Notes from this bigoted homophobe...

[TreasonousBastard]

I am a member of the ACLU and fully support its efforts with Lambda and NCLR to overturn Prop 8 and expand gay rights, including marriage, nationwide.

I support this even though I don't really like the idea of gay "marriage" at all, and much prefer the idea of the old French affrerements (a sort of universal civil union) but I don't see that happening any time soon.

And, I have no problem with Warren doing his couple of minutes on the dias-- the day after the inauguration it will have been over, forgotten, and mean nothing. I also notice that while there may be serious discussion about him behind the scenes, I haven't seen any at all on the gay and lesbian activist sites I've been looking at, leading me to wonder where all the hysteria is coming from, and just how deep the angst really is.

So, feel free to consider me another bigoted homophobe as I refuse to share in the hysteria even while I support goals that I don't feel entirely comfortable with, but which are reasonable enough for me to agree to until something better with a good chance of success comes along.

(And also note that I really don't give a shit what anonymous people on a public board think of me-- I rarely care what people who know me think of me. As an experiment, I once tried to fuck myself but there are some things even I just can't do)

[IndianaJones]

1. i find your honesty on the homophobe deal refreshing after the past few days here. nt.

[yardwork]

26. ROTFL!

You're really outdoing yourself lately.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Enrage them any more than they already are?

[MercutioATC]

13. C'mon...don't you know it's your responsibility to placate the frenzied masses?

What do you think this is, an internet forum?

How dare you speak your mind!

[Bluebear]

3. >I don't really like the idea of gay "marriage" at all< . . .your "quotation marks" give you away.

So yes, you may be a bigoted homophobe.

[IndianaJones]

4. i think the frankness is rather novel. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Historically, marriage was simply to...

establish bloodlines. It's only relatively recently that we've even gotten past arranged marriages and allowed people to venture into matrimony on their own. So, I consider "marriage" to be an archaic artifact which has gained far too much importance beyond it's usefulness for rearing children.

So, there, not only am I a bigoted homophobe, I stand foursquare against the American family, too.

[boppers]

18. "to establish bloodlines"?

That seems mighty ethnocentric, was there a specific cultural environment you were thinking of?

What of marriages for purely financial reasons?

What of marriages between people who could not medically produce bloodlines?

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Establishing paternity, basically, and...

a legal basis to keep the father around were always two key reasons for marriage. Pretty well true across all cultures, although I know of at least one pre-Columbian tribe (can't think of the name right now) that had no form of marriage at all-- all members happily screwed around so that the male members never knew who their own children were and so took responsibility for all the children. I think that tribe still exists in Brazil somewhere.

Arranged marriages, and dowries, were the norm for millenia, and finances, along with political alliances, were always far more important than romance, which long was frowned on as the most ridiculous reason for marriage. (You had your romance outside of marriage)

A marriage that did not produce children was a problem, and could sometimes be annulled (or Henry the Eighthed) but no one knew beforehand if no children would happen-- and back then they had no idea why or what to do about it.

[yardwork]

28. I guess you are not to keen on lesbians, eh?

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Where on earth would you get that idea from?

[yardwork]

33. Um, the part about establishing paternity and bloodlines and the role of fathers?

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Yeah. that's what 5,000 years of marriage has been. What's...

that got to do with lesbians?

[yardwork]

38. Rev Warren, is that you?

[boppers]

37. What about marriages between one man, and multiple men and women?

Not much paternity to establish when MSM.

Kings, clan leaders, tribe leaders, etc. had this power position in numerous cultures, where parts of their tribe/group were "theirs".

I guess the larger point I'm trying to make is that the RW talking point is "marriage is what we define it as, and anything other than our definition is invalid."

It's apriori stupidity, especially when the historical record shows such a wide variance on pair-bond relationships.

[Mari333]

21. idealism is lovely and all that

but there are specific rights and priveleges that are only afforded by legalized marriages to couples that are not found in civil unions in this country.and many people dont have time to wait until some ideal civil union utopia is set up in Xanadu.

'The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.'


http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

[TreasonousBastard]

29. You may have missed the part where I said...

I go along with marriage until something better comes along.

I think universal civil unions are a better way, but that means those inequities in current civil unions must be eliminated.

By "universal" civil unions, I mean taking the union beyond a romantic one-- if I am unmarried, or even married but don't trust my wife to handle things, I should be able to sign papers giving my brother, or next door neighbor, the same rights a wife has to me and my estate.

More practically, platonic housemates, along with hetero- and homosexual couples, should be able to get that sort of a union-- it should be a universal alternative to marriage as far as all the legalisms are concerned.

But, I see gay marriage happening before that wort of union is accepted.

[localroger]

42. Yes, THIS

Marriage is coercive, making a matter of law what should be subject only to individual free will. But as things stand if you want to arrange inheritance, child-rearing, health care, or even your own hospital visitation rights you need marriage. In such a world not having marriage as an option sucks. But needing marriage for those things sucks a lot more.

[Qibing Zero]

34. It's not often I say this, but...

..it seems like you're just criticizing for the sake of doing so. Do you have a solution?

I too consider marriage to be archaic and problematic, but since we afford rights based on marriage that are not open to those who are not married, we have to come to a real conclusion here. Either abolish state recognition of marriage and accept only common-law-type benefits (without discrimination of course), or allow marriage and it's benefits to all.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

6. Thanks. It will be over 5 minutes after the speech if we allow that.

But we won't.x(

[yardwork]

31. Actually, I'd rather not stop with the status quo, if it's ok with you.

[nomorenomore08]

7. What exactly are you so "uncomfortable" about? You don't seem to dislike gays as people,

so what gives? I really don't quite know how to respond to this OP, which is why I started with questions. Sometimes the line between simple honesty and flamebait is a fuzzy one, so help me out here...

[TreasonousBastard]

16. simple honesty...

I keep trying to explain why I see marriage as an unsatisfactory way of solving a very real problem, but very few see things my way. So, if I can't find an "affrerement" movement, the closest thing out there is marriage, and I reluctantly support that as the half glass full.

A large part of the problem is words, and the way different people use them. "Marriage" is one frought with all sorts of meanings, depending on who is speaking it, and who is listening. Personally, I just don't think much of it for most people, gay or straight.

(Obviously, it's tough getting any currency on that idea.)

[boppers]

23. Problem with this line of thought:

"affrerement" is one frought with all sorts of meanings, depending on who is speaking it, and who is listening.

The problem isn't the word used.

The problem is that folks want to deny people access to "foobarbaz" (a meta-word), because they attach foobarbaz with specific meanings, and they don't think that some people should have a right to foobarbaz.

If every American could get legal "civil unions" with people they loved, the haters would be fighting who had access to that.

[emilyg]

9. K/R

[boppers]

10. How do you feel about black "schools"?

[IndianaJones]

14. not comfortable with race mixing. but not actively involved in re-segregation. nt.

[yardwork]

30. k&r

[Luminous Animal]

15. How about some links

to those gay and lesbian activists sites?

[TreasonousBastard]

20. I mentioned two organizations, but how 'bout you show me...

where the organized outrage is, other than DU.

(And not just some blogs where people are just blowing steam or planning more demostrations.)

[Luminous Animal]

43. What were the two organizations?

Here's mine:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/

http://www.hrc.org/

http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionCenter.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025663

http://www.glaad.org/

http://www.thetaskforce.org/

[madmadmad]

17. how nice to be able to call you a bigoted homophobe and not get deleted for it.

anyone ok with a bigot being allowed to speak at a national ceremony is a bigot themselves- even if they can't see it. did you see that fat bigot fuck, rick warren, on dateline? he thinks he isn't a homophobe, too.

people who love gay people don't let bigots hurt gay people. people that don't give a shit about bigots speaking against gay people, don't give a shit about gay people. simple as that.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Since you don't know me, I'll just let that pass, and...

not consider you a thoroughly noxious idiot.

(Just one of those who happily yaks on about people they know absolutely nothing about.)

[madmadmad]

41. you are the one that labled yourself as such- why would i be a noxious idiot for simply agreeing?

you are correct- i know nothing about you except that which you've freely admitted, so i'm happy to yak on about you being bigoted homophobe for as long as you are one.

[NutmegYankee]

24. Somehow i'm reminded of that scene in "Enemy at the Gates"

where the Russians charge forward to attack the Germans, and when they retreat, they get mowed down by their own officers.


While we eat our own and shoot our allies in the back, the fundies advance.

[yardwork]

35. The fundies are certainly advancing by having Rev Warren next to our president.

[NutmegYankee]

39. Mere stage play

We have to fight the laws they propose, email our representatives at local, state, and federal levels, and educate the ignorant. We have to embrace the politics of personal destruction and dethrone the fundie leadership while defunding the fundie churches.


I'm straight, but was kicked out of a christian group because I stood up for Homosexuals, and it absolutely sucks to have my efforts down-played "because I can marry". WTF Folks! I'm an ally, working to advance your cause, because I feel it is right and just. It sucks to get lashed at when I really do try to help. Luckily we were able to kill Constitutional Question 1 here in Connecticut, and maintain the right to marriage for Homosexuals.

[yardwork]

40. I haven't downplayed your efforts.

[NutmegYankee]

44. I wasn't pointing that at you.

Sorry, went into a rant mode after reading too many threads.

[xfundy]

22. Don't like gay "marriage?"

Don't have one! Problem solved.

Equal is equal. Period.

If you're so concerned about a word, come up with a replacement that shows equality.

I take it it's hard for a lot of folks to understand why we insist on equality under the law (one very big promise of America we've been denied); perhaps it's because gays have always been frowned upon in American society--gawd knows most of us had no choice but to internalize that hatred--but please understand that we've been extended an invitation to be treated as equal, and anything else is unequal. Sounds simple, really.

I doubt you'd say you are better than I am, but if you oppose my having identical rights, that's what you put across.

[yardwork]

27. Pst. By posting this thread you are "sharing in the hysteria," despite your promise not to.

[Political Heretic]

45. This former ACLU employee, and former marriage equality campaign manager is right there with you.

I've got your back on this.... with one small caveat.

Two days ago I dismissively said "I'm fine with the Warren choice" because I felt that the reaction to it was so outrageously hyperbolic. But I realize that to be precise, its not that I have "no problem" with Warren doing his couple of minutes... its that I understand what Obama is/was trying to do and while it is arguably a mistake, its a minor one - turning it into a major one is divisive and distracting from the real policy issues we should be focusing on... that would include policy issues of human rights. The human rights campaign has a pretty strong agenda for Obama's first 100 days and I'd love nothing more than to re-focus our discussions and advocacy back onto how to make sure those things get accomplished.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. I shouldn't have said I have "no problem" with Warren...

because that weould imply approval and I don't fully agree with the choice, at least not in retrospect. Before all the kerfuffle, I probably would have thought it simply interesting, but the kerfuffle started about the time I heard about it.

My mindreading skills are lacking, but I suppose the Obama team was looking at Warren's leadership on the environment, health care, and some other common causes to use him as a bridge to at least some of the right wing.

Well, "the best laid plans o' mice and men..."

I think there is more agreement than we see about the need to back away from this sort of hysteria and get back to work solving the problems the last eight years have made worse. The shouting just makes us all look foolish and trivializes the real problems.