Gay Marriage/civil Unions

[BrassFusion]

umm...

"In an interview with FactCheck.org, Paul Cates of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union stressed the cultural significance of marriage: "You're not a little kid dreaming about your civil union day. It's your wedding day." When you want to commit to a partner, "you're not really thinking about the [legal] protections," he says. "It's the significance and what it means to be married and hold yourself out as married.""

"As previously noted, even states that allow for same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships – including California, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Washington – have passed laws defining marriage as something that occurs between a man and a woman. Liberal-leaning politicians have made that distinction as well: Most of the Democratic candidates set to debate these issues support extending all the federal legal rights of married couples to same-sex couples – but they don't want to call that "marriage.""

Yes, it is. Either you didn't read a good part of the original post or you're missing something severe.

Ok, I'll rephrase what I said so it's easier for you to understand.

No one* cares if gays have civil unions or marriages or whatever just as long as it's the same thing straights have.

*with common sense

Personally I think you guys are correct and wrong at the same time. I'm of the type where I think, yes gays should be allowed to marry, but shouldn't be able to get any benefits like straight couples. "Why?" you ask? Because I don't think that straight couples should even get those benefits (not all of the benefits, just most of them). There are many single parents out there that are truely fucking struggling while couples have a much easier time raising children, having the ability to have two working adults in the house and also the ability to trade off watching the child(ren) and taking physical care of them. It's much harder if you're one woman living in a house with yourself, no one to watch the kids while you're at work (day care is a BITCH to your pocketbook) and then you don't have an extra income like married couples. So tell me....WHY do married couples get health insurance from the government whereas a single mother cannot? (my roommates get free health, dental, and vision just because they got hitched and had a kid. If they were still unmarried they would get none of this) So it seems to me that benefits for married couples aren't just unnecessary, such as higher tax deductions and rebates, it's pretty prejudice against people who choose to raise children unmarried, just like alot of men/women. I think single parents should be getting benefits from the goverment like SS and more aide because they don't, but for some reason married couples who already have a much higher advantage are handed even MORE. Just does not make sence to me in IMO

But as for it being "moral" or "unmoral" and all that, I mean I'm a Christian Republican (of the sort where I think if God hated gays then that's between him and homosexual people, not us, that and I also have to figure God doesn't "hate" anyone. That would just be silly.) and I gotta figure that gay people have the right to get married and be just as miserable as the rest of us. It's no fair they should be allowed to escape from the same misery as straight people.

Gay people already have the right to be married with no benefit of federal recognition (or state, excepting few).

Hell, if I wanna grab... uh... Shade Everdark by the elbow and drag him around and call him my "husband" without securing a marriage license or having any sort of ceremony, who's gonna stop me?

Except Shade, of course, if he didn't agree to it.

And uh, the local law enforcement, if he didn't agree to the physical elbow-pulling.

But my point is if Shade loves me as much as I love him (smoochies!!!) then we're legally able to refer to ourselves as "married" in every unofficial sense. It's the official senses we'd be missing out on, such as tax forms, hospital visitation, him signing detention slips for the beautiful children we'll have together someday, etc.

As in... the official aspects that gay couples are missing out on, regardless how many ceremonies they have to affirm their commitment. It's quite the commentary on society that better than half the US population is so insecure with their natural human desires that they won't even allow others to openly admit to practicing the very sexual activities they feel too guilty to engage in themselves. Prudes will put down the "gay agenda" at any cost, and they're hurting real people in doing so.

All things considered, it's a sad state of affairs. If you don't agree, hell, just ask my husband and he'll tell you the same thing.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If the issue was just about money (what you refer to as "rights"", the word used to describe it would not matter to those seeking it. Or really to those that oppose it.

A Bill could be passed to amend every single one of those 1,138 laws replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union". A grand father clause would have to be inserted to validate all existing marriage lic.

The tradition of marriage would get the governments fingers out of it. The people, of all orientations would be equal when it comes to spousal rights.

No, no one gets to point and laugh at the losers if the fight. Everyone wins. WTF is your problem with that?

[BrassFusion]

If the issue was just about money (what you refer to as "rights"", the word used to describe it would not matter to those seeking it. Or really to those that oppose it.

A Bill could be passed to amend every single one of those 1,138 laws replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union". A grand father clause would have to be inserted to validate all existing marriage lic.

The tradition of marriage would get the governments fingers out of it. The people, of all orientations would be equal when it comes to spousal rights.

No, no one gets to point and laugh at the losers if the fight. Everyone wins. WTF is your problem with that?

What's my problem with what? I already said I don't agree with those who think the term itself is the issue. And it's obviously not JUST about money to everyone involved. I don't know why you think I said that.

No, no one gets to point and laugh at the losers if the fight.

And this seemed central to your point by virtue of its placement, but I can't wrap my head around what you mean by it.

[Steven]

umm...

"In an interview with FactCheck.org, Paul Cates of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union stressed the cultural significance of marriage: “You’re not a little kid dreaming about your civil union day. It’s your wedding day.” When you want to commit to a partner, “you’re not really thinking about the [legal] protections,” he says. “It’s the significance and what it means to be married and hold yourself out as married.”"

I've stayed out of this one because I've been in it before and it always seems to lead to me soapboxing and such, but in a nushell, I think this quote summed up MY (personally - it dont have to be your problem) problem with the inclusionof gay marriage as a standard culteral setting. This quotation her does not describe equall rights in terms of monetary gain or civil service provision or whatnot.

its talkign about social accpetance - which is what I still beleive is the core of theis issue.

and my problem with that in general, is that the gay lifestyle in general, is simply not a monogomous lifestyle.

its also not a committed lifestyle. its a lifestyle of getting your rocks off with whomever and however much you want. And even the monogomous relationships that I have watched personally over the years, almost always included at least one partners sub-partner fuck buddy system. yes I discussing things on a purely moral level here wihihc will make most of you vomit but fukit. when your done wiping off yoru shoes think about it: I personally, make a great many sacrifices to uphold a nurture soemthing that has stood the test of time thru hard work. Most of you know and see marriages that are abominations in and of themselves between men and women, and I dont agree with that shit either, it pissies me off just as much.

But I do not want to add to - and provide a social recognition for - something that I beleive by the nunbers (being general here) is a failed system - I do not want to add that and thus further re-christen and water down what used to be the family building block. To me it has nothign to do with "rights" - it has everythtgin to do with bottom line truth and the question of "does it work???"

I dont believe it does.

Ive used this example before: remember Julie Cypher and Melissa Ethridge and their marrriage and their chjildren that Julie gave birth to with David Crosby's sperm? On the cover of people magazine - a big loveing wionderful new age family all you need is love love love love love is all yo uneed to hell with these old fahioned labels stigmas bullshit this is a new revalatory age - a new age for man - a new age for the family - we have expanded our knowledge, expanded our ability to love another without prejudice, and this is good for the children, it teaches them even better values.

and it fucken crashed and burned a couple of years later.

all you need is love.

and a three way split for the kids between Melissa and her new lover(s)

Julie who now says "well Im just not gay"

and David Crosby - a man with another man's liver because he shit canned his own with dope.

that story never made the cover of people magazine.

we love the theory of equality and I get that. But we sure dont want to talk about the risks and the ugly side of it.

allright people, line up and start swingin at me....Brass, you first.

[phee]

Eh... won't say too much in response to Steven accept that:

"Gay Lifestyle" as you put it and making judgements as to weather or not it is monogmus or not... seems to be a bit close minded... I know a few gay couples that have been together in committed relationships longer then nearly all the "Straight Lifestyle" couples I know...

By saying "Gay Lifestyle" would be about the same as me saying "Black Lifestyle" is more violent and has more fired chicken, or that (if we are going with the homosexuality is a choice idea, as is religion) "Christian Lifestyle" is much more towards persecution of minorities and the torture and slaying of infidels....

Carry on now

[Steven]

Eh... won't say too much in response to Steven accept that:

"Gay Lifestyle" as you put it and making judgements as to weather or not it is monogmus or not... seems to be a bit close minded... I know a few gay couples that have been together in committed relationships longer then nearly all the "Straight Lifestyle" couples I know...

By saying "Gay Lifestyle" would be about the same as me saying "Black Lifestyle" is more violent and has more fired chicken, or that (if we are going with the homosexuality is a choice idea, as is religion) "Christian Lifestyle" is much more towards persecution of minorities and the torture and slaying of infidels....

Carry on now

you have every right to feel this way and I respect it.

"making judgements"..... the truth is we ALL do that Phee - we all decide what is seemignly good or not good as a whole, in essence you just judged me and my judgment...... I'd rather we all just say "this is how I feel" - because I knew that stating what I just did in the above post would start the arrows flying, however Im not a bullshitter, and this is indeed - how I feel. I noticed that you failed to mention my inclusion of shitty heterosexual marriages as well. That judgement was also in there.

and lets use the broad brushstrokes - its ok with me.

for example the black communities alleged higher violence levels - is there any merit to the data?

if I cite it to build a point - have I then moved into bigotry? Judgment? or have I simply pulled from an accquired database?

Ive used it on my own race by the way - this methodology - I have many times posted about what bothers me in the Latino family unit and lifestyle - there is lots of back asswards shit going on there. Now yes I am Latin so I suppose that gives me a free pass but trust me I'd have said it anyway even if my eyes were blue and my hair was blonde and I was talking about a measurable standard that is easily identifyable.

The Gay Lifestyle - I am talking about the LIFESTYLE most commonly found - within the gay community.

I am not arguing wherther or not being gay is something born with. I am not chastizing gay people. In fact when have you ever seen me do that?

I am referring to the LIFESTYLE in general - and yes Phee I have ALOT of experience personally interacting with this lifestyle being where I come from - the LIFESTYLE in general is one of many rotating partners. many. often. alot. buncha. thats the truth. I dont care if it sounds like judgement. it also happens to be the truth. doesent make me a bigot or holier than thou.....in the process I have seen a lot of lonely people Phee, with breakdown after breakdown after breakdown of their relationships. I have sat with them while they cried to me about it - I dont sit there on my white fluffy mountain and "Fag Bash". These friends have sat at my table for Xmas, exchanged drunken stupid jokes with me over a campfire, sat next to me in weddings, made pomogranete jelly with me in the kitchen, held my head up while I puked, sang with me at concerts at the Hollywood bowl, and asked us to pray over their partners in the hospital who were dying of aids - and thats some ugly shit to watch up close Phee. I dont say this shit just to say it from a safe and haughty place. I say it because I've expereinced it first hand. and it saddens me. just like other friends - straight friends - who's lifestyles simply repeat themselves and at some point I have to go "Dude - is what you'v been doing EVER going to work?" I may come off as judgemental on paper Phee - but thats because its a written medium and I give my bottom line thoughts on teh process.

By the way - I used the Mellisa Ethridge / Julia Cypher example as a distant example. In my case, my personal history includes at least two lesbian families that self destructed (both times over infidelity-jealousy) that included kids who in turn were pretty fucked up. My first indroctrination into this lifestyle came at 15 - because my next door neighbor ran a lesbian bar on Colorado Blvd in Pasadena - they used to let me go in there to drink under age. that is when I first started making friends with the gay and lesbian community, as a kid. I dont see them as freaks. I dont see them as anythign other than people. But I DO see the lifestyle - and ANY lifestyle of wanton promiscuety (which was my prsonal trip too) eventually lead to disallusionment and breakdown, hetero ro otherwise - BUT WERE TALKIGN ABOUT THE GAY LIFESTYLE TODAY.

and the Christian Lifstyle is more fucked up than even you mentioned Bro - I have no problem with that either and in all fairness have MANY times talked abotu my frustration with it.

there - now we know that although im an antiquated judgmental dinosaur I'm still being fair in my consistency if nothing else.

next in line, batter up.

[phee]

The Gay Lifestyle - I am talking about the LIFESTYLE most commonly found - within the gay community.

I am not arguin wherther or not being gay is somethign born with.

I think that this might be better stated as most commonly found and judged by Steven.... as I have said, this permiscuious lifestyle you have described is not most commonly found by me...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I've got to agree with phee here. My cousin has been in the same relationship for 30 years. The man who introduced me to my wife has been with his partner for 11 years. How faithful a person is to their chosen mate has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

[phee]

I've got to agree with phee here. My cousin has been in the same relationship for 30 years. The man who introduced me to my wife has been with his partner for 11 years. How faithful a person is to their chosen mate has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

Here here mark.... thankyou....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Not a problem phee.

And Brass, the reason I said that no one gets to point and laugh is that people want to fight about this. Even if the people they are talking to want pretty much the same thing as them. They want to win that fight and wont compromise at all. They stick to their guns waiting for the day they can stand over the body's of the defeated and raise their arms in victory. They care more about the defeating their perceived enemy's than what the victory brings.

54% of Americans oppose gay marriage, but I would hazard a guess that a higher percent than that support Civil Unions. It should be obvious what we should be fighting for and how to fight it.

[Destroit]

I've stayed out of this one because I've been in it before and it always seems to lead to me soapboxing and such, but in a nushell, I think this quote summed up MY (personally - it dont have to be your problem) problem with the inclusionof gay marriage as a standard culteral setting. This quotation her does not describe equall rights in terms of monetary gain or civil service provision or whatnot.

its talkign about social accpetance - which is what I still beleive is the core of theis issue.

and my problem with that in general, is that the gay lifestyle in general, is simply not a monogomous lifestyle.

its also not a committed lifestyle. its a lifestyle of getting your rocks off with whomever and however much you want. And even the monogomous relationships that I have watched personally over the years, almost always included at least one partners sub-partner fuck buddy system. yes I discussing things on a purely moral level here wihihc will make most of you vomit but fukit. when your done wiping off yoru shoes think about it: I personally, make a great many sacrifices to uphold a nurture soemthing that has stood the test of time thru hard work. Most of you know and see marriages that are abominations in and of themselves between men and women, and I dont agree with that shit either, it pissies me off just as much.

But I do not want to add to - and provide a social recognition for - something that I beleive by the nunbers (being general here) is a failed system - I do not want to add that and thus further re-christen and water down what used to be the family building block. To me it has nothign to do with "rights" - it has everythtgin to do with bottom line truth and the question of "does it work???"

I dont believe it does.

Ive used this example before: remember Julie Cypher and Melissa Ethridge and their marrriage and their chjildren that Julie gave birth to with David Crosby's sperm? On the cover of people magazine - a big loveing wionderful new age family all you need is love love love love love is all yo uneed to hell with these old fahioned labels stigmas bullshit this is a new revalatory age - a new age for man - a new age for the family - we have expanded our knowledge, expanded our ability to love another without prejudice, and this is good for the children, it teaches them even better values.

and it fucken crashed and burned a couple of years later.

all you need is love.

and a three way split for the kids between Melissa and her new lover(s)

Julie who now says "well Im just not gay"

and David Crosby - a man with another man's liver because he shit canned his own with dope.

that story never made the cover of people magazine.

we love the theory of equality and I get that. But we sure dont want to talk about the risks and the ugly side of it.

allright people, line up and start swingin at me....Brass, you first.

I'd hate to be stereotypical on anything really, there's more that meets the eye nine times out of ten. My ex best-friend and roommate was heavily lesbian, but with her she was very devout to whom she was dating and didn't believe in just fucking around with tons of girls. They were together for four years and the other girl ended up dumping her. I will admit that being raised in a life with closed in walls, I knew about homosexuality but never encountered it first hand until I was best friends with her and two years into our friendship she we were waiting in a drive thru line at White Castle and I mentioned guys I'd wanna be with and she said "well if I came down to it, if I HAD to pick a guy that I'd do, it would be so and so. But that would be the ONLY guy ever I'd consider" and obviously this raised question marks for me and she explained that she was gay. I used to be absolutely appalled by the thought of gay people, I used to use the word fag all the time, I used to think they weren't as good as "normal" people, etc, so at first I was taken aback by what she had told me. But by this time I was in high school and since I have massive compassion and empathy, I put myself in her place, and I opened my mind. I don't know how someone can be someone else's sidekick for two years and not know that, but maybe she felt uncomfortable with telling me about it until she knew that I was a good friend and accept people for being people. Which I did. It was weird getting used to seeing her and her girlfriend together at first for me, and I'm not going to lie it grossed me out (I just naturally don't find females attractive, although had they been gay guys I woulda bell like "HELLZ YEAHZ, you guys should makeout..."), but I forced myself to treat their relationship just as I would treat a straight relationship, and you know what after awhile the pieces fell in place and I really didn't even notice. It was like second nature to me, deeming them as being serious and going to be married someday and have kids, and I even talked about babysitting their kids, what they'd be like, etc. But what I'm trying to get at is in their 5 year relationship, they never had "fuck buddies", never cheated on each other, and held each other in high regards and MOREOVER were probably more in love and infatuated with each other than I see most straight couples.

So I will say that lesbians/gays can have very serious relationships without any interferrence from cheating and such. I will ALSO go to say that if you don't think straight couples are just as deceitful, dishonest, and cheating around, then you must live in a nice big room with pastel walls lol. I have seen so much more disgusting debauchery come from straight couples than I could ever imagine coming from gays. Gays are very straight out about what they do with other people, they're very open generally and can be read like books. Straight couples, many are together because they feel like they have to be, many just want to get laid so they have one girlfriend and tons of mistresses (the girlfriend, obviously not knowing and being subject to both disease and heartbreak). They'll play headgames, cheat like it's no big deal, have no respect for a monogamous relationship. My relationship with Raven is pretty much the only non-cheating relationship I know about with quite a few of my friends in the past. Women are nastily sleezy now, I know a case where a friend of mine had a girlfriend (when this story happened she was his ex because he dumped her nasty ass when he found out what a sleazy cheating whore she was) and this girl was over her best friends house. Well her best friend had to go to the store really quick and the minute she was gone, the tramp ex-girlfriend of my friend went right into the kitchen where her best friend's boyfriend was and lifted up her skirt (no undies obviously) and was like "hey, wanna fuck?" and they did it right there in the fucking kitchen as casual as a handshake. No condom, no nothing, no "sorry" afterwards. Which to me, morally, is fucking disgusting. That's what dogs do in the streets, not fucking people (two cents).

So Steven, I won't say you're wrong, I'll just say you need to keep your eyes open, not your ears. It's easy to believe what you see on the news and stuff like that, but I can't help but notice different, because I actually see this stuff first hand (I used to be against gay marriage strongly much like you, but have changed my stance on it).

Besides, somebody needs to adopt all them orphans, gays do a great service by raising kids that straight people had and threw away like old garbage. That gives those children the loving homes they deserve and on top of that, gays, although mildly, help to control the population.

[BrassFusion]

honestly, mark? i think your idea re: keeping marriage as a religious/spiritual/personal status and separate from governmentally recognized unions that are equal for hetero- or homosexual couples is a fantastic idea. i don't think the gay rights activists are going to push for that, though, because that could be seen as an "attack on marriage," which the religious right is convinced is part of the gay agenda.

but back to the unions. i ALSO believe (and this is probably even more extreme, but i'm not sure if it would be considered "extreme liberal" just because i'm generally a liberal!) that that sort of union should be available to any two adults who wish it. YES, even a brother and a sister, for example, or what those new-agey sensitive guys call their "hetero life partners." i mean, hell, love can exist in very strong states without sex, and I see no problem with platonic commitments being the basis for a legitimate "marriage." like, let's say a brother and a sister wanted to adopt a child and raise it together. why not? it would be weird to call that situation a "marriage (at least, weird to me)," but again- that's just a word, one that shouldn't have a meaning defined by any government. it would be easier on everyone if the legal ones were all called "civil unions."

which brings me back full circle to the liberal "attack on marriage," I suppose.

[Steven]

well you guys have thrown in some interesting counters regarding long term relationships.

I still dont think this is the norm inside of the lifestyle, but I certainly dont refute what you know, we have radically differing experiences in this regard. So there is nothign more for me to add here, you allready know where I stand in that the current standard/description of marriage is challangeing enough - I personally dont want to open the floodgates to further re-define it.

[Steven]

So Steven, I won't say you're wrong, I'll just say you need to keep your eyes open, not your ears. It's easy to believe what you see on the news and stuff like that, but I can't help but notice different, because I actually see this stuff first hand (I used to be against gay marriage strongly much like you, but have changed my stance on it).

good post.

adder:

perhaps you may want to go back and read my edited first post Chernobyl.

my conclusions dont come from the media - they come from years of first hand experience. Try to understand that I made my first Gay couple freindship at 15, (my neighbors who owned a gay bard in Pasadena) this relationship incidently also crashed and bruned and there were also kids involved and one of them lost it.

being from california the gay lifestyle in general was much more open and visible that would be found of that here in the midwest. Laura and I have had quite a few gay and lesbian friendships over the years, and being a musician has also kept that door open to intermingling with alternative lifestyles. Even in the military I knew quite a few Lesbians, although I admit I only knew of one gay male soldier - this is early 80's a different time and place in terms of acceptance. I only say this because you seem to beleive that Ive formed my opinion out of media coverage and possibly church programming, when that is not the case at all. I've formed my opinions out of watchign the end result for many years. But the gay agenda (both sides of it) is such a hot spot this day and age - If I take an anti-stance - and bear in mind this is in this arena only - you've never seen me making anti gay rants and I have no desire or calling to protest or try to re-educate those who condone the life - if I take that stance I automatically become one of "them"....

but am I really? the thigns Ive seen are not imagined, nor have I ostracized anyone ever, for their sexuality or for any reason. I simply dont agree with it...

[phee]

I think it may have simply been the wording of "The Gay Life Style"... That lumps all gays into a specific form of behavior is all. That was why I brought up choice... Ones life style is ones choice... being gay doesn't make you act a certain life style... culture does... The only reason I am harping on this is because that kind of language is at the root of a lot of intolerence...

Gay people can be as different from one another as black people are from one another... or guys named "Steve" can be from one another, (Stops and think about what the "Steve Life Style" would be like). There is one thing and one thing only that classifies a person as homosexual, and life style is not it.

[Steven]

I think it may have simply been the wording of "The Gay Life Style"... That lumps all gays into a specific form of behavior is all. That was why I brought up choice... Ones life style is ones choice... being gay doesn't make you act a certain life style... culture does... The only reason I am harping on this is because that kind of language is at the root of a lot of intolerence...

Gay people can be as different from one another as black people are from one another... or guys named "Steve" can be from one another, (Stops and think about what the "Steve Life Style" would be like). There is one thing and one thing only that classifies a person as homosexual, and life style is not it.

true Dude but please, your not speaking to a career bigot or someone who never considers another point of view.

we can go round and round on this one - for example I can instead cite "the culture of the gay lifestyle"....and by and large Bro, I STILL beleive that in general (uh oh a generalization) this multiple partner facet is a very large part of the lifestyle. My argumetns have not been at any point "God says this is wrong" or... "this is disgusting" or anythign remotely close to that. What I have suggested - making very clear that this is my point of view and leaving room for yours - AND tying in similar Heterosexual parralels - is that this generalization - for me - does not work long term - that it becomes detrimental to a healthy relationship - and therefore I dont want to add to what were allready struggling with in terms of "marriage".

obviously there are exceptions - just like there are exceptions to the many different statements that are made about Xtians - at some point I have to consider the source fo the information and his or her past behaviour in here.

is that not reasonable?

and the root of intolerance Phee - crosses many boundries and disguises itself in PC'isms quite nicely, even in here....

for example brutha for a couple of months you had that anti christian tag line on your avatar didint you?

Its your right to feel that way - but to use it as an identifyer on your avatar - What does that communicate to me - a xtian - or somebody like me or somebody new here in DGN - about tolerance? Should I have taken that as a "welcome - were all equals in here" ???? Or should I have taken it as a personal statment made en masse that a person like me who "sort of" belonngs to a particular sub-culture is laughable?

I see alot of double standards in here man, I really do.

[phee]

Are you talking Lifestyle? or Subculture?

I never mentioned gay subculture....

To me, life style and subculture are different things... I mean if I were gay... I could choose to go to gay bars, wear pink and talk funny... and therefor live in a subculture... or I could choose to have a live in partner of the same sex, and get "married" therefor living a lifestyle without the subculture...

See what I mean... it's not about PC... its about being understood...

[BrassFusion]

Steven, three things:

It doesn't matter whether you "agree" with someone else's life.

Opening the definition of marriage to include gays (and platonic couples, as would be my wont, down the road) would be tricky and confusing for some, but such is the price of equality. It is not anyone's God-given right to be comfortable with everything happening around them. In fact, discomfort builds character.

If you consider me anti-Christian in the same manner you do Phee, I'm fine with that, because Christianity is a choice. Homosexuality is not.

(that last one was a bit facetious, as I do not consider myself anti-Christian... I suppose being so might make me anti-Steven, which I'm not. But you get my meaning)

[Steven]

Are you talking Lifestyle? or Subculture?

I never mentioned gay subculture....

To me, life style and subculture are different things... I mean if I were gay... I could choose to go to gay bars, wear pink and talk funny... and therefor live in a subculture... or I could choose to have a live in partner of the same sex, and get "married" therefor living a lifestyle without the subculture...

See what I mean... it's not about PC... its about being understood...

well I think your just doing some clean up here Phee.

"sub-culture"..... in my understanding would communicate some sort of structured minority within the whole.

so lets get real.

in the Hetero world - people advocating marriage and monogomy - are they even in the majority any longer? I would suggest otherwise. just going thru this board and reading differeing opinions on it would back that up. Someone like me...I am the minority.

in the Homosexual world as a large all encompassing group - you are suggesting to me then that the promiscuous or multi partner lifestyle is a sub-culture - is a minority among the whole? Thats what yrou saying to me right?

[Steven]

Steven, three things:

It doesn't matter whether you "agree" with someone else's life.

Opening the definition of marriage to include gays (and platonic couples, as would be my wont, down the road) would be tricky and confusing for some, but such is the price of equality. It is not anyone's God-given right to be comfortable with everything happening around them. In fact, discomfort builds character.

If you consider me anti-Christian in the same manner you do Phee, I'm fine with that, because Christianity is a choice. Homosexuality is not.

(that last one was a bit facetious, as I do not consider myself anti-Christian... I suppose being so might make me anti-Steven, which I'm not. But you get my meaning)

I liked this post Erin.

And I only consider you a friend. Same thing with Phee actually, my use of his avatar tag was to enlighten soemthign that will very probably go untouched.

[BrassFusion]

well I think your just doing some clean up here Phee.

"sub-culture"..... in my understanding would communicate some sort of structured minority within the whole.

so lets get real.

in the Hetero world - people advocating marriage and monogomy - are they even in the majority any longer? I would suggest otherwise. just going thru this board and reading differeing opinions on it would back that up. Someone like me...I am the minority.

in the Homosexual world as a large all encompassing group - you are suggesting to me then that the promiscuous or multi partner lifestyle is a sub-culture - is a minority among the whole? Thats what yrou saying to me right?

people aren't cookie cutter like that. there are black kids who listen to hip hop music who don't do drugs and aren't in gangs... just as one example... but it could be argued that drugs and gangs are part of a greater black urban subculture. that doesn't mean in any way that we can look at some kid in a fubu jersey and automatically assume he has a can of spraypaint in his backpack. didn't you see any after-school specials after around 1975?

[phee]

well I think your just doing some clean up here Phee.

"sub-culture"..... in my understanding would communicate some sort of structured minority within the whole.

so lets get real.

in the Hetero world - people advocating marriage and monogomy - are they even in the majority any longer? I would suggest otherwise. just going thru this board and reading differeing opinions on it would back that up. Someone like me...I am the minority.

in the Homosexual world as a large all encompassing group - you are suggesting to me then that the promiscuous or multi partner lifestyle is a sub-culture - is a minority among the whole? Thats what yrou saying to me right?

I am saying that whether or not you are homosexual has no effect on whether or not you are "promiscuous or multi partner lifestyle"... that is something that is more a product of who you are as a person... not whether you are gay or not... You are who you are by the choices you make... not which gender you are drawn to...

[freydis]

Subculture----- Merriam-Webster defines this as:

2: an ethnic, regional, economic, or social group exhibiting characteristic patterns of behavior sufficient to distinguish it from others within an embracing culture or society

Nowhere is the word "minority" used.

A subculture is a division of a culture, period. Not a minority among the culture, just a *division* among the culture.

[Steven]

I am saying that whether or not you are homosexual has no effect on whether or not you are "promiscuous or multi partner lifestyle"... that is something that is more a product of who you are as a person... not whether you are gay or not... You are who you are by the choices you make... not which gender you are drawn to...

Jesus, your deliberately not answering the question I asked of you Phee, stop pussyfooting with me, I respect you.

you guys asked for opinions as it relates to MARRIAGE or civil unions of the same sex category. this would have to entail generalizations.

I gave you my replies and the whys of those replies.

I got answers back akin to "homosexuality is somethign your born with it is not a choice"

cool. only I made no statements to that effect one way or the other and could give a shit - yet that argument was presented to me. An argument I never made. A concern I literally do not have.

Now I'm getting another argument - you are telling me that the state of being a homosexual - has nothign to do with promiscuety.

but again your countering a statement that i am not making. I am not saying that being gay automatically makes you hump ten dudes every tuesday. Remember - were talkign about marriage and re-writing it.

I have specifically talked about the homosexual lifestyle, the culture, as a generalization (yes!!), stating that it is my personal beleif that overall - by the numbers - check the data - the lifestyle as a generalization - is promuscuous.

and therefore

therefore in light of that promiscuety as it would relate to marriage, children, the family - and in fact Im pretty sure I sued all three of those words:

I dont want another take on re-writing marriage.

its no different than me sayign that I dont agree with open marriages either.

but society has allready created a vehicle that allows that take on it.

I simply do not wish to ADD yet another.

we have a big enough mess with it (marriage and its failure) allready.

[Steven]

Subculture----- Merriam-Webster defines this as:

Nowhere is the word "minority" used.

A subculture is a division of a culture, period. Not a minority among the culture, just a *division* among the culture.

I accept this but it does not in any way change my original argument or change the question I presented to Phee.

we are speaking in generalities here, lets be real.

I touched a nerve, I knew I would. I am anti-gay marriage. There is no way for me to be anti-gay marriage, without the rhetoric thrown my direction. Its impossible.