Positive news about gay marriage

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

panthera

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
2,825
Location
Rocky Mountains
OK, so legal recognition of same-sex unions will make them last longer, women don't like housework (especially if a man is involved), men know how to talk to their male mate, women know how to talk to their female mate, and yet all couples kinda argue in the same way, but straight couples need to learn to communicate like gay couples...

Doh!! Who da' thunk it?

I think this is what marriage counselors have been selling for years. Nothing new here...
 
Peter,

That is precisely, exactly, 100% the point. There is nothing new here.
Every single study of what happens when people of the same sex marry indicates that it is either neutral or positive in its effect on the rest of society.
Some people are amenable to reason, some aren't. Personally, I think the more valid studies we present, the better off we will be in the long run.
Oh, and there is something new here, in at least a small way: How to argue productively.
Every little bit helps.
 
Why must

we argue? How about dialog/debate?

But that assumes both parties are reasonable and sane and at least somewhat educated.

Emotion always plays to much into political/social issues.

I think I will take the summer off and go work/play in my garden. The election is in November. And I already know who I'm voting for.
 
Is there verifiable documentation yet, on how many gay men actually avail themselves of the opportunities marriage equality affords, in locations where it is available?
 
hard to find concrete data

Many of the sites alleging "scientific" studies are really just hate-filled manifestations of the christianists - some of whom are, sadly, learning subtlety.
The URL below seems more or less in line with what we are reading here in Europe.
There is a very small indication that gay marriages tend to be a bit more likely to endure past those first tough years than straight marriages but this may be colored by the still relatively high hurdles which gays have to jump over to marry - as Brittany has shown us, any two heterosexuals can just run off to Vegas and do it. Many of us still have an uphill fight against people from our own culture who oppose gay marriage (perpetuation of the Patriarchy, end of gay-culture, not necessary, etc.) Why my desire to marry is any of their fcuking business is beyond me but the policy of "self-actualization" is often screamed loudest by those who really mean "as long as you do it my way). Personally, I think it is too early to tell. One note of interest, in contrast to civil unions in the US, most European Partnerships convey more responsibilities than privileges on the partners...so marriage between same-sex couples right now is probably taken more seriously.
If anyone has some other reliable data, I'd love to see it...

 
As a fallen Catholic I don't have the slightest inclination to have my civil union (should my partner and I decide to pursue one) sanctioned by any church. We are already Registered Domestic Partners. We've been together for 23 years, longer than any of his or my divorced siblings. That, in my opinion, speaks volumes about the sanctity of our "union" as opposed to those of our siblings who were all married by a priest in a church and susequently, against the church's teachings, dissolved. This is a demonstration of total disregard for the institution of marriage along with the church that sanctioned it. Seems to me that the gay community places far more importance on a life partner commitment than the straight community does. Where unions between men are concerned, anyway. Women are an entirely different matter from my personal experience. Seems to me that the straight community abuses their privilige on a very regular basis, yet they want to "protect" this privilege that they take for granted and that half of them don't even respect. Something is wrong with that picture.

With all references to religious affiliation set aside, can you say, "hypocrites?"
 
Thanks for that link. Interesting stuff IMO.

Ralph, the issue being debated in our courts is recognition of same-sex marriages by the state, not by churches. The roots of marriage are spiritual, but for legal purposes it's considered to be strictly a civil institution. E.g. athetists have the legal right to marry in the U.S. just as well as theists, and as far as I know, no law has ever been proposed that would require any church to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

Regarding marriage vs. civil unions/domestic partnerships, the recent California decision explains why separate is not equal, or adequate to conform to our state's equal protection clause. If rights and responsibilities are supposed to be equal, there's no reason to maintain two (or more) separate names and administrations for what's supposed to be the same thing. Domestic partnership may be adequate for you and your partner, but sooner or later you're going to run into its limitations.
 
Sooner rather than later

Here in Germany we had two proposals. One, just write in that "marriage" was between two people, regardless of sexual identity or gender as long as they were not currently married to someone else or more closely related than (I think, this I don't recall exactly) 2nd cousins.
That one was torpedoed by the fcuking conservatives from Bavaria, so we had to do it the hard way. The conservatives agreed to let us have partnerships if we took on all the responsibilities of marriage, while not granting us any benefits they could avoid. That one ended in a compromise (I'm shrinking two years of solid battles into one paragraph here) and it has been left to the courts to continue to expand our rights ever since. Now the shit-head conservatives are beginning to grumble it would be better to just grant us equal status as was suggested in the beginning, because the more rights we get, the more straight-marriage gets...which the conservatives don't want, either.
We've won the really important points: Should one's husband become ill, one may visit him in the hospital and make decisions in accord with his wishes, even if his parents object (all those ethnic stories about European Mothers? They're true). The parents can't prevent you from inheriting, they can't take away any children you adopted from previous biological pairings, you are legally part of their family, and really important: If they are not European, they get residency and work status here. That one was one which the fcuking conservative bastards had denied to many straight married partners for years, now they have to allow it to everyone.
After what happened here in Germany in the 1930's and 40's...and what the last seven years have shown us about how lightly Americans give up their civil rights...I think it is a very good thing when someone has a place they can escape to if they must.
It the christianists succeed in the Fall, then homosexuals become de facto less than human in the eyes of the State. How much longer before we are used for medical experiments...just like they did with blacks right through the 1960's?
 
Keven, many feel we've already been used in a medical "experiment" that continues to wield deadly consequences.

Jeff, I get what you're saying and understand the court's decision. It's the high profile churchy folks who don't, which of course makes me angry that anyone even listens to them.
 
Ralph,

I lived in San Francisco in the early 1980's. Not one single gay man I knew from that era is still alive.
All my friends and acquaintances are dead.
Over here in Germany, there was an unbelievable resistance to accepting safe sex, I have precisely two friends my age who, like me are negative. All the rest are dead or were fortunate enough to make it into the cocktail era.
I don't believe the virus was invented by the CIA or the Army or some such to get rid of us. I am convinced that the government under Reagan saw it as, literally, a God-given opportunity to let us die horribly. If Aids had first been found in that group of people who are most commonly afflected with it - heterosexuals, it would have been taken far more seriously and we would not have lost at least 12 years in learning about the disease.

What I was referring to was the use of Negros as "control" groups - Caucasians would receive antibiotics for instance, Negros placebos or nothing. "Scientists" would then follow the progress of diseases in the "control" group. That stopped only when Johnson put an end to it with the final major civil rights reforms.

When you read what the republicans and the christianists are writing, it is very clear that they regard us as the next replacement for dark-skinned people. A constitutional amendment stripping us of civil rights is an unheard of step outside of Nazi Germany and other such places...they know exactly what they are doing and why.

One of the reasons democracy failed in Germany back in the early 1930's was this tendency among progressives and liberals to insist on intellectual purity - everything had to be 100% right or it was a poor compromise. The Nazis, just like the whack jobs who are holding the republicans hostage and the christianists didn't care about getting it right - dead was dead and that was all they cared about. Jews, Roma, devout Catholics, homosexuals, people with mental and physical defects, socialists (the real ones, not what ignorant fools run around calling people whom they don't like), trade union organizers, women who were too emancipated (uppity of them to think they were the equals of men), children born of mixed races...the list goes on and on.

And that is precisely what these monsters in California are trying to do. We have to alert people to how dangerous this is, we must set aside our petty differences and work together. Everytime I read that a Hillary supporter is going to vote for McCain "to show us" I cringe. Everytime someone here says "they're all the same" about politicians or attacks someone for daring not to drink the kool-aid, I wonder why I can't find the Egyptian forum so I, too, can sail my barge down that river, de-neal.

They will win if we don't take action. They know what the stakes are...we need to find a way to explain what's at risk to people, and we need to do it soon.
 
Panthera,

I enjoy your discourse very much. Though, your use of the self-coined term 'christianist' I find very hard to accept. There is no such thing as a 'christianist' - period. There are only people who consider themselves christians with different approaches to their beliefs. I am an atheist and have been since a very young age - contrary to my paternal grandmother's attempts to make me become a catholic - whatever that is supposed to be. To me anyone who goes to a church and believes in the Bible is a christian. The intensity of their christianess, I guess, would depend on their personal interpretations of their religious texts and how they apply these to their daily lives. As individuals most of these people are quite pleasant, generous and all that, but get them in their peer group and the dynamic changes. Now, I hold this opinion of all followers of the Abrahamic faiths. I don't care much at all for any of it. If there were such a thing as the devil I would say that the Abrahamic faiths are of its making.

I am of the opinion that anyone who wishes to follow Christ should be Jewish anyway. I would wager that if Christ truly existed or was exactly as we are taught, he would be apalled by Christianity, the New Testament and especially the Pope.

We have been taught to be too sensitive, unquestioning and tolerant of relgions and their dogma. A little less religiosity and more common sense would go a long way towards making life better for everyone. People care too much about their beliefs when they should question what it is that they actually know.
 
Rapunzel - Qui tacet, consentire videtur

Danke für die Blumen - but I did not coin the phrase. It barely still qualifies as a "neologism". I first read it (and it might well be in) an article written by Andrew Sullivan.
You will find the term in frequent use at:
Slate
Washington Post
Atlantic (Duh)
Der Spiegel
among many others.
I have heard it on Hardball, Oprah has made reference to it, The Sunday Times does not set it in quotes...

The term is used to denote those exact distinctions you so very elegantly have made: Many Christians are fine, if slightly unkosher Jews. Others are harmless members of a Jewish sect which has proclaimed itself independent.
Yet others are truly sheep blindly following their Führer.

Then there are the hateful monsters who abuse the christian religion and, predominately the power of the republican party, to achive their goals of destroying civil rights for women, gays and many other groups. They cherry pick the bible, they place the words of Paul above those of Jesus...
 
Christianists, Civil Unions, blah blah blah...

I don't expect anything to change in my lifetime when it comes to marriage or two men or two women. I don't expect the religious right to ever understand how discriminitory their messages and laws are towards me. I don't expect to ever be treated as a grown man who can make his own decisions that affect only me and no one else.

I do know that I will fight it all the best way I know how. I will stay with the love of my life for as long as I can live. It doesn't matter what anyone calls this union that we have. In a way I appreciate that it's been so difficult for us. It's not something that you can just go downtown to get a certificate for. We have to fight really hard to be with the one we love and, for that reason, I think it will be nearly impossible for anyone to ever break us apart.

For what it's worth...

I've been serving in the US Army for nearly 6 years now and my last day is this Saturday. Tony's last job was working a military charter flight to Kuwait. My unit has always known about my sexual preference and has come to love Tony as well. I bring him to work with me now and then and they treat him like he's one of them. They specifically want him to be with me when they do a going-away party for us next week.

This is something I never expected when I joined the Army but it really makes me feel good to know that this kind of acceptance and maturity exists in many unsuspecting places.

Hooaah!
 
To me if we take religion out of this and take away the Bible that these"Christians" love to hide behind...they dont have much of a leg to stand on. If 2 people care and love each other then they should have the right to be "married" also known as being committed to each other. It amazes me the people I know in my life that are on their 3rd or 4th marriage and dont think anything about it. If things dont work out they move on.
The funny thing I saw the other day in the paper is about Miss Anne Hech. She has been down the Merry Muncher Way and then whoops she decided that ellen wasnt enough so she went for a guy. Got married then divorced got married again got knocked up and then popped out the kid then she decided it was quits and it cost her dearly. To the tune of $275,000 and then close to $4,000 a month for child support. So what I am saying that sometimes we have to think about the consequences of what we do and what we want.
For myself when I left my ex in Omaha I think to myself the royal screwing he would have gotten if we were married legally. But it was a clean break for me and I didnt look back. I so dont want anything to do with him but I know in the back of my mind the guy he is with now is going to take him for a ride he will never forget. If he hasnt already.
 
Rapunzel

Your list can't be longer than mine. Hah! Mine is longer!
The number of things I know nothing about gets longer every day.
Sigh.
At least I still know that I don't know, that's something.
I hope.

I sometimes wonder why there is so much opposition to us from people who themselves have benefited enormously from the civil rights movement. You still hear so much about how homosexuality is a "choice". Funny, to me that would imply that there are a lot of heterosexuals running around who "chose" to be that way...

We need to do offer some serious education and we need to do it soon. Of course, when dealing with people who won't accept the evidence for evolution, believe the world is not quite 6,000 years old...
 
Congrats Jon!

And thanks for your service.

My last long-term partner was an Army captain, and I got the same acceptance from his office subordinates. Truly wonderful group of guys. But this was before the current don't-ask period (or whatever they're calling it nowadays), when simply being gay could still get you thrown out of the service. Chuck already had a 15-year Army career under his belt at the time we met, and he worked in their CID, which ironically was the same division responsible for weeding out and persecuting gay people (among many others). And some of his superiors were very scary "old school" types.

At one point they went after Chuck, came up with this written diatribe about his "frequenting known homosexual establishments" (we often met for drinks or coffee at what used to be the Sausalito Inn, a gay bar near SF) yadda yadda. Chuck told the Army, "Ok fine, if I go down I'm taking four generals with me" (they knew that was not an idle threat).

What do you know, the following week the Army informed Chuck they had dropped their investigation and all was well again. I kind of wish they had stood their ground and let it erupt into something out of a soap opera.

Anyway here's a photo of him. Tragically he contracted HIV a few years after we broke up and passed away from AIDS in 1996. His parents refused to fly out from Indiana to even claim his body.

I still miss him terribly, he was one of the most beautiful human beings I've ever known, inside and out.

6-11-2008-13-49-26--JeffG.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top