Gay Rights 2.0

I'm a conservative gay male. What does gay have to do with being liberal?

It's been my experience honey that 'straight' men, such as your self that complain the loudest about us gays, often turn out to be like Larry Craig. If that is straight you can have it.

A, the mentally depraved little boy is here too. Comeone call his mommy and tell her he escaped his crib and needs his diaper changed.

Joe6pack, one of the true web fools.

You tell them honey! As a proud gay male and a very out tv I say hell yeah it's okay to be gay! We're gay and going to stay get over it!

"Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Maybe legally, that holds true, but not outside the chambers of law. "

Actually it holds true even outside the court of law. Without irrefutable proof of god's existance, it is logical and common sense to come to the conclusion that he does not exist outside of the human imagination.

Wow, it is such a good thing that we have brilliant people like you with a "congisance" of the English language.......
LOL - my sides are hurting from laughing at you...
.

And as for Slavery God despise that. Remember Moses God messenger who help free the people from Eygpt!!!

Why don't you move if you're not happy with the way the United States has set up it's Laws! People just get next to me when they start talking out the side of their neck about other countries if you think it's so much better just move!!! The founding fathers has set this country up on Gods Law!!! Whether you choose to believe it or not the God that you don't believe in is your God also!!!! PEACE!!!!!

Sorry little girl but they are most definitely priests and ministers and the are far more knowledgeable in their theology than you can ever hope to be.

Thank you!

If it was so excepted way back then God would not have distroyed a city of sin!!! Please, Please understand this God does love all his children but it's sin that gets in them he dislikes. And for a man to be a lover of another man or a women to be a lover of another women that's something that God does not tolerate! That's the Bible that's the Word!

Part two


5. Why do you take offense to Christian's belief in their interpretation of the Bible? Why it is important for main stream Christians to accept gay marriage? Obviously neither side can win that battle?

The first point I would make is that not all Christians interpret the bible the same way. I know many Christian clerics and laypeople (both gay and straight) who are very pro-same-sex marriage. It is not important the any religion accept same-sex marraige. The issue I see is that some Christians (and a much smaller number of Jews and others) are trying to force their religous beliefs on civil law. That is a clear violation of the Establishment clause.



7. Finally, why does it matter if you're gay or not? I have a co-worker and the first thing he does when he meets someone is tell them that he is gay. In doing so, he creates a situation where people base their views of him based on his sexual orientation, and not his character. Really, isn't that what being gay is about? Who you are attracted to?

I would argue that your co-worker has his own issues, some of which may be based on past abuses or discrimination that occured after people found out that he was gay. And he is simply trying to make sure taht people who wold have treated him civilly before they new but would suddenly start acting like horse's rear ends later on when they found out he was gay , are simlpy outed at the beginning. But that is just a guess.
On a tangental track, the same could be asked about why does ti matter if someone is Christian or not. I know many people who throw thier religion in other people's faces and try converting them (even when told to back off). Everything they do is Jesus based. They want their god everywhere, and get very offensive if someone asks that there be secular space. See my point? It works both ways.

McClellan,

I will try to answer some of your questions. As a heterosexual supporter of same-sex civil marriage rights, (and as someone who has studied both religion and Constitutional law all my life) my answers are based on a variety of things. But I do thank you for your intelligent and non-judgemental way of asking.
BTW, this will take two posts

1. Would you be open to additional changes to the family - polygamy and sibling marriage (assuming all participants are willing, legal adults?) Why or why not?

Although I have no general problems with either siblings marrying or with polygamous marriages I do have some very real concerns about how the state would deal with some things in a polygamous marriage. Since the ONLY thing that the state is concerned with in civil marriages is contractural/estate/end-of-life/medical/benefits issues, plygamous marriages brings a very serious level of major possible problems with it. For the sake of expediency, I will use the example of one man and two or more women in being married. Additionally I will remove the religious aspects of polygamous marriages since there could be non-religous polygamous marriages. For instance IF the man suddenly was taken ill or was dying and the wives did not agree on how to proceed (kepp or remove life support, what medical procedures to use, etc.), which one gets to make the choice. Although one would hope that medical powers of attorney were executed or medical directives filled out that might not be the case. It is already hard enough with one spouse, imagine more than one. The same problem might arise in estate/property rights. Or burial issues. Those are but a few of teh reason the state could legitmately use to prohibit polygamous marriages.

2. Would you require that gay relationships be taught in my daughter's school when they learn about reproduction and safe sex?

If relationships in general are taught then yes. No judgement on the propriety would be needed. The idea of caring responsible loving relationships in general would be better.

3. If a civil union were to provide the same benefits of marriage, would the gay community be willing to leave marriage as defined - one man and one woman?

I can't speak for the LGBT community but separate but equal never works. As long as the word marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples, there would be problems. It effectively says that same-sex relationships are not as valid.

Part 2:
5. As a gay man, it's not important to me that mainstream Christians accept marriage. We are not demanding recognition from any religious organization. We're demanding it from our Government, in which we actively participate and into which we pay our taxes. No church will be forced to accept or perform gay marriage.

6. Most people who rant about us wanting "special rights" don't understand that all we're asking for is to be treated respectfully. You don't have to like us. We just don't think you should be allowed to harm us or prevent us from living our lives the way we see fit. Marriage rights is a huge step. I think the ultimate goal is to have a culture where a young man or woman can feel comfortable being in an openly gay relationship, without fear of violence, or losing housing or their jobs just because they are gay. I???ll be happy when I???m able to kiss my partner, or walk down the street holding hands without attracting attention.

7. Coming out to friends, family and co-workers is a personal decision. Organizations like PFLAG strongly endorse coming out to friends and family (not sure about co-workers, though), because it is an extremely powerful method of confronting bigotry and misunderstanding head-on. It also makes it harder to demonize gay people, if you know a co-worker who is gay. It's always strange to hear from people who claim that they don't know ANY gay people at all. I want to tell them: "you do know gay people, but they're just not "out" to you". Trust me. You know gay people.

McClellan03, I appreciate the honest questions. It will take 2 posts to reply fully. As a gay person, I would answer:

1. The issue is "consenting adults". I believe Polygamist marriage involving consenting adults should be allowed. Mostly because it doesn't affect me, and it doesn't affect you. If you don't like it, then don't do it :) Siblings can also be consenting adults. However, the reason sibling marriage has traditionally been taboo is due to greater chance of deformity in children due to genetic in-breeding (which is a valid and rational reason). - also because marriage usually involved a financial or political arragement between families, and well - there's probably not much money in marrying your brother :) The expedient answer to your question would be - when there are enough siblings marching in the streets and calling their representatives to demand marriage rights, then it might be worth a look. I don't see a great demand for it so far.

2. Children will encounter gay issues in their culture regardless of whether it is taught to them. If the school is accepting public funding, I would support the teaching of homosexuality as part of normal modern-day culture. I'm not asking for teachers to encourage kids to try homosexuality, just learn to treat people respectfully regardless of sexual orientation.

3. Some of my gay friends are hung up on the word "marriage", strictly because it relegates "civil unions" to second-class status by virtue or its separation. It's like having separate drinking fountains. I would be happy to have this as a first step, with the understanding that at some point in the future, it will simply just be lumped into "marriage".

4. Studies have shown that it's probably a mixture of biological and societal factors. The issue is: nobody really chooses to be gay, just like nobody chooses to be straight. Do you remember when you made the decision to become a heterosexual? You may have made the decision to engage in straight sex, or to marry someone of the opposite sex, but you didn't decide you wanted to be straight. The only real "decision" gay people make is whether to just accept the fact and live a happy life, or deny it and marry someone of the opposite sex and be miserable (which has been the typical story was for hundreds of years).

McClellan03, I appreciate the honest questions. It will take 2 posts to reply fully. As a gay person, I would answer:

1. The issue is "consenting adults". I believe Polygamist marriage involving consenting adults should be allowed. Mostly because it doesn't affect me, and it doesn't affect you. If you don't like it, then don't do it :) Siblings can also be consenting adults. However, the reason sibling marriage has traditionally been taboo is due to greater chance of deformity in children due to genetic in-breeding (which is a valid and rational reason). - also because marriage usually involved a financial or political arragement between families, and well - there's probably not much money in marrying your brother :) The expedient answer to your question would be - when there are enough siblings marching in the streets and calling their representatives to demand marriage rights, then it might be worth a look. I don't see a great demand for it so far.

2. Children will encounter gay issues in their culture regardless of whether it is taught to them. If the school is accepting public funding, I would support the teaching of homosexuality as part of normal modern-day culture. I'm not asking for teachers to encourage kids to try homosexuality, just learn to treat people respectfully regardless of sexual orientation.

3. Some of my gay friends are hung up on the word "marriage", strictly because it relegates "civil unions" to second-class status by virtue or its separation. It's like having separate drinking fountains. I would be happy to have this as a first step, with the understanding that at some point in the future, it will simply just be lumped into "marriage".

4. Studies have shown that it's probably a mixture of biological and societal factors. The issue is: nobody really chooses to be gay, just like nobody chooses to be straight. Do you remember when you made the decision to become a heterosexual? You may have made the decision to engage in straight sex, or to marry someone of the opposite sex, but you didn't decide you wanted to be straight. The only real "decision" gay people make is whether to just accept their homosexuality and live a happy life, or deny it and marry someone of the opposite sex and be miserable (which has been the typical story was for hundreds of years).

"because our laws and constitutions weere buit on on four fathers and has worked for this long why mess with it."
First off it is forefathers not four fathers (there were more than four forefathers) Second, marriage is not specifically inteh Constitution but EQUAL RIGHTs and the EQUAL PROTECTION clause is (as is the Establishment Clause) which are violated by denying same-sex marriages (the Establishment clasue being violated because the ONLY reasons for prohibitting same-sex marraige are religous ones).

"but don't mess with the things that have worked so good for us and our four fathers for so long."
That makes not sense whatsoever. Many things "worked well" for quite a while but as we grew up we realized that they were in fact wrong and only worked well for a limited group.

"but i think they should quit trying to push there life style on everyone adn get over it."
They are not trying to push their orientation on everyone (it is not a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is a lifestyle.) They are simply asking for equal rights. BTW. the arguemtns that you are making (not to change the way things were) are very similar to teh ones that people made when they supportted anti-interracial marriage laws AND more importantly, when they supported segregation.

" How much blood and shame will be on there hands for gettign what they want."
That is one of the most idiotic things I have seen in a while Your aunt is a fool. Any bloodshed will be solely the fault of the crimnals who attack the gays and lesbians. That is like blaming the civil rights marchers for begn attacked and murdered by the KKK and the Southern police forces. Truly brainless.