I'm straight and here's a question for you gay folks out there...

[DuaneBidoux]

Does it really matter whether we call it marriage or not as long as you get the same legal rights as everyone else? Hell, what if we call it civil union on paper and then everyone who is concerned just refuses to say any word other than marriage to describe that union.

I have no opinion on this but am wanting to get a take on it from some actual people that have a stake in this issue.

[meegbear]

1. ...

[ThomCat]

3. Good answer.

Just because something is theoretically the same, or the same on paper, doesn't mean it will have the same value, get the same respect, or confer the same rights in actual practice.

Separate but equal does not exist because value judgements will make it unequal.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

4. thank you! seperate is NOT equal. its all or nothing for everyone equally.

its that simple.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. Exactly right. There is no such thing as separately equal.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

20. heck yea AG!

:hi:

[Ravy]

16. What if the government did away with recognition of marriage

altogether, and called it all civil unions? Churches could marry people who they choose, straight or gay. If a straight couple got married by a justice of the peace, it would be called civil union. Your county license would be a civil union license as well.

I don't think this is unheard of. I know the Catholic church refuses to consider some people married, or unmarried-- has nothing to do with the government designation.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

19. I have no problem if the government wants to get out of the business of marriage.

its a matter of equal access to 1,100 federal benefits and numerous state benefits that come from the term thats important. and in a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, any two citizens (of legal age and non-relation) should be able to have access to those benefits.

[Big Sky Boy]

99. Amen to that

The only way I would ever accept civil unions with the "same legal benefits" as marriage is exactly that: The Government gets out of the marriage business entirely. Civil unions for all. Let the churches call whatever they want to do within the four walls of their private little club any name they want.

I cringe every time I hear a politician use the phrase "sanctity of marriage" -- I know all too well from the Jesuits who taught me that sanctity implies "sanctified" as in a rite or sacrament performed by a minister or priest. They may as well say they believe christian clerics should be installed in all offices in all levels of government.

Until we have a real separation of church and state, however, marriage equality should be available to all.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. A picture is worth a thousand words

And you are most eloquent. :hi:

[meegbear]

11. Oh, I have other pictures ...

play your card right and ....

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

28. promises promises

:eyes:

:P

:hi:

[meegbear]

31. OK ...

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

32. woof

:woohoo:

[meegbear]

71. GRRRRRRR!

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. My, my, my, my

Bears and kilts... two great tastes that taste great together. :hi:

[meegbear]

70. Thanks ....

:hi:

[nofurylike]

92. breathtaking. yes. eom

[SteppingRazor]

2. I'm straight, and until recently, supported civil unions over gay marriage...

but let's be real. Calling gay marriages "civil unions" implicitly implies that they are somehow lesser. Not normal enough or good enough or straight enough or loving enough to be "real" marriages.

It's not even separate but equal. It's separate but unequal, regardless of whether or not the privileges granted are the same as a marriage.

[maddiejoan]

6. Why not have straight people call it love...

but determine that with gay people it's just lust. Would that also matter?

[GymGeekAus]

44. Hi Maddie!

Big kiss! In a purely platonic way, of course!

[bluedawg12]

141. LOVE between two people, madly in love,

passionately in love. Wanting to live together, raise some cats or dogs, maybe a child for some.

Is that so anti-American? Nope.

This is message we need to get out, that it's love that brings us here.

[Burnsey_Koenig]

7. It's been proven

That seperate but equal is neither. So yes, I require nothing short of FULL equality.

I also have a question for you. Do you think it appropriate that some Americans have full rights, and some don't? I am an American Citizen and deserve the free and equal rights that every other American (straight americans) are entitled to.

My Equal rights and my freedoms are not up for Popular vote. Well, they are, but they shouldn't be.

The thing about Equal Rights is if they are not equal, then they are not rights they are privileges.


priv·i·lege (prv-lj, prvlj) KEY

NOUN:


A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
The principle of granting and maintaining a special right or immunity: a society based on privilege.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

9. good post and welcome to DU

:hi:

[Brazenly Liberal]

13. Excellent post! Welcome to DU

"The thing about Equal Rights is if they are not equal, then they are not rights they are privileges."

Superb!

[Sapphocrat]

74. And another...

"Good post and welcome to DU." :)

[DuaneBidoux]

97. Like I said I don't (or didn't) have an opinion although after these posts I am beginning to form...

one. If the people concerned feel the way they do then in this case that's good enough for me. I can see there is a great deal of strong feeling on this issue and so I am beginning to lean toward the position that the best thing to do is to have equal marriage rights.

But, let me ask this...if the country is not going to go for this right now (I do believe they will eventually...history shows that ultimately liberals win on issues like rights for people)is it not worthwhile to move forward on civil unions where we can instead of demanding an all or nothing situation? Civil rights for non-whites moved along slowly in the beginning...it took time for people to accept that the world would not end if we had equal rights (plus I am convinced that for some things the old conservatives simply have to die out, they cannot be convinced).

After a number of years of civil unions (how long I wouldn't know) people would see that babies are not being raped in the street and that traditional marriage remains stable (that is to say, as stable as it has ever been!) and opposition would simply die out.

I'm not thinking what is moral or right here. I'm thinking strategically, of what could get us to our end goal.

[Big Sky Boy]

100. We can be shackled by a baby steps approach

It's a common argument. The public is more willing to accept civil unions, so why not take what you can get and push for more rights when the time is right.

There is never a "good time" to fight for your rights.

I am thinking back to another struggle in 1992 when Clinton made the campaign promise that he would allow gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military. When it actually looked like he was going to follow through with that promise, his Joint Chiefs threw a hissy fit and he gave us what was supposed to be a compromise: Don't Ask Don't Tell.

By all accounts it was a disaster for us -- a setback from which we still have not recovered.

The policy basically changed nothing and actually did some serious harm. There were several cases winding their way through the courts at the time and we were winning them. It looked like we stood a chance at having the whole policy overturned. But after DADT the Military was able to get many of those reversed by saying: "Oh, you're right, that was an awful policy. But we have this new policy... so this doesn't... etc."

We face a similar struggle with civil unions. We've already had a ruling in one state where the supreme court basically said "You're not being discriminated against, you have civil unions." Well you know how most of the people in this forum feel about that.

No. If we settle for less than full equality, we are going to have to be satisfied with less than full equality and I for one am not settling.

[DuaneBidoux]

106. The only thing here however is that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" wasn't...

a compromise, it was surrender!

[Big Sky Boy]

124. I agree -- and so was DOMA

Clinton tried to sell DADT as a compromise -- but it was nothing short of pure capitulation.

DOMA was also "supposed" to be a compromise--originally intended to table the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It ended up igniting a firestorm of crackpot conservatives who couldn't wait to pass DOMAs in their state legislatures (because the Federal Law didn't go far enough). They continued the crusade with the current string of one-man-one-woman amendments -- because they realized their little DOMAs were going to be declared unconstitutional. The only way to repeal these amendments now is by popular vote or a favorable U.S. Supreme Court Decision. I'm not holding my breath.

I like Clinton. I really do. But these two "compromises" have probably set us back at least a generation with regards to marriage equality and the right to serve openly in the military.

[kenny blankenship]

8. if it's not called marriage then it isn't marriage AND you've established

the legal principle that gay people are not equal: separate institutions that "do the same thing" have to be created for them.
As a side issue you've also created a legal headache of rewriting THOUSANDS of laws that have to do with, or are affected by the married status of persons. If even one of those laws is not reworded by act of Congress or state legislatures you have a 14th Amendment lawsuit that has to be tried and fought out. Of course that just brings the question back to why gay people who are going to be accorded an "equal" institution to marriage have to go through extraordinary fights to get their (gay)married rights like other people have, and that other people get to enjoy without any fight.

I personally don't plan to ever gay marry anybody, but yeah it's important. If it's not called marriage it won't be marriage and it won't be equal.

i should add that principles whether directly expressed in legislation or not are the basis of precedent. If marriage has to be withheld from gay couples there must be a principle, a reason, behind that. We all know what that "reason" is BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENTS TALK ABOUT IT CONSTANTLY: to protect the heterosexual family. People don't want the bad example of same sex couples receiving the status of marriage being shown to their kids. They don't want their kids growing up "thinking it's OK" to have sex with others of the same sex. If it is legal and accepted to discriminate in marriage on the grounds that homosexuality has to be shown to be second class, as not-fully accepted, then you have a legal grounds-a precedent of law-to argue that homosexuals can be discriminated against in other contexts for the same purpose. For example, gays--or perhaps I should say "known homosexuals"--could be banned from teaching in public schools, because what could habituate kids more to the idea that homosexuality is socially accepted than to have known homosexuals placed in loco parentis over kids and given the responsibility to educate and discipline them? Creating a separate but equal institution expressly for gays only establishes that they are not equal citizens in some regard, and if unequal in some regards it will inevitably become a matter for courts to decide IN WHAT OTHER REGARDS they may be considered unequal: it is a Pandora's box. I suggest gays refuse the shipping on this package and send it back.

[Tyo]

23. Thank you, this has always been a key issue for me

I totally agree with you. Why TF should we have to reinvent the wheel? Everything is in place and functioning right here right now. It's a complex legal structure and it's called "marriage". What churches sanctify or don't sanctify is their business. But we deserve equal access to marriage as a civil institution which, first and foremost, is what it is.

[soleft]

10. If people can be married to their job I can be married to my GF

In secular terms, it means committment, legal committment.

If straight people are willing to give up the term marriage for non religious legal committments, so will i.

[DuaneBidoux]

108. I'm straight and have been "married" for 24 years.

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about not calling the relationship with my significant other "marriage." But that's just me, and this thread is making me begin to respect that many others do not feel that way about their ability as gay people to marry. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough reason to have the opinion that it does matter.

[Brazenly Liberal]

12. I'm straight, raised two gay men, it matters to me.

It's discriminatory. Period. Even if all the legal rights issues were good, it still takes gays and sets them apart from society as a whole. It still forcibly marks them as "different and not necessarily in a good way." It's different in degree but not in nature from making them all wear pink triangles.

[wavesofeuphoria]

14. What if its called civil unions for everyone ...

and then legally replace the word "marriage" with "civil unions" (ie .. married tax credit to civil union tax credit, marriage license with civil union license) .. and leave the word "marriage" as a religious or secular or colloquial term. "We are married" .. or "in the eyes of God we are married" can be said by anyone, civil union or common law or religious .. but in terms of legal rights and benefits .. only civil unions are recognized for everyone .. (did I make sense in saying it like that??)

Just a thought ....

[JavDom]

17. Let's put it this way....

What if there was a rule where men and women could take the same classes, had to do the same amount of work, but only the men could get a real college degree for it. Does that seem fair?

It's a lame comparison, but you get the drift.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. its not a lame comparison.

[Brazenly Liberal]

27. It's a fine comparison. Welcome to DU!

[JavDom]

39. Thanks for the welcome!

[DuaneBidoux]

110. It's not a lame comparison at all.

What if gay people went to college and they ended up with a "Gay Bachelors" and straight people got a "Straight Bachelors." The people with the Gay Bachelors degrees are arguing that they want their degrees to be called "Straight Bachelors." However, there is a term "four year degree" that we could begin using for both groups. The important thing is that those coming out of four year programs get all the same rights whether or not they are called straight or gay.

Having said all this however I must emphasize that at this point I'm just doing a bit of "mind" gymnastics and the posts here have made it clear that for a great majority of gay folks the term marriage is central to them feeling they have the same rights. Good enough for me.

[Jamastiene]

130. That is not a lame comparison.

It's a great comparison.

I'd like to extend a hearty welcome to DU. :hi:

[moose65]

143. that's a great way to put it!

I think this is going to be my "talking point" from now on, if you don't mind my stealing it from you! And we could tailor it to fit the situation at hand. If a woman is preaching her opposition to gay marriage, we roll out the "Men get degrees, women get certificates" argument. Why, that's ridiculous, she'll say. If an African-American is opposing gay marriage, it's "Whites get degrees, blacks get certificates." I like it! Let's see if we can't always frame it like this, and I'll always give you credit for the idea!

[BOSSHOG]

18. IF GAYS CAN'T MARRY THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES

I'm straight and I got separate and equal hanging.

I URGE GAYS TO START CHUCKING THE TEA IN THE HARBOR

[NMMNG]

95. A lovely idea

Why pay equal taxes when we don't get equal rights?

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Yes, it matters. Here is why

I really should just set up a web page with this material; it would save a LOT of typing. :eyes:

Marriage is a very specific legal term, defined by statute. There are several hundred specific rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges granted via marriage at the fedral level, including: the ability to file taxes jointly (which is a big benefit when one person is a homemaker or is unemployed), Social Security benefits and rights of survivorship, extension of military benefits, visitation rights in federal prisons, etc. In most states, there are thousands of specific rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges, including: inherentance, powers of attorney, shared benefits for state employees, de facto guardianship of spouse's minor children from a previous relationship, and more.

To create a "marriage in everything but name", every last one of the statutes which apply to marriage would have to be replicated as applying to "civil union." A number of state require that bills be one subject only; in Washington, this would require that both houses of the state legislature pass, and the governor sign, some 1300 bills, as it would be a violation of the State Constitution to pass a single bill that altered 1300 different statutes. All future bills that touched, in any way, upon marriage would likewise have to be passes so they applied equally to civil unions. The moment something slips, you have an unequal situation.

In addition to the statutes, there is the body of common law which applies to marriage. Common law is the collection of judicial rulings and court precedents which shape how laws are interpreted and whether a given law applies in a given situation. There is no mechanism for having common law on one thing -- marriage -- apply automatically and equally to another thing -- civil unions. Each case, every matter that has added to common law with regards to marriage would have to be replicated exactly in actual court proceedings to match the centuries of marriage common law.

In the end, marriage in all but name can not and never will be equal to actual, legal marriage.

[pissedoffprogressive]

22. "All men are created equal" not just the straights

To not give EVERYONE equal rights is un American. Why do we (gays) have to be treated differently or be put in our own catagory just because of who we love. It is the principle of the thing. Gays are the last group that it appears to be politically correct to discriminate against.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. ofcourse it matters: else why arent people letting us be "married"?

its about rights, equality and dignity. not just rights.

[whoneedstickets]

26. Some of these replies indicate the conundrum

The battle for gay marriage isn't simply a battle for de facto material status or even de jure legal rights to things like benefits, survivorship etc. It is a battle for social recognition. The gay community wants straight society to say 'yeah, you're normal, we sanction your relationships by assigning the same label and social status as ours'. It is an attempt to win (force) social acceptance through legislation and its a loser politically.

I'm no longer convinced that the democratic party should be fighting this fight because we're trapped--'acceptance' is beyond our power to legislate (we can't force everyone to come to terms with homosexuality) and, for the gay lobby, obtaining legal rights doesn't go far enough. We simply can't win. Moreover, if this has turned into campaign for 'gay acceptance', I'm off the bandwagon. I don't think we should sacrifice vital policy issues like environmental protection, economic justice and universal health care (to name some important issues) by giving the rightwingers this club to bludgeon us with in campaigns any longer. I think we should expunge gay rights, gun control and affirmative action from our political platform.

Yeah, I'll probably hear a lot of comparisons with Jim Crow, but I've yet to be convinced through logic that sexual orientation is analogous to immutable personal characteristics like race and gender in the rights/equality debate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. So do you hold that homosexuality is a choice?

What about heterosexuality? If being gay is not an immutable personal characteristic like race and gender, being straight isn't, either. Right?

Why then should straights have an exclusive right to be married?

[whoneedstickets]

34. On Homosexuality and choice

The 'is it a choice' question is a fascinating one that I don't think even the gay community is clear about. In fact I often see arguments made both for and against the 'its a choice' position to advance gay rights often for convenience.

Why do straight people have the privilege of marriage? Good question! I'd love to engage in some discussion of this.

Here is my position:

1. Marriage is a legal recognition of an interpersonal relationship

2. The state shouldn't generally be in the position to validate interpersonal relationships unless there is some societally beneficial reason which is so compelling that the polity demands these relationships be recognized and even rewarded so as to ensure the provision of this social benefit.

3. What essential social 'benefits' is marriage designed to foster that are so important that we'll grant special status and rewards to couples choosing this route: the production of new (replacement) citizens which is essential for the economic and political survival of our society.

4. In fact #3 is SO important that we'll allow 'freeloaders' (a.k.a. childless heterosexual marriages -- CHMs) to persist so as not to unduly dissuade potential couples from taking advantage of the marriage route in the hope that they'll come around to having kids (were there some contractual obligation for reproduction in the marriage contract, it might dissuade recruits).

5. Gay couples are, like CHMs, freeloaders under this rubric. However, unlike CHMs not recognizing them doesn't scare off the potentially productive heterosexual recruits from considering marriage. So there is no harm in not providing them benefits

6. That said. I follow Andrew Sullivan's point on this when he argues that, reproduction aside, there are some socially desireable 'stability' benefits that come out of recognizing same-sex unions. HOWEVER, I would argue this stability benefit is not so profoundly vital as the reproductive benefits of marriage and SO, we need not reward it at the same level...

Ergo, civil union is fine. Personally I'd even favor full marriage benefits just to avoid the paperwork differences (efficiency matters). BUT I also understand that the issue goes beyond just paperwork for gay-rights proponents.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

35. wow. what purely veiled homophobia.

If you think being gay is a choice, why would anyone choose to live a life of bashing, homophobia and being hated. We all struggle with the heteronormative forces placed upon us when we are kids. If it were that easy, we'd all be straight. Go look at Haggard and tell me being gay is a choice.

and on your opinions of gay marriage:

1. to deny equal access to benefits to any American citizen is illegal.

2. Oh yea, cause the estimated 1 billion dollars in tax money the government turns down from gay couples sure is bad. and I mean, its not like gays would gladly adopt the unwanted minority babies or drug babies straight people leave behind and seem so eager to adopt.

3. see 2.

4. ludicrous. What about people who marry for green cards? would allowing a lesbian and a gay man marry be ok? you've proved nothing but your own homophobia.

5. veiled homophobia again. RUN!!! its the gays!!! I wonder if all those white people in fancy country clubs ran when they let jews and blacks in? and then, no one ever joined the clubs again. thats what your reasoning suggests.

6. see 1.

I'm sorry, but your ideas are really just homophobic. Civilization is supposed to be the constant explansion of who we define as "us" and limiting who we define as "them". Clearly, you don't seem to believe that.

[whoneedstickets]

41. Can't muster an argument? resort to name calling...

I guess you can't refute my cost-benefit analysis so I'm just a bigot.

Here are some points.

"1. to deny equal access to benefits to any American citizen is illegal."

This is nonsense. Benefits are parceled out to selected groups (veterans, retirees, students) all the time.

"2. Oh yea, cause the estimated 1 billion dollars in tax money the government turns down from gay couples sure is bad. and I mean, its not like gays would gladly adopt all the unwanted minority babies or drug babies straight people leave behind and seem so eager to adopt."

I assume you're talking about marriage license fees? Marriage tax penalties (you didn't make this point but I will, the marriage tax penalty doesn't jibe with my logic)

On #4, marrying for a green card? How is that relevant? Would allowing a gay man and a lesbian woman to marry be ok? The state has a simple criteria 'could this union on the face of it result in children'.

Actually, as I read more of your response I'm not sure you followed the logic of my post at all. Please read it again.

In a nutshell it argues that marriage is a reward offered to heterosexual to encourage them to reproduce. There is a set of incentives offered to achieve this outcome. Individuals are considered to be rational actors who choose options based on benefits. They are also sensitive to other signals like the one that might be sent if childless couples were punished by revoking their status. Frankly, raising children is an enormously costly burden that the marriage benefit barely begins to offset. Granting the same benefits to non-reproductive couples could be considered unfair given the burden childrearing citizens undertake.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

42. lol!

anyone can become a veteran (well as long as they don't out themself) a student and retire if they live that old. no one can stop you from doing that. But you can be stopped getting married if you aren't straight.

In a nutshell, you are arguing that we live in such a backward country that the government must "convince" couples to marry for the livelihood of continuing our population. clearly that hasn't been the case...marriage has always been redefined to expand who can be married.



Im sorry, but the "wont somebody please think of the children" argument doesn't cut it.

and I'm not resorting to name calling, just speaking the plain fact about your argument: its homophobic.

[whoneedstickets]

49. I'm very dissapointed

Frankly the vaguely neo-marxist argument I have advanced to explain why the state must take steps to ensure the reproduction of the working class (and ergo recognize marriage) has MANY possible intellectually nuanced counter arguments since I have reduced much of social practice to a simple economic calculus. But, the only thing you can dredge up is the homophobia label?

Incidentally this argument for marriage and state support for reproduction has a long history in marxist feminist thinking. I was curious if anyone would be willing to engage it. I guess that won't be you?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. you are not sprouting arguments..you are sprouting opinion cloaked is pseudo academic language

and calling it an argument

[Sapphocrat]

79. Calling someone a "bigot" is against DU rules.

I guess you can't refute my cost-benefit analysis so I'm just a bigot.

Far be it from me to call you a "bigot," but after having slogged through your lengthy, pseudo-academic, baffle-'em-with-bullshit "rationale," I do know three things:

- You're straight.

- You're against equality.

- You don't want anyone to think you're anti-gay.

You're also tenacious -- but your engine block will burn out and crack before ours will.

Have run spinning your wheels -- your oil is dangerously low.

[ThomCat]

83. YES!

:applause:

Your ability to see through obfuscation and B.S. is working at full power I see.

[DuaneBidoux]

112. I saw NO indication of homophobia.

And your reply seemed extremely aggressive. Read my posts and tell me if you think I am homophobic. People have different opinions, and this is, for many, a complex issue. Seeing complexity does not make you a homophobe.

As far as choice my position is that sexuality is fluid and poorly understood in a general way. There is now some evidence emerging, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that homosexuality has some genetic basis. There is also some evidence that there are people who become intellectually curious and just try homosexuality to experiment (that was my case)--they may or may not decide to adopt that mode of living (I chose not to). They may or may not have chosen. In any case, to me choice has nothing to do with whether these folks deserve equal rights. They do.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

119. Did you really read what I was responding to?

heres some of the original post with how I, someone who is currently being denied the rights you are afforded thought of it:

"2. The state shouldn't generally be in the position to validate interpersonal relationships unless there is some societally beneficial reason which is so compelling that the polity demands these relationships be recognized and even rewarded so as to ensure the provision of this social benefit."

There is no social benefit or even a political one in expanding rights to me and my community cause the government says so. Maybe blacks really are just 3/5ths of a person cause the writers of the constitution thought so at the time. Maybe women really shouldn't be voting either...i mean the government didn't see any societal benefit for that till the early 1900s. gosh forbid we question the government for not recognizing us.

"3. What essential social 'benefits' is marriage designed to foster that are so important that we'll grant special status and rewards to couples choosing this route: the production of new (replacement) citizens which is essential for the economic and political survival of our society."

Like I said in my response to this, i guess the 1 billion in taxes the government is turning down by not recognizing gay unions sure doesn't seem like a societal benefit at all...and I sure see every minority or drug addicted baby being born being swooped up by straight couples for adoptions all the time. :sarcasm: Seriously, i guess that establishing a family that isn't the heteronormative just isn't a benefit to society if babies don't come from it.

"4. In fact #3 is SO important that we'll allow 'freeloaders' (a.k.a. childless heterosexual marriages -- CHMs) to persist so as not to unduly dissuade potential couples from taking advantage of the marriage route in the hope that they'll come around to having kids (were there some contractual obligation for reproduction in the marriage contract, it might dissuade recruits)."
5. Gay couples are, like CHMs, freeloaders under this rubric. However, unlike CHMs not recognizing them doesn't scare off the potentially productive heterosexual recruits from considering marriage. So there is no harm in not providing them benefits"

So the government will allow fake marriages (not for the purpose of reproduction if we are following the posters logic) cause it would scare off potential couples if we didn't, but allowing gays to have access to the same legal contract would scare off potential marriage :wtf: Its what I said to the poster about a fancy country club. If the jews and blacks are let in, all the white people will run away and never want to join again. This isn't homophobic?

"Ergo, civil union is fine. Personally I'd even favor full marriage benefits just to avoid the paperwork differences (efficiency matters). BUT I also understand that the issue goes beyond just paperwork for gay-rights proponents."

Isn't that nice of Mr. Straight man. Ergo he can decide my rights for me. that worked with the Blacks until civil rights. imagine if the poster said "Ergo, the niggers can sit on the back of the bus"

[DuaneBidoux]

121. You got me. I didn't read it closely enough.

[Tyo]

37. Regarding the reproductive "benefits" of heterosexual marriage

Would it then follow that heterosexual couples who are unable or choose not to reproduce need not be rewarded "at the same level" as those who can and do?

[whoneedstickets]

40. on childless hetero couples

Thanks for engaging the logic.

One could make that case that CHMs shouldn't get all the benefits. However to do this might make marriage less attractive to potential couples (ie potential reproducers). Since reproduction is SO vital the savings from reduced benefits to CHMs would have to be compared to the possible reproductive losses. Remember we need those children as soldiers, workers etc... SO subsidizing a few CHMs is suppose is deemed worthwhile.

[TechBear_Seattle]

57. Yes, it would follow

Thus, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance and the initiative we will be filing in January. :evilgrin:

[GymGeekAus]

51. Wank, wank, wank. And he shoots! ((whiff))

Please re-evaluate your position with the simple axiom: Not all households are the same. Not all families are the same.

If my sister were to be in an accident and my partner and I were given the responsibility for raising her two children, consider exactly what benefits of family and household you would want to withhold.

If it turns out that you oppose my raising of her children, despite it being her wish, then you have deeper axioms to re-examine.

By the way, I can come up with about half a dozen examples of how your "logic" is actually just poorly applied reason. Logic starts with obvious axioms and moves outwards. To have this discussion, you really need to figure out what your axioms are.

[whoneedstickets]

58. On Logic

My axioms are simple ones, central to economic thinking

1. Individuals are rational agents
2. When rational agents make choices they select options that provide greater benefits
3. Societies require reproductive childbirth to offset losses due to mortality


My propositions
1. Deciding to get married and to have a family is a choice, there are other options which may be more economically attractive.
2. Societies want to ensure that this choice is made with sufficient frequency to reproduce the population to do this they act through the apparatus of the state to provide incentives.

There are other steps to the argument that involve signaling but I don't want to repeat the whole thing...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. Societies require reproductive childbirth to offset losses due to mortality

and gays getting married reduces these options?

the world is overpopulated. we will use up all our resources by 2050 if we dont change our habits. (read the most recent studies on environment)

[Big Sky Boy]

126. Historically -- marriage has NEVER been about anything but

PROPERTY.

Ask anyone who has ever gone through a divorce.

Children have been married off into loveless relationships by their parents for centuries--Primarily for political and socio-economic reasons.

Also, looking back over my Jesuit education, I can't recall a single point in history that the future and security of a state was threatened because heterosexual people didn't have enough encouragement to reproduce.

[TechBear_Seattle]

53. Would you be willing to support the Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative?

This last July, the Washington Supreme Court used almost exactly the same arguments you did to justify the state's "Defense" of Marriage Act, even though they acknowledged that the Act violated the state constitution's prohibition against laws granting special privileges (Article I, Section 12, Washington State Constitution.)

As a result, I will be proposing the Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative, which will make it a requirement for all persons married in Washington procreate within three years of their marriage. The penalty for not procreating will be to have their marriage license "revoked." Couples married outside of Washington will have to prove procreation or else have their marriage declared invalid (just as current law declares invalid a same-sex marriage done legally in Massachussetts.)

From the argument you give above, I can assume you are willing to give us your full support? Visit our website (see link in my sig), download the contributions form and return it with your generous check. It seems that you are exactly the kind of people we are hoping to recruit.

Added High traffic has turned off the sigs, so here is the link to the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance: http://www.wa-doma.org

[whoneedstickets]

61. Signaling...

Following the reasoning I lay out this would seem to be a fair proposal.

However, the problem with this is that couples, before getting married, don't know if they will be able to procreate for any number of reasons. The potential that the state will rescind their marriage might dissuade some potentially fertile couples from choosing the 'reproduction path'. My argument held that accepting the cost of freeloading childless marriages has apparently been deemed to be a reasonable cost to incur for the benefit of enticing potential new reproductive couples.

[DuaneBidoux]

114. Freeloading childless couple? What in the hell?

[foreigncorrespondent]

87. OMFG

ROFLMAO!!!!

The 'is it a choice' question is a fascinating one that I don't think even the gay community is clear about.

ROFLMAO Oh you are just too funny!!!!

Also funny that you follow the belief of a right wing log cabin dickhead!!!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

127. LOL! If I wouldn't end up with two DU lesbians angry at me, I'd kiss you for that post!

:rofl:

[sui generis]

125. believe it or not, we reproduce exactly the same way straight people do

Also, in a society of individuals and individual freedom the freedom to reproduce or not is up to the person. Why should straight people who don't want to have a baby "be allowed" to get married?

[sui generis]

133. it's not about choice - it's about the freedom to do what you want

the government, and society, does not have a say in that, as much as they would like to.

Until the government pays for my life, starts paying ME taxes, it doesn't get to say. Today, the government does not pay for my healthcare, living arrangements, retirement, family's welfare. The idea that the government and "the people" would get to say what I can and can't do with my choices, whether influenced by genetics or not, is irrelevant and absurd.

Oh it may on paper claim that I'm not married and don't have the rights of marriage, but in reality we're still living together, still raising a family, and have forced all the legal protections required of that arrangement. We're not tired of the lack of rights so much as the lack of convenience.

What's in a name? Well it's odd that the people who ask that question often refuse to consider how ironic that question is. If there's nothing to the name, then stop pissing on about whether to call it something different from marriage.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

30. About your last line....can you clarify

it seems you are saying gay people can just stop being gay. can you please explain that more? Id love to hear that explanation.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

38. Have you ever met someone who can turn off being gay?

I mean seriously? and If you wanna go to biological defect route, how about biologically different. Black people have a different genes that make them dark skinned...but the racist says that this is a genetic mistake. Gay people are gay. If we weren't, don't you think our parents raising us as assumed heterosexuals would turn us straight?

[whoneedstickets]

45. Good points...

No, I have numerous gay friends both male and female and none of them could 'choose'. I've long believed the 'condition' position to be more compelling. HOWEVER, as I have noted there is nothing about a condition that inherently makes it acceptable. You are absolutely right about race. I suppose that 'curing blackness' might have been a concept advanced by some in the past. We have since become enlightened enough to see that genetic variations aren't a pathology (in fact thanks to Darwin we now seen 'racial' phenotypes as beneficial adaptations to environmental conditions).

So, here is the rub. Which 'conditions' do we accept as normal, even beneficial, variations and which do we declare as abnormal, pathological and ideally curable? As Foucault has noted, this is not an objective process. Normality is socially constructed.

This debate interestingly is raging in the deaf community. The potential that congenital deafness could be 'cured' through genetic screening and cochlear implants is seen as a threat to the 'deaf community'. The rest of society sees it as a cure for a physical flaw. I hear there are deaf parents choosing to have deaf babies.

This is why you'll find my marriage argument couched purely in terms of social costs and benefits and not in normative terms.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

48. But this debate is couched in normative terms.

you may not want it to, but the right wing has and thats what Americans said. you say some good points in this post, but ultimately, it comes down to are gays normal enough for marriage rights or should they be excluded from them. At least, thats how I see it.

[Tyo]

54. What standard or standards do we use to define "normal"?

What allowances or variables do we then accept and apply in order to expand "normal" to "normal enough"?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

60. don't as me, ask the right wing.

People who think are able to understand that normal can grow to include gays, straights, transvestites, transsexuals etc in terms of sexuality. I don't claim to try and define normal only those with authoritative tendencies do.

[swimboy]

65. Tell it, Great One!

:hug: :loveya:

[whoneedstickets]

69. Now, we've come around to my position...

vis-a-vis the Democratic party.

Establishing normality, the social construction of what is normal human variation, is a social process. Ultimately it must be engaged in the popular culture before it is encoded in law. The idea that blacks were just as human as whites and deserved the same rights (as obvious as it seems) was a concept that simmered for decades or centuries before it was entrenched in the US constitution. The fight for equal recognition of homosexual rights has to be conducted at the social level, not enforced through political power. The regrettable anti-gay marriage amendments are a clear indication that the process of the social construction of homosexual relationships as 'normal' hasn't occurred yet.

Nevertheless I think the party should quietly move ahead, wherever possible with civil union style legal efforts to grant a defacto marriage status as the public by-and-large supports this while dodging the marriage question. I hope the less radical members of the gay community may accept this.

[swimboy]

75. Oh yes, the Negroes got civil rights when America was good and ready!

I remember that now.

on edit: :sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

77. It's amazing how often we have to remind people

of the damned obvious. x(

[Tyo]

78. That's right

Once Brown v Board of Ed was decided, white Southerners welcomed their black fellow citizens with open arms. They were so ready that they wondered why they hadn't done it years ago.:sarcasm:

[DuaneBidoux]

142. TOTAL BS

The idea that gays should have equal rights has been "simmering" since Greece if not before. What it took to make Blacks equal were two courageous Presidents: Kennedy and Johnson. A courageous Democratic party that knew it would surrender the South by acting to encode into law the freedom of Black people.

[Tyo]

76. Sorry, I mean to but posted incorrectly

Maybe the right wing would like to have a shot at it?

[DuaneBidoux]

116. This is, in fact, a central tension between conservative and liberal

And it is sometimes hard to come to a correct answer. Most liberals would say that activities between consenting adults should be allowed.

Here is the rule: generally liberals try to extend the circle to make "we" bigger. Generally conservatives try to shrink the circle to increase the number of "they."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. having a pseudo intellectual argument to deny someone's very basic human rights

is so very silly.

there were a 1000 academics who wrote vehement anti-womens rights arguments based in economics and biology to deny women equal rights.

they too were a waste of space.

[Tyo]

66. You need to define your terms and provide some examples

You can couch your argument in terms of social costs and benefits

Or you can couch your argument in terms of which "conditions" we accept as normal.

They are not necessarily the same thing. You're going to have to work on this a little bit and then come back when you have it figured out

[DuaneBidoux]

115. You seem enlightened on the deaf community except for one big

thing. When talking culturally, as you are, it is not "deaf community," but Deaf Community.

[ThomCat]

43. So do you choose to be straight?

And could you choose to be gay tomorrow if you wanted?

I've yet to mean a straight person who claimed that they chose to be straight, but many straight people assume that gay people choose to be gay. And then because straight people insist that we chose to be gay suddenly it's okay to step all over us. That's not just idiocy, it's hypocricy.
x(

[DuaneBidoux]

117. Okay...hang on.

I do believe there are people who choose to be gay. I believe there are those (perhaps even the vast majority) who have no choice.

There is, and always has been without question, a certain group, usually having enormous intelligence, curiosity, and naturally very liberal who decide they want to try everying.

In any case I think sexuality is very fluid and remains to a large degree a true mystery of being human. But, as in my other posts, I make the point that that has nothing to do with equal rights. They deserve them. Period.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

128. Yeah, those people are called bisexuals. nt

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

46. Tell me when you made the choice to become a heterosexual and get back to me.

[Brazenly Liberal]

47. That's a completely false analogy

"I mean if tomorrow the human genome researchers discovered a pedophilia gene could people with that condition say 'This is the way God made me' so you have to grant me my rights in this area?"

Your analogy fails because 1) the people involved in a pedophilic relationship are not all consenting adults; and 2) there is a victim. Full rights for the GLBT community does not create victims.

I may be reading you wrong and I hope I am, but the tone of your posts sounds pretty homophobic to me. I'd like to ask if you do support full rights for our GLBT friends and rellies.

[Brazenly Liberal]

52. Your reproductive argument also fails the sniff test.

On several levels.

1. We are an overpopulated, not underpopulated world. The idea we need to make sure we reproduce at the same rate we die off is absurd.

2. Gay people can have children. Many do.

3. Not allowing them to marry doesn't make any more babies than allowing them to marry, so it doesn't even suit this dubious purpose of yours.

4. Straight people are allowed to marry even after menopause. Shall we tell them no mas since there isn't even the vague possibility they will do their duty for the Reich? :sarcasm:

And yes, the more I read of your posts, the more I am convinced I wasn't mistaken at all. You are a homophobic troll. And I don't give a rat's ass if you're "disappointed."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. very good logical arguments

especially as allowing them to marry doesn't make any less babies than allowing them to marry, so it doesn't even suit this dubious purpose of yours.

[Tyo]

56. The whole reproductive thing is a crock

What I think our friend has is a predjudice in search of a justification

[whoneedstickets]

64. Great, we've started to reason...

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I agree with point #4 wholeheartedly. Marriages among senior citizens don't make much sense given the reproductive imperative (about the Reich thing, statist arguments always sound vaguely fascist, but frankly there are lots of beneficial behaviors that governments reward with incentives)

On #1, the carrying capacity of the globe is an interesting and open question. What basis do you use to determine this? Agricultural production, energy supply, sustainability?

2. This is an excellent point and, one could make a strong case for recognizing gay couples as married when children are involved on the basis of the childrearing burden.

On point 3, you are right however having babies is different from raising children to be good soldiers, workers and citizens . The latter takes much more work at a higher cost.

[Brazenly Liberal]

67. And with that, this conversation is over.

Sorry, I don't feed trolls. I let them forage for themselves. I will say that you do the slow troll artfully, the gradual descent into ever more outrageous propositions, but it's a troll nonetheless.

Perhaps others will be willing to engage you in whatever brief time is left before there's a tombstone next to your name.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

68. All that matters is do you support *full* equality for GLBT Americans?

I don't believe you do. You're just attempting to couch your homophobia within arguments.

[whoneedstickets]

73. I do support full legal equality

as a principle. In principle I also would like to see a fully disarmed society with regard to handguns and assault rifles, but I'm not prepared to sacrifice other progressive agenda items at the altar of these ideals any longer. Material issues like access to housing, education and health care and an end to US militarism abroad take precedence.

[adamblast]

80. Lucky for us, then, that the progressive agenda...

...isn't a zero-sum game. We don't particularly need ya, brother, although support is always nice to have.

[Tyo]

82. Okay, so if that's what it boils down to for you

that's cool. I disagree with you, but whatever. It's not an unheard of sentiment on DU.

But why couldn't you have just said that up front and gotten it over with rather than wasting our time with your pseudo-intellectual posturing? People who condescend are so often the last people who should be doing so.

[whoneedstickets]

85. I did...

See the original post. After posting this I was asked how a heterosexual marriage privilege could be justified, asked if I thought being gay was a choice and later branded a homophobe.

I frankly wanted to see if anyone had developed a counter argument to the reproduction logic and was fascinated to hear about that Washington state proposal on marriage. Clearly this reasoning resonates strongly enough that the gay community in that state is going to try to push it to its illogical conclusion.

Sadly no one engaged the signaling argument I made or followed up on the social stability points that Sullivan argued. I was hoping for a richer debating experience with people who knew their stuff.

[NMMNG]

90. The old "The Only Purpose of Marriage is to Have a Litter" argument

Asinine to it's core.

-Lesbians can have babies.

-Gay men can adopt or have children of their own through surrogates.

Problem solved.

[readmoreoften]

91. Cut off marriage for straights at menopause then.

No marriage for middle aged or elderly couples. Put your money where your mouth is. Infertile couples also should not be permitted to marry.

[NMMNG]

93. And an affidavit will have to be signed by both parties,

promising they will produce at least three children within 10 years of the date of their marriage or the marriage will be dissolved by the state. We can't have any unproductive marriages, can we? :sarcasm:

Reproductive imperative indeed. :eyes:

[sui generis]

135. material issues guy then

When my family is threatened by stupid legislation like DOMA and the marriage amendments, it's a material issue to me. Let me be the first person here to tell you that I could give a crap about minimum wage, handguns, healthcare, education, and militarism, except on lofty principles.

They are not material if my family is in jeopardy today. So if the democrats want us to vote against ourselves and against our families because we're not "material" to them, then please be our guest and deliberately form a platform against us. If we're winning close elections by microscopic margins, then throwing out the gays had better be made up for in volume of people who despise gays who are also willing to get off their lazy asses and vote.

If it's a wash, then democrats will have sacrificed principle and weakened themselves. If they're successful with that strategy, then they will no longer really be a "democrat" except in name only.

Finally, you don't have to sacrifice a thing. Isn't that the way it always works? That people whom equal rights impacts the least are always the most willing to sacrifice the rights of other people, because they're not "material" to you.

[DuaneBidoux]

118. Something else that REALLY scares the wingnuts

are the lesbians who can be artificially inseminated. They definitely can have children, and for all but an extremely small and unconnected act (involving a small cup), they don't need (gasp!) MEN!

[swimboy]

59. You are not ready for this forum.

I am impressed with how earnestly my brothers and sisters are engaging with you.

Yes, we can have a discussion about gay issues, but NOT when the discussion begins with "If it is a condition that is immutable (not a choice) then presumably gays deserve rights"

Most, if not all, of the GLBTs in this forum have already answered for themselves the question of choice and have decided independent of other peoples' wondering about the choice issue that we absolutely deserve the same rights as American citizens that straight people enjoy.

Acceptance? Who knows? Who cares?

But equal rights? FUCK YEAH.

[adamblast]

72. Choice is indeed complex; the right to be gay and equal is not.

I suspect that if you asked the majority of gay men if they chose to be gay, you'd find only a tiny, tiny percentage answering yes.

If you asked lesbians, you might find a surprisingly different answer. It may be that sexual orientation among women is somewhat less bound by biological/endocrinological factors and more malleable. Or not.

Gay men *feel* the strong parallel to issues of racial equality, because most of them know they didn't choose to be gay. In fact many of them struggled against it, enduring a self-torment during their teen years that few straight people can even comprehend. They know they're being discriminated against due to something they *are*, something beyond their control.

But that's not the whole story.

The gay struggle is parallel to the black struggle in some ways, and rather more like the jewish struggle in others. Even if being gay *WAS* a choice... or for some people, *IS* a choice, it is one they have a *right* to make.

Is the struggle against anti-semitism bound up in whether or not one *chooses* to be a Jew? Have we not decided that religious discrimination is wrong even though being religious involves personal choice? Even though one can hide one's religion as necessary?

The fight for gay equality is righteous and just *independent* of whether one chooses to be gay or not. Those of us who feel "born gay" (rightly or wrongly) mustn't forget that others *may* have chosen the rainbow way, and have a place in our struggle as well.

It's not that we deserve equality because "we can't help it." It's that we deserve equality because there's nothing wrong with being gay, chosen or not.

[whoneedstickets]

81. A thought proviking post....

The sexual orientation and right to religious choice argument is a really interesting one. It raises the question about what types of behaviors associated with religious choice that society will accept. Are there religions that engage in practices that society has deemed undesirable or abnormal? Are individuals free to choose to be part of these religions?

I imagine Rastafarians face some of these issues as have Peyote using Native-American cultures. Your selection of Judaism as a basis for comparison is particularly interesting as male circumcision has become more controversial. I suppose the point here is to note that not all choices, even constitutionally protected religious freedom comes with a 'behavior exemption' from society or the state.

[adamblast]

84. Indeed, not all choices are protected, and...

...not all biologically-detirmined factors are either.

The question to ask is: are there any rational secular arguments in a just society for treating gay individuals (and by extension, gay couples and families) as categorically inferior? Or is this categorical inferiority nothing more than the social remnant of a religious bias?

[NMMNG]

94. I suspect you don't know sh*t about lesbians

If you asked lesbians, you might find a surprisingly different answer. It may be that sexual orientation among women is somewhat less bound by biological/endocrinological factors and more malleable. Or not.

Out of all the lesbians I have known, and I've known many (including myself), not one of them has claimed it was a choice. All of them have known since early childhood or the pre-teens at the latest that they were gay, and would not--indeed could not--fathom the idea of being with a man.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

98. delete

delete

[adamblast]

101. Possibly; I only know a handful of lesbian women today,

and don't get out much in gay male circles, either.

I'll further amend my comments, since they've been so bothersome: back when I was hanging around with lots of lesbians, maybe a quarter of them loved only one woman in their lives. Perhaps women, for whatever reason, tend to fall in love differently than men. Perhaps the bisexual population among women is statistically a little higher than men. I don't know why. When those relationships were over, they were as likely as not to love men again. I hate calling these "temporary lesbians", but there is something at work here which is different than the way men operate.

I'm no fan of making broad generalizations about the differences between men and women. But neither should we sweep differences under the rug for political expediency. What makes women lesbians is likely to be somewhat different than what makes men gay. Straight men and women aren't completely alike in the way they love, for whatever reason. Neither are gay men and women. Hormonally, biologically, socially, psychologically, whatever.

[NMMNG]

102. I don't know what sort of "lesbians" you've been hanging around with

But they sound more like bisexuals to me. Even if they go with men, then women, then only men for the rest of their lives they are still bisexuals.


What makes women lesbians is likely to be somewhat different than what makes men gay.


It's the same thing for both, and it's called being born that way.

[ThomCat]

103. Agreed.

:)

[adamblast]

104. Way to make science subverviant to politics. Isn't that what...

...what the fundies do? Start with the the outcome they need, and then demand science agree?

"I was born gay" may end up being true. It certainly feels true. But it is not a scientific fact, only cluster of theories on the rise. At this point, yes, it's fair to say that there are probably pre-natal factors involved. But there may be plenty of post-birth factors involved as well. It may be for a host of different reasons. All of which, it should go without saying, is beside the point in terms of rights.

Mandatory heterosexuality is wrong. People have a right to be gay. They also have a right to choose it, if they wish, whether they typically do so or not.

[Sapphocrat]

105. *sigh*

You admit you "only know a handful of lesbian women today, and don't get out much in gay male circles, either" and you're "no fan of making broad generalizations about the differences between men and women" -- so why do you continue making these broad generalizations?

Perhaps women, for whatever reason, tend to fall in love differently than men.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Love is love. Certainly there are biological differences that generally cause men and women to act differently in certain ways, but would it be fair of me to broadbrush all men as incurably aggressive and violent, 'cause, hey, we all know what testosterone does, right? That would be ridiculous. You're making us out to be entirely different species.

Perhaps the bisexual population among women is statistically a little higher than men. I don't know why. When those relationships were over, they were as likely as not to love men again. I hate calling these "temporary lesbians", but there is something at work here which is different than the way men operate.

Then don't call them "temporary lesbians." There is NO SUCH THING. For the umpteenth time, they are bisexual -- whether they, or you, want to call them "bi-curious," LUGs, or simply "experimenting".

Where I believe you are hopelessly confused is in being able to differentiate between love and lust. Anybody can have the hottest sexual experience of a lifetime with either a MOTSS or a MOTOS, without it having any impact on one's own orientation.

I couldn't make myself fall in love with a man if I tried -- but that doesn't mean I couldn't jump into bed with Johnny Depp and love every minute of it. I could, easily -- but it would be all about the sex; love would never enter into it. And before you call me on positing that hypothetical, trust me: I've dated men, I've messed around sexually with men, and I've even had heterosexual intercourse. And I use that phrase because that's all it was: heterosexual intercourse. It was not in any way, shape or form "making love."

You can have sex with anyone. You can't make love with just anyone.

What makes women lesbians is likely to be somewhat different than what makes men gay.

What, you want the scientific theories? About gay men having a smaller hippocampus, and lesbians being "awash" in testosterone, in utero? So what? The end result is the same; we don't evolve into different life forms.

You're making way too big a deal of the differences you perceive between lesbians and gay men (and women and men in general). Ignore the differences between our genitalia, and we are all born and die naked, scared, and alone.

And in between, we all want, and need, the same things: to love and be loved, truly and deeply, and to share our lives with someone who understands us.

Where is the difference?

[adamblast]

107. I haven't been using the word orientation anywhere, you'll note...

...as I find the distinction between orientation and behavior a muddy one. I'll also resist the urge to pepper my remarks with sentences of yours to poke at.

If we posit that orientation is *by definition* immutable then *of course* all I've been talking about is behavior. But the phenomenon of women being more fluid in their sexuality remains. Sez who? Just me, talking out of my ass.

As for love and lust, I think I know the difference just fine. I don't pretend, however, that men and women relate to them identically. Why you think I'm blowing this difference out of proportion by mentioning it at all, I don't know.

[Sapphocrat]

109. You really don't think sexuality...

...is just as fluid for men?

I never said men and women are identical -- but yes, I think your emphasis of the differences between us is disproportionate.

And I think you're basing far too much of your hypothesis on a "handful" of bisexual women who are in denial about their bisexuality.

[adamblast]

113. I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing...

...but no. Personally, I think it's a *fair* generalization about the sexes to say men are led around by their dicks a bit more than women are led around by their privates. It's nothing to be proud of on either side, just a difference.

[MsUnderstood]

88. Yea its all about my social needs...nothing legal to worry about

That's a nice opinon but the fact is gay couples don't want to get married just so one gal can say to her coworkers at a christmas party "have you met my wife. . ."

I want a marriage license so that my "wife" and I can file taxes together, earn Social security benefits together, have hospital visitation rights, have child custody issues resolved based on existing laws rather than a costly legal document by a gay friendly lawyer.

I want a marriage license so that I don't have to struggle with what to check on forms. If its a california government form I choose "Domestic Partner", but if it is a california business, loan application, etc do I choose, married or single? Damn it is confusing.

I'm given some rights (and responsiblities) in California, but If we drive to Idaho for example and have a car accident, we are legal strangers.

But thanks for simplyfing my life into a simple "I need to be able to introduce my spouse just like straight people do"

As for the right wingers hitting us over the head...grow a pair and tell them to shutup and deal. There is no need for this society of ours to discriminate against a group of people based on the discriminator's misinterpretation of religious beliefs. . .which is exactly what is used to say gays and lesbians don't deserve equality.

[DuaneBidoux]

111. You cannot force social acceptance, this is true...

But, those laws that gave African Americans equal rights helped black people move into a world and when that world didn't end or fall apart there was a gradual acceptance through enlightenment. The world continued on, and people gradually saw this. It would have been the wrong decision to not legislate equality simply because people's attitudes and beliefs were that segregation was right.

We NEEDED those laws. I agree that there is a huge risk here for the left generally. There are many other things that are indeed very important including the environment, balanced budget, tax fairness, universal health care, better education, etc. and the risk is that we refuse to accept less than full equality and end up with a right wing that will give us nothing.

[Jamastiene]

131. Well, I guess I should just be prepared to go to hell.

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Don't dare ask for a crumb of dry stale bread from someone like you. You think I'm abnormal and unworthy. With "friends" like you, who needs enemies? :nopity:

[sui generis]

134. for someone as tied up in psuedo intellectual logic

peppered liberally with latin intelligensia-sprach, we democrats who happen to be gay have to tell you that we're not here by your invitation.

This is not an inclusive party. We're democrats, and some of our issues border on the ideas of basic human freedoms to do with our lives as we please, to pursue happiness as Americans, not because we've generously been "included" by invitation.

Some social conservatives seem to think there is an ownership relationship with our lives. These same people, including yourself, would probably scream bloody murder if we took away your right to marry because you don't like to eat brocolli.

It's the same difference. How does someones "choice" of whether or not they "prefer" brocolli impact your life? Or society? This is America - reproduction has nothing to do with being a American; it's a choice that even people who are "born that way" sometimes choose not to do. The government will never have any say in forcing people to procreate for the sole purpose of reproduction, and if they were to, this would no longer be America, or even a developed nation.

We're adults. We make our own choices. Any consequences of those choices come not from people who think our choices are wrong, but from people who think our freedom to make those choices is a crime. You guys are in for a really unpleasant surprise whenever you wake up and smell reality.

We're here, we're democrats - and we don' take shit from anybody.

[William769]

86. It matters, because you had to ask the question.

[and-justice-for-all]

89. I dont give a shit what they call it....

..But we all deserve equal footing in modern society. Its abolutly disgusting that some people think they are above others simple because of a redicules ideology, its such bullshit...

[Boston Critic]

96. Ten years ago...

...I would have argued civil unions were the way to go for precisely the reasons we're seeing now: people getting all bent out of shape over the *word* "marriage." (When someone argues that the government has to protect the "sacred" bond of marriage, they're saying they have no argument. Governments have no business protecting the "sacredness" of anything.)

That all changed when my state legalized gay marriage. It made civil unions the default "moderate" position instead of the radical change it would have been a decade ago. And now it's too late to turn back. The issue has been joined and though it will be painful for people in the short term, in the long term gay marriage will become accepted and future generations will wonder what all the fuss was about, just as we now look quizzically at anti-miscegenation laws.

Legally speaking there's one big difference. Under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, states must accept the legal actions of other states. If you're married in New York, New Mexico has to recognize it, and vice versa. That is not the case with "civil unions" which are of untested legality outside of the jurisdiction recognizing it. All these "defense of marriage" laws are attempts to circumvent the Constitution. Sooner or later a court is going to rule that federal or state laws to the contrary notwithstanding, a gay marriage in Massachusetts is valid throughout the US and must be recognized as such.

Hopefully we won't have a final paroxysm of hate in trying to reverse such a decision by amending the US Constitution.

[Ayesha]

120. We just had this topic

and I'll say what I said yet again.

Civil unions are the "colored only" drinking fountains of the 21st century. Separate is not equal and it never will be. They are better than nothing, but my partner and I do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens.

[DuaneBidoux]

122. When I started this post it was truly to inform myself over an issue on

which, to be honest, I didn't feel I had enough information. I do feel there is a real danger that if the left pushes marriage we will lose positions of power that would allow us to do other things such as get universal health care, protect the environment, save social security (i.e. REALLY save it vs. destroy it), rtc. I really fear this.

HOWEVER, having said all that I now do have an opinion thanks to many folks like you that have been active in this thread: pursuing absolute equal rights including marriage is the right and proper thing to do. Period.

[Sapphocrat]

123. Just remember something.

Re the left "pushing" marriage:

We as a community weren't pushing for marriage; those of us who are politically active were making strides with baby steps, and marriage was seen as something we'd work up to, when the time was right.

The marriage frenzy as you see it today was a creation of the Radical Right to divide us, and it worked. (And, regardless of how you feel about equality, do you see how the fearmongering has worked on you?) But now that the attack has been foisted on us, we can't be expected to just roll over and not fight back.

I've made this point more clearly, many times in the past, and I should probably find one of my more lucid posts and just keep repeating it.

Just remember that we weren't the ones who made this the gigantic issue it's become (although we will always be blamed for it), but now that it's here, we're fighting back, tooth and nail. As we should be.

[DuaneBidoux]

140. Thanks for your reply. I will consider it carefully. I see many of

your points.

[Jamastiene]

129. Well, the way I see it...

Gay people sometimes were able to find a decent respectable pastor/preacher who would be willing to let them get married in the eyes of God. Major church organizations got wind of this and made a big todo about it. Let's face it, a lot of organizations and other groups of groups of people tend to stay conservative long after the rest of the country has decided to move either to the center or to the left.

When the church organizations started making a big todo about the gay marriages that were taking place, the government(s) (both state and federal) collectively started poking their noses into the whole sitaution and basically inflamed everyone on every side of the issue. They pissed off gay people. They pissed off the religious right. They pissed off the religious left. They pissed off moderates. They pissed of libertarians. They pissed off Democrats. They pissed off Greens. They set brother against sister and mother against daughter on that issue by the way they decided to "define" marriage.

In my personal opinion, GLBT people should not be the only ones worried about the Defense of Marriage Act. Straight married women should take a hard close look at that particular piece of garbage as well. How long before they amend that to define a woman's role as subservient per the religious right's insistance? My advice: Don't discount that prediction before you think about it. It's coming. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

I can only speak for myself when I say it has to be "marriage." I see it like this: Separate but Equal didn't work because it was separate, but not equal. "Coloreds Only" water fountains were unconstitutional because they set black people below white people, which was wrong.

Maybe this question would put my views in perspective a little better. If the majority of church groups got together and decided to kick out all female pastors/preachers then after a lot of people protested they decided to let women be preachers but not be called "preachers," but instead some lesser phrase or word was used, and then the federal government went along with that and put into law a ruling that stated that women could preach but could not be called preachers, would it really matter?

[election_2004]

132. The short answer to your question is "no"

And civil unions would definitely be a huge leap forward in progress, certainly better than the status quo.

But as long as they are given different semantic titles ("marriage" for opposite-sex unions, "civil unions" for same-sex unions), legally there is still the risk that gay/lesbian relationships would be treated as subpar under secular law (because of the difference in semantics). That's why the word "marriage" is ultimately so important to us in the LGBT community.

However, a civil unions compromise DOES indeed fix the major problems of domestic inequity, at least in the short-term.

[bluedawg12]

136. Marriage affords hundreds of rights and benefits that cannot

be cobbled together via legal documents nor is it fully realized by civil union.

My question to you, if the term "marriage" is the sine qua non of a recognized union and commitment between two loving adults in our society, then why justify the reason for striving for it and why deny the rights of two loving adults who are of the same gender?

It seems that it might elevate the love two people share and in no way demean the love others have for each other.

Stability and fidelity in a relationship is a good, why not encouraga people to rise to the best level of their potential?

Unless of course the concept is to deny the normalcy and acceptance of gays and somehow send us back into the shadows to live a life of lies and hiding or better yet, as some hope...to see gays dissappear. Why?

Like the poor...the gays have always been with us.

[One Sweet World]

137. its semantics

It's the tax benefits that I want. Call it a union, civil union, life commitment, whatever. Just afford us some equal rights here people.

[LeftCoast]

138. If it were a federal civil union we were talking about, I'd agree with you.

Problem is...when 'civil unions' are mentioned it's generally in the context of 'leave it up to the states'. That's a problem because until the union is recognized universally it is inherently less than marriage.

[bluedawg12]

139. You are exactly correct, LeftCoast:

That’s exactly correct. State wide civil unions, with out national recognition, deprives those who have a civil union of federal benefits such as beneficiary status for social security, etc.

Also, state only civil unions and in fact marriage, with same sex partners, limit the rights of the couple to the state(s) that recognize the entity. They are not portable.

If marriage is the status afforded by society to commonly and universally recognize a couple as a joined legal entity, then, there should not be a carve out status of anything less.

This should be familiar to those who followed the American civil rights struggles of African Americans, who at one time were faced with the offer of: “separate but equal” access and rights, The fallacy of this became obvious and was rejected in favor of complete equality.