almost anyone. After all, it's so easy to say, 'Thanks', and even, when necessary, 'Thanks, I'm not interested.' After all, joy is an important element of life, and sex is an important element of joy.
Oh, well.
Sorry for my long posts in this thread. I think this is an important topic, since I think society's treatment of homosexuality is a symptom of our deepest problems.
And I think homosexuality is going to play a significant part in US elections this year. The wrong guy is on the more popular (but wrong) side of the issue, and this does not bode well for the US or the world.
If the US Right wins, I look for a strong reaction against and suppresion of cultural diversity. And it's going to affect ALL minorities.
Regards.
Phil
[This message was edited by Phil Barry on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:24.]
Let me see if I understand:
The insult is that most of us appear not to respect your opinion.
The sense of insult does not derive from the various contributors' support of same-sex marriage. Is that right?
There's a difference between
respecting opinions with which one disagrees
and
respecting the right of a person to hold an opinion with which one disagrees.
The 2 are usually associated with each other, but they do not necessarily go together.
Yes, I am aware that you seemed to have changed significantly. Once you understood at least some of the issue, you came down on the side of all human beings, and that's laudable.
But in treating a group of people differently, with more limits, than anyone else is treated generally implies a sense that that group is somehow less human than the rest of of us.
Whenever we dehumanize a group, however slightly, we damage that group and ourselves (though the dehumanized group generally feels more pain than the rest of us).
So, you're entitled to your opinion. I would oppose the imposition of any sanction on you because the PTB dislike your opinions.
But so far you have not supported your belief that same-sex unions are 'not OK' with credible evidence or argument. It's virtually impossible to respect opinions that are based only on repitition.
You complain of being attacked often in this forum. I urge you to look at your style. Do your contributions communicate both your thoughts and your personal style? Are you as arrogant as much of your writing is?
Given your writing style, I was surprised at your change of opinion here, BTW. Your style may portray someone more rigid than you actually are, which may draw harsher responses than appropriate.
Randall,
Sure, Rove and Cheney are pushing a homophobic agenda, but I suspect strongly that they're being pushed by their fundamentalist supporters. Here are a couple of riffs on the theme 'religious fundamentalism is the major problem facing the world today.'
The Bible is a core cultural document for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The creator or compilers of Bible clearly had great difficulty with sexual pleasure.
Jews may have a slightly easier time with sexuality, since the Talmud reportedly provides a lot of support for sexual pleasure between man and wife. And the history of Jewish thought processes provide support for extanding that from 'man and wife' to 'loving sexual partners'. But the Talmud is far from a Tantric document. No, the Bible has cast a pall over sexuality for 1000s of years.
I suspect that fundamentalists (mainly Christian in the US, Christian and Muslim worldwide) are highly conflicted - puritanical in thinking but driven to violate their principles in practice. Perhaps there's some internal dynamic like:
All sex is evil
I like sex
Therefore I'm evil
Holy cow, there are some men who f*** other men
I don't want to do that
I don't want to think of myself as evil
So homosexuals are the evil ones, more evil than I am at any rate.
The only other explanation for homophobia that I can think of is that leaders are more aware of and more afraid of their attraction to other men (leaders being almost exclusively male until recently).
Perhaps, knowing that the vast majority of men tend to be exclusively heterosexual, these potentially bisexual leaders attack homosexuality to show the flock which they wish to lead that they're one of them.
But this explanation is awfully far-fetched,IMO.
Perhaps fundamentalist teaching is the actual cause of much of our (i.e. in the US) dysfunctional sexual behavior. Perhaps we're driven to adultery because sex is evil, so sex with the one we love most diminishes the one we love most.
And consider this: You're a 59 year old man, sitting in a bar. Someone looking for all the world like a woman comes on to you. You delight in the compliments you receive. Then 'she' tells you that 'she' is, in fact, a gay man in drag. How insulted will you feel? How insulted should you feel? How much has your sexual integrity been compromised?
Same bar, different night. An apparently male person - short hair, deepish voice, not curvaceous - comes on to you. How will you react? How should you react? What if the man is actually a mannish-looking woman?
Personally speaking, I think anyone should enjoy almost any sexual compliment from almost anyone. After all, it's so easy to say, 'Thanks', and even, when necessary, 'Thanks, I'm not interested.' After all, joy is an important element of life, and sex is an important element of joy.
Oh, well.
Sorry for my long posts in this thread. I think this is an important topic, since I think society's treatment of homosexuality is a symptom of our deepest problems.
And I think homosexuality is going to play a significant part in US elections this year. The wrong guy is on the more popular (but wrong) side of the issue, and this does not bode well for the US or the world.
If the US Right wins, I look for a strong reaction against and suppresion of cultural diversity. And it's going to affect ALL minorities.
Regards.
Phil
[This message was edited by Phil Barry on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:24.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Phil
Ok, I'm still looking to see how much more abuse people are going to aim toward me, so you can all thrill in my 'taking the bait'.
Phil, you call me arrogant and you criticise my writing 'style'. Bit of a nerve, there mate. Have you any idea how the highlighted text quoted comes across? If that is not arrogant and also condescending, then I don't know what is. Seemingly this attracts no criticism when used by those who agree that gays should be allowed to marry.
What makes you believe you understand the issue any better than I do? Is it because if I understood the issue properly I'd obviously agree with you. I can only show I understand the issue by agreeing with you people.
As for me being arrogant, well I've actually stated at some point in this thread that I may not be right, something I doubt I'd ever read from many of you people on this forum. Those are not the words of an arrogant person. I simply believe at this point in my life that gays should not be allowed to marry. I fail to see what is so disgraceful about that point of view. After 9 pages I am still waiting for someone to offer me a reason why I should not be entitled to that opinion without being told it is absurd, bollix or any number of derogatory comments or veiled sarcasm aimed toward me.
I also really fail to see why I have to give a reason for having this view. It's like asking someone why they follow a certain faith. As far as I'm aware many people who follow any faith do so just because they believe in it. If you ask most of these people why they hold certain beliefs, I'm certain most would struggle to give you an acceptable answer if you are a person who does not believe in any kind of faith at all. It appears irrational.
I am not homophobic. The way many of you people have responded to my absurd and bollix opinions you'd think I'd advocated the execution of everyone who is gay. All I'm saying is that I would prefer them not to marry. For christ's sake, try to get things in perspective here. I am not advocating persecution of these people.
quote:
Once you understood at least some of the issue, you came down on the side of all human beings, and that's laudable.
Ok, I'm still looking to see how much more abuse people are going to aim toward me, so you can all thrill in my 'taking the bait'.
Phil, you call me arrogant and you criticise my writing 'style'. Bit of a nerve, there mate. Have you any idea how the highlighted text quoted comes across? If that is not arrogant and also condescending, then I don't know what is. Seemingly this attracts no criticism when used by those who agree that gays should be allowed to marry.
What makes you believe you understand the issue any better than I do? Is it because if I understood the issue properly I'd obviously agree with you. I can only show I understand the issue by agreeing with you people.
As for me being arrogant, well I've actually stated at some point in this thread that I may not be right, something I doubt I'd ever read from many of you people on this forum. Those are not the words of an arrogant person. I simply believe at this point in my life that gays should not be allowed to marry. I fail to see what is so disgraceful about that point of view. After 9 pages I am still waiting for someone to offer me a reason why I should not be entitled to that opinion without being told it is absurd, bollix or any number of derogatory comments or veiled sarcasm aimed toward me.
I also really fail to see why I have to give a reason for having this view. It's like asking someone why they follow a certain faith. As far as I'm aware many people who follow any faith do so just because they believe in it. If you ask most of these people why they hold certain beliefs, I'm certain most would struggle to give you an acceptable answer if you are a person who does not believe in any kind of faith at all. It appears irrational.
I am not homophobic. The way many of you people have responded to my absurd and bollix opinions you'd think I'd advocated the execution of everyone who is gay. All I'm saying is that I would prefer them not to marry. For christ's sake, try to get things in perspective here. I am not advocating persecution of these people.