What is her opinion on civil unions that carry equal rights (ie insurance) but are specifically not called 'marriage'? I'm asking because if she were against them, I would agree with you that this person was against who you are and hence difficult to be around. But if it's just a matter of nomenclature (ie naming), I think it's not worth the hassle and aggravation.
Why don't you simply stop trying to offer advice around gay issues. You have overwhelmingly shown your ignorance to what it is like being gay in this world. Your constant attempt to "explain" a homophobic stance is, frankly, tiring -- not to mention wrong. If you think after reading what was written that this situation boils down to semantics, you are even crazier than you appear.
So -- offer your support and advice to HIV issues, but stay out of the gay ones. You have shown your biases too many times to count now. At the end of the day you are as bad as his sister-in-law.
Mike
However, she has become more political and joining all these conservative groups on facebook. When I read through those conservative groups, there is so much talk about the recent gay marriage decision and how awful it is. They talk about how being gay is wrong. When I asked her about this, she says just because she's a member of that group doesn't mean she shares all their opinions. I told her it would be like joining a group that talked negatively about black people. I told her it reminds me of people who had slaves, but said they treated their slaves good. I know that isn't a good analogy, but that is what I thought.
Boze, if our gay members would rather you didn't give advice on gay-specific concerns, then I suggest you heed their wishes. It's not for you, as a heterosexual, to say if your advice in these areas is off the mark or not. I would say the same thing to a gay member who was posting off the mark advice over a straight-specific concern. Your gay-related advice isn't wanted, so why give it?
What - you have a monopoly to the truth? Maybe there is more to the world than ppl who are homophobes and gay rights activists, did that cross your mind? I think a neutral perspective would be refreshing.
I have a slightly different take on this. I think all people should have civil unions. That would include gay, straight, et al.
If the heteros want to have some swami bless their civil union and call it marriage, so be it. But legally, all would be subject to the same rules, same benefits.
As far as I am concerned, churches already have far too much sway in this country. Its time we started putting them in their place and limiting their influence on the rest of us.
As far as the original question, I have distanced myself from members of my extended family because of the views they hold and who insisted on lording them over me.
I would do the same with friends if they persist in pushing their views on me. If we agree to disagree and carry on without the drama, then that is fine.
Life is too short to be saddled with negativity and hatred. Why do you think I left the Catholic Church - years ago!
HUGS,
Mark
I have a slightly different take on this. I think all people should have civil unions. That would include gay, straight, et al.110% agree "marriage" is not, i repeat, not a church thing. the license comes from each individual state, not the church. the divorce comes from the state, not the church. if the state is not issuing licenses to a couple that wants it then they are being discriminated against. the ceremony that people have to show off could be held anywhere but unless they have that license from the state then no marriage exists. so change the damn thing to civil unions for everyone and if you're straight and want a "marriage" ceremony then pick your favorite controlling church and go for it. religions were developed to keep the masses in line and apparently it works.
If the heteros want to have some swami bless their civil union and call it marriage, so be it. But legally, all would be subject to the same rules, same benefits.
As far as I am concerned, churches already have far too much sway in this country. Its time we started putting them in their place and limiting their influence on the rest of us.
As far as the original question, I have distanced myself from members of my extended family because of the views they hold and who insisted on lording them over me.
I would do the same with friends if they persist in pushing their views on me. If we agree to disagree and carry on without the drama, then that is fine.
Life is too short to be saddled with negativity and hatred. Why do you think I left the Catholic Church - years ago!
HUGS,
Mark
I mean support them in anything that won't hurt someone else.
Sorry, but I will never accept anything less that full equal rights. Civil unions are just another term for separate and unequal and the entire point of equality is having the exact SAME rights. Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right, by the Supreme court and unless the government, can show a substantial function of government is being met, by denying non-straights all equal rights, any laws that seek to do so, are thereby unconstitutional. This issue goes far beyond the civil right of marriage, it affects all non-straights, by discriminating against them, to the tune of about 1,500 federal benefits that apply only to those who are married. Last time I checked, our founding documents state that "All men are created equal..." and provide for the separation of church and state. Civil rights are those bestowed by the government and as such, apply to every American, regardless of sexuality. Anything less is unconstitutional, period.
Just what part of that, do people not understand?
edited to add: Boze, I am going to throw down the gauntlet here and ask you to explain, to me, why you believe that straight Americans are more worthy of civil marriage than non-straights? I want to hear the explanation, without any references to religion, that substantiates your position. Straight up question. Your turn...
If you want my opinion - I think real issue is making sure that equal rights apply to gay unions. What you call that union is less important, however that is what seems to be the divisive issue.
I never said that - Hellraiser has correctly rephrased my point. I just thought that having a family spat over semantics would not be worth the trouble. I didn't closely read the full post regarding the parts that made her seem more homophobic.
If you want my opinion - I think real issue is making sure that equal rights apply to gay unions. What you call that union is less important, however that is what seems to be the divisive issue.
Are you really as stupid as this makes you seem?? We've told you why this isn't a "semantics" things -- there are actual, tangible differences IN THE FUCKING LAW between Unions and Marriage. The real issue is about not being able to married by the state -- which would confer all these laws on to us. So instead of changeing hundreds and hundreds of laws, regulations, etc -- wouldn't it by easier to just let us all be equal. Straight people don't get to own a right and keep it from others, at least not under our Constitution. You know the Constitution -- the thing that your ilk reveres -- until it's convenient to push it aside to keep yourself above the rest.
Why don't you heed Ann's advice and stay out of this -- you can not possibly know or understand what we are talking about -- you've clearly shown that.
edited to ad -- I don't want your opinion -- it's is as unimportant as it is uninformed in this particular discussion.
Mike
I'm sure if a poll was conducted 8 out of 10 forums members wouldn't wipe their asses with your opinon. The other two would be terrified that they might contract HIV should they consider your opinion.
If you weren't the person you are with the forums history you have, there might be some merit in paying attention what you have to say on these sorts of culture war subjects,
But noting your posting record it seems prudent to conclude that this is just another of your ever more wearisome attempts to put one over on teh gheys.
Grow up. :)
MtD
I wasn't giving my opinion to you, someone else asked me what I thought.
Your belligerence is astounding - whoever isn't 100% in your camp must be a fucking idiot or wants to burn you on a cross. Let's simmer down the victim syndrome. I want you to have same rights, so maybe you should tone down the rhetoric.
And still you're at it. You craft your posts to provoke a particular response. Your claims of "I want you to have the same rights" are neatly contradicted by your use of idiotic phrases like "victim syndrome".
Please, spare us the faux Socratic style. Your methods are transparent and your intentions are obvious.
You are not as clever, witty or as hate filled as you think you are.
MtD
Matty, all I see here is pure projection. Thinks himself clever? Check. Witty? Check. Thinks self hate filled? Check.
I, meanwhile, merely pipe up to give my opinion on things that interest me. And yes, gay issues happen to be one of these things.
I, meanwhile, merely pipe up to give my opinion on things that interest me. And yes, gay issues happen to be one of these things.
Maybe he's interested in all this cuz the guy who infected him offered to get him some free medical insurance once the law allowed.... I mean it's just my two cents, maybe I should stay out of this one.
Heh
I never said that - Hellraiser has correctly rephrased my point. I just thought that having a family spat over semantics would not be worth the trouble. I didn't closely read the full post regarding the parts that made her seem more homophobic.
If you want my opinion - I think real issue is making sure that equal rights apply to gay unions. What you call that union is less important, however that is what seems to be the divisive issue.
I wasn't giving my opinion to you, someone else asked me what I thought.
Your belligerence is astounding - whoever isn't 100% in your camp must be a fucking idiot or wants to burn you on a cross. Let's simmer down the victim syndrome. I want you to have same rights, so maybe you should tone down the rhetoric.
Edit: victim syndrome - whereby anybody who doesn't fully agree with you is out to get you and must be destroyed
What else offended you? Just curious.
If you want my opinion - I think real issue is making sure that equal rights apply to gay unions. What you call that union is less important, however that is what seems to be the divisive issue.You just don't get it. Until you understand why only EQUAL rights are an appropriate remedy and the ONLY lawful remedy, you will never relate to gay issues. Never, ever, ever, so do us all a favor and stop trying.
Boze,
Were you trying to say that I should ask her how she feels about civil unions instead of marriage in order to test her? Did you mean this would tell me that this isn't about her "religious" beliefs as she claims, but a total dislike of gays. If she says she is also against civil unions, where you don't involve religion or the word marriage, then she obviously just doesn't like gay people. Otherwise, why would she care whether some bureaucrat gave us a piece of paper. Were you suggesting to test her with the word civil union but weren't saying to be satisfied with civil unions--which would not be equal and wouldn't carry all the benefits and responsibilities that marriage does.
Yes, precisely. I was suggesting you try a middle ground with her - ask whether she would support Civil Unions (with all the same rights- ie health insurance, inheritance, legal protection, etc). There iIf she does - it looks like you are having a family spat over semantics.
I'm not saying YOU should stop trying to fight for gay marriage - but if someone in your family is trying to reconcile two sets of beliefs (ie religious and interpersonal), it may be worthwhile to extend the olive branch. If she is just anti-gay, there is nothing you can do.
---
Everybody else - I don't want to argue with you guys. This is a topic that's personal to most of you, I have no desire to rankle anybody's feathers if any mention of alternative view causes people such grief.
So, you have decided it for me. You really are simply a clueless, homophobic dolt. You think that separate but equal is a "middle ground". It isn't -- it is simply a way for hateful simpletons to feel that they are still superior to those "others".
As for not wanting to rankle anyone's feathers -- well, sweetheart, you clearly are a big fat liar on that (or dumber than even I think you are), for you come back time and time again to "rankle feathers". You can't even see just how offensive you really are here -- which is why I'm leaning toward stupidity over hate as your motivation. A number of us have pointed out how your "alternative" is pure and utter shit -- not able to even achieve want you think is equitable. A number of others have asked you to stay away because you clearly don't get it, but you refuse -- why?? I'm sure it is to "rankle feathers".
Try to get this simple idea through your thick head -- if you are against same-sex STATE marriage (not religious) and think that marriage should be left only to the straights, then you are, unabashedly, anti-gay. This is NOT a semantics game -- it isn't OK to "throw us a bone" in the form of civil unions. It is about our lives -- until you are denied a basic civil right, I think you simply keep your ideas, opinions and hot-air to yourself. Quite frankly my 9 year old grandson has a more charitable worldview than you do.
Mike
Bullshit. Some people want equal rights - that I'm 100% for. You want to ram down your worldview down the throat of 150m people who disagree. Your inflexibility is just as abhorent as the hick who hates you for who you are. I'm the one stuck in the middle.
Bullshit. Some people want equal rights - that I'm 100% for. You want to ram down your worldview down the throat of 150m people who disagree. Your inflexibility is just as abhorent as the hick who hates you for who you are. I'm the one stuck in the middle.
Bullshit. Some people want equal rights - that I'm 100% for. You want to ram down your worldview down the throat of 150m people who disagree. Your inflexibility is just as abhorent as the hick who hates you for who you are. I'm the one stuck in the middle.
Bullshit. Some people want equal rights - that I'm 100% for. You want to ram down your worldview down the throat of 150m people who disagree. Your inflexibility is just as abhorent as the hick who hates you for who you are. I'm the one stuck in the middle.
Bullshit. Some people want equal rights - that I'm 100% for. You want to ram down your worldview down the throat of 150m people who disagree. Your inflexibility is just as abhorent as the hick who hates you for who you are. I'm the one stuck in the middle.Your entire premise is bullshit, because all Americans WANT equal rights, it's just some other Americans who think that only straight people are entitled to them. History will prove you wrong and your pathetic whining about being stuck in the middle is laughable. You would not be stuck anywhere, if not for your bigoted rantings. Save me the poor me bullshit. I've had to tolerate bigots like you all my life and you will never prevent gays from having FULL EQUAL RIGHTS.
Please - it's all a matter of definition. I think civil right are the actual rights that go with marriage - insurance, hospital visits, property, etc. If the whole issue is about the actual word 'marriage', it is clearly just a culture war milestone, shoving it to the 150m hicks who are against it. I think American politics is too divisive already - every issue is split and causes people to spew hatred (Looking at you, Bocker).
If you want to have a wedding - fine by me, I am not against it. If two people care for each other and want to marry - let them do it. Probably would reduce philandering and disease progression.
I just happen to see where the other side is coming from, hence I'm in the middle. And I'm not afraid to speak my mind - whether a couple of you express your outrage at the thought of someone in your midst who is so insensitive to actually bring up CU.
Please - it's all a matter of definition. I think civil right are the actual rights that go with marriage - insurance, hospital visits, property, etc. If the whole issue is about the actual word 'marriage', it is clearly just a culture war milestone, shoving it to the 150m hicks who are against it. I think American politics is too divisive already - every issue is split and causes people to spew hatred (Looking at you, Bocker).
If you want to have a wedding - fine by me, I am not against it. If two people care for each other and want to marry - let them do it. Probably would reduce philandering and disease progression.
I just happen to see where the other side is coming from, hence I'm in the middle. And I'm not afraid to speak my mind - whether a couple of you express your outrage at the thought of someone in your midst who is so insensitive to actually bring up CU.
You feel that your relationships are as special and cherished as straight people - why not call them by the same word.
That was my reference to culture war - the idea that your side is 100% right and the other one is totally stupid/bigoted/sinful.
I'm a little sad that all of you take my reflection on the situation to mean support for the other side, which it's not.
The problem is that society has to function on some form of consensus on these issues. Some countries have easily reached that consensus - but they are not very religious either (and are only 4% of earth population).
Another inaccurate statement from our beloved resident know-it-all. Spain happens to be quite a religious (catholic nonetheless) nation, yet they were among the first to allow same sex marriage.
He justs pulls statistics out of his ass.
As is large swathes of Latin America. Apparently pervert marriage is all the rage down Mexico way.
MtD
He justs pulls statistics out of his ass.
I didn't say that I (me) am against GM - ... why you guys want it to happen - it's your identity, you didn't choose it, you want to make the best of it. You feel that your relationships are as special and cherished as straight people.... - .I'm a little sad ....Boze -
Another inaccurate statement from our beloved resident know-it-all. Spain happens to be quite a religious (catholic nonetheless) nation, yet they were among the first to allow same sex marriage.
We don't "feel" that we deserve to be treated as equal citizens. We DESERVE to be treated as equal citizens with the same rights to marry who we are sexually attracted to or in love with as you do.
That is contingent on definition of whether marriage is a right. You think it is, they think it's not. You see how it depends on one's value system?
Regardless of how you want to pose the question, one group of people is allowed to marry another group is not. This is pretty basic logic that A != B.
Boze -
your own words indict you.
"I didn't say that I (me) am against GM" well, you didn't say you were for it either
"Why you guys want it to happen - it's your identity, you didn't choose it, you want to make the best of it..." What the hell do you mean "make the best of it" - this statement right here shows the indignation you have towards gay people. "Make the best of it" - a terminal illness is something one makes the best of - having a loving relionship with another human being, and most definitely being gay is not something that I feel punished by being and that I have to "make the best of it."
So it's all a matter of convention. Up to 20 years ago there was no GM anywhere in the world - nobody in their right mind would demand this as a natural right in 1985, back then making sodomy legal was the 'natural right' fight.
I don't feel any indignation - i am just realistic. It sucks to be a minority - I am one, I know. It is easier to be a majority and not have to fight for your rights and expect the world to do your bidding. I have no "indignation" for anybody.
Western society also doesn't allow 3 people to marry. Now - careful - I am NOT saying that two are equivalent. I am only saying that it is a matter of convention for a given society (btw polygamy and polyandry are a lot more common in the world than gm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy). So it's all a matter of convention. Up to 20 years ago there was no GM anywhere in the world - nobody in their right mind would demand this as a natural right in 1985, back then making sodomy legal was the 'natural right' fight.
I don't feel any indignation - i am just realistic. It sucks to be a minority - I am one, I know. It is easier to be a majority and not have to fight for your rights and expect the world to do your bidding. I have no "indignation" for anybody.
I don't feel any indignation - i am just realistic. It sucks to be a minority - I am one, I know. It is easier to be a majority and not have to fight for your rights and expect the world to do your bidding. I have no "indignation" for anybody.You are a minority? Really, which kind? It can't be a straight poz man, as straight pozzies outnumber everyone else, so what could it be? I really want to know what kind of "minority" you believe yourself to be.
Ted
It is easier to change people's minds on social and moral issues in person than on the internet -- discussions on the internet only seem to harden positions . So if knowing that she reads fanatical materials on the Internet disturbs you, why not cut off the electronic communication?
But that doesn't mean you have to sever all channels. In fact, removing the electronic irritant may make you all the more persuasive in person (and we all suspect you are pretty charming :) ) You could even talk to her (in person) to explain why you've severed the electronic link, if you want to keep things peaceful in the family. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
A
You are a minority? Really, which kind? It can't be a straight poz man, as straight pozzies outnumber everyone else, so what could it be? I really want to know what kind of "minority" you believe yourself to be.
I don't want to go into who i am, just take my word.
Well, anyways - i wish you luck. I hope gays get the same rights, but I don't think with majority of the population against it, GM will come to pass. Probably will get the same model as the UK - first 'civil partnership' with equal rights and responsibilities, followed by 'civil marriage' a few years later. Enough old people have to die, young ones don't really give a shit. Pushing the issue too quickly may backfire.
I don't want to go into who i am, just take my word.
Your word ain't worth much around here...... You throw "facts" out but never back 'em up. As the Damned One has said once or twice before -- "we are on to you".
Really?? Ever heard of the following states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa.... GM has come to pass -- just need the Federal gov't to agree with equality for all.
And.... don't need anyone to die, just need the courts to uphold the constitution. If one is married in Mass., they should be considered married everywhere -- as per the US Constitution. You seem to think that equal rights needs majority approval -- if that were true we'd be living in a different society today. Rights are not up to a vote -- they simply are granted via our Constitution.
Now run along and find someone else to antagonize -- you have begun to bore me with your lies.
Mike
Damn old sodomite, keeps coming back. Clearly you've got a major chip on your shoulder at the world - it's not my fault you're so angry. Try tai-chi or some shit like that. Ranting at strangers on message boards probably raises the pressure, unhealthy.
Either way, I don't think this is going anywhere. Politicians know they have to answer to the voters (US is not mexico), so will follow the same pattern as the UK, middle line to appease you lot and the majority. But don't despair, with proper healthcare you'll probably be around to celebrate when GM comes to pass. Just don't get so angry on the internets or you may be around.
MtD - sodomite reference was for you. You manage to be referenced by both sides!
You can make all the "hail-fellow-well-met" references to me you want. It's not gonna save your closeted old hide.
You're on the ropes, Bozelle. Time to chuck that mauve towel in, methinks.
MtD
/edit: tyop/
And stop calling me old or closeted - I'm young and comfortable with my grade-a sexuality.
Damn old sodomite, keeps coming back. Clearly you've got a major chip on your shoulder at the world - it's not my fault you're so angry. Try tai-chi or some shit like that.
US is not mexico
Lovely. God, you are such a nasty person.
Seriously? Thank you for that profound lesson in geography and international relations. And what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
jiga, plz. Nasty is yall ganging up on someone who doesn't subscribe to your views 100%. I endured enough from the old geezah before I grew tired.
jiga, plz. Nasty is yall ganging up on someone who doesn't subscribe to your views 100%. I endured enough from the old geezah before I grew tired.