Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Q Classic]

Choices have consequences. You can preach until you are blue in the face, but in the end if people want to go their own way, they will do so. I don't see that gay people are hard done by the current situation. I don't see gay people beaten up in the streets.

The question is about equality.

It seems to me, unlike persecution, they are extolled. I am sorry, my heart bleeds for them and their troubles. I'm sure theirs do for mine.

As you clearly have no concern for them, why should they have any concern for you?

I have to jump through extra hoops as well. It's not fun, but that's the hand I've been dealt. I can either whine about it or get my **** together and get it done. So long as I have access to the same rights as everyone else, I don't care what hurdles get thrown up.

The point is that they do not necessarily have the same rights as everyone else, only an approximation.

If they want to live a day in my shoes, they are very much welcome.

And yet, you have no interest in living a day in the shoes of a gay person.

It's a fact of life, that life is not fair. You are not going to get everything handed to you.

Nobody's asking for that, dick. They're asking to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, which is something that is not currently happening.

Does anyone actually bother reading my argument? I'm arguing doing away with it altogether, for everyone. Have some form of civil union or whatnot if you want the recognition, with no other rights attached to it.

If that truly was your argument, then why are you so bothered by the fact that gays want equal rights under the law as straights? Why are you so upset that other churches provide marriages for gays, and why do you fight with them?

If you truly didn't give a **** about it, and wanted to do away with it altogether, with none of the attendant rights, why are you so ****ing impassioned about preventing another group of people receiving it?

I call 'em as I see 'em. I didn't want to have to go through all that paperwork for my dad's stuff, but guess what, life ain't fair. Hearing other people whining about it when it is the love of their life, just makes me laugh.

Wow. You're a dick. The couple in question went through all the necessary paperwork, didn't seem to complain, got the closest approximation to a married relationship that they could under the law...
...and were still denied.

No, life isn't fair. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make things as fair as possible. That was something that is very clearly discrimination--and by that very definition, unfair.

Then explain it to me. I've explained mine.

You actually haven't. You've only stated that it's Chaucer, from one specific story. Which is fine, but if you need to have it explained to you, then you have not truly experienced it. If you've ever had even a hint of it, you'd know what it could be.

I believe the word is sodomy.

Ah, there we go.

And I believe the word for your beliefs is "asshattery".

[Q Classic]

I don't. You folks are the ones arguing that my beliefs are outmoded and will fade away with time. I'm of the belief that we've always had this particular argument and we always will have this particular argument as a conflict of two very different worldviews.

And you're the one *****ing about gays complaining, and yet you're the one doing the whining.

Yes, and the hospital argues it has no obligation to admit anyone at all. Which is, of course the right interpretation.

Ah, yes.
The "right interpretation", because it's neatly codified into rules.
They've got no obligation to let straight families be with each other, but it's likely they do. They've got no obligation to let gay families be with each other, and apparently, they don't. Even when the gay families have more legal paperwork to help them.

Bigotry's so much easier to hide behind when you can codify rules.

There are times when guests and visitors are not appropriate and are a hindrance to the recovery process. Perhaps the 'partner' did not want her as a visitor. It's a good thing though, that the priest was able to perform last rites.

Apparently, the partner did, at one point, say she wanted her mate to be with her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

When the modern world spits on these very fine stories, yes, I believe that their concept of true love has changed significantly.

Some things are timeless, and you clearly do not grasp that.

I bet if we were to get down to it, your definition would be very different from mine. Look, do you even know the Griselda story?

I do. I think it's twisted, as it's very clear that while Griselda loves deeply, the husband does not.

Oooh, I don't know if I've ever been called a ****head before. Vocabulary.

It's not like you actually merit more interesting words.

[rah]

People that use "life is not fair" to support their bigotry should really look into a mirror and see the ass staring back at them.
Once I used that answer to my daughter and she looked up and said, "but daddy, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be." Out of the mouth of babes.
Yes the world would be a better place if we did. Bigots like BK should read the part of their bibles that focus on compasion and turning the other cheek and maybe they would again be people that are looked up to, instead of laughed at and pitied. And the church wonders why people are fleeing from it.

[MrFun]

Good post, Rah. I'm sure blacks were not deserving of the franchise or of desegregation. They should have just accepted the fact that life is not fair.

[rah]

Don't worry, the point will be lost on BK. He'll probably just throw out a different arguement that he hasn't seen a black beaten on the street lately to prove that they aren't discriminated against anymore.

[Monk]

Something about Eros from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_eros -

The term was used to describe not only the affectionate marital relationship between a man and a woman but also the institution of pedagogic "pederastic" relations (Eros paidikos, παιδικός ἔρως), solemnized in certain Greek poleis.

Come on, the Greeks coined the term after all.

[MrFun]

The love-hate relationship between gays and Obama continues . . . .

Ben Smith, Jonathan Martin Ben Smith, Jonathan Martin – Thu Jun 4, 5:32 am ET
President Barack Obama’s promises of change are falling short for one core Democratic constituency: gays and lesbians, whose leaders say Obama’s administration isn’t keeping up with the times.

Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama’s inaction, small jokes at their community’s expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.

His most important campaign promises repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service-members have not been fulfilled.

And the news, which emerged quietly earlier this year, that he’d supported same-sex marriage back in 1996, then changed his mind, especially rankles. As mainstream Democratic politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) move to support same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates say that the barrier-breaking president looks increasingly odd for opposing what they see as full equality.

“Obama is out of step with his party, which is overwhelmingly in favor of marriage at this stage,” said David Mixner, a veteran gay rights activist who is among the organizers of a march on Washington for same-sex marriage scheduled for this fall. “He’s out of step with the next generation.”

Gay rights issues have been moving at breakneck speed, none faster than same-sex marriage. Most public opinion polls now show more than 40 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, seen as a fringe issue just a few years earlier. Already, five New England states and Iowa have same-sex marriage laws on the books.

“Politicians are finding out that their voters are moving faster than they anticipated,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who called Obama’s place behind that curve “surprising, because he is the next-generational candidate.”

She noted that Obama could be concerned about alienating older voters in the Midwest who would be turned off if he came out in support of same-sex marriage.

The Politico 44 Story Widget Requires Adobe Flash Player. //
The White House has been reluctant to spend its political capital pushing Obama’s highest-profile pro-gay positions believing, White House allies say, that it could detract from priorities like health care. And it may be even less likely to do next year, with midterms approaching.

But officials have told restive gays and lesbians to give them until the end of this month to show movement on a number of lower-profile issues they support, including restrictions on visas for people with HIV. The Pentagon also has toned down public opposition to reversing the gay ban, and the new secretary of the Army’s job will be, in part, to smooth the way for that move.

“The president remains fully committed to advancing LGBT rights. His positions on all of these issues are well-established and well-known. His staff continues to work with Congress on a variety of LGBT issues,” said Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff who is the point man on gay and lesbian issues, citing White House efforts to move hate crimes legislation through the Senate. “While we recognize that some in the community are anxious, the president’s commitment has not wavered.”

Meanwhile, however, marriage equality has emerged as the movement’s central issue, a question that’s seen as a simple matter of justice and fairness by a growing number of Democrats.

“There’s going to come a point where’s he going have to deal with it,” former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who now supports same-sex marriage, said of Obama. “I’m in favor of giving him a little more time. He’s got an awful lot on his plate.”

“But he is a politician like everybody else, and he’s going to respond to pressure. And I don’t blame the LGBT community for trying to push,” Dean said.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who is openly gay and was a major Democratic donor before being elected last year, said he was “very hopeful [Obama’s] position will evolve.”

But Polis warned, “If his position doesn’t evolve, it could turn off some strong supporters.”

Gay leaders in Washington, though, have been loath to publicly criticize the president. They say they still view Obama as an ally and think private talks are more promising than public pressure.

Still, it was especially frustrating for some left-leaning gay figures to see the otherwise dreaded former Vice President Dick Cheney publicly express his support this week for letting states allow gay marriage -- a position that puts him to the left of Obama.

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said in an appearance Monday at the National Press Club.

Obama also has been criticized for a joke at the expense of same-sex marriage. After the White House Correspondents Association dinner, columnist Dan Savage fumed that Obama’s only reference since being sworn in to the high-profile drive toward same-sex marriage in Iowa had been a joke about going to the state with longtime friend and adviser David Axelrod to “make it official.”

“The best he can do — all he’s willing to do — is toss off an Adam Sandler-level joke,” Savage wrote.

Another Obama ally, writer Andrew Sullivan, recently referred to Obama’s stance on gays as “the fierce urgency of whenever.”

And on the front line, in the states, gay rights advocates are also growing increasingly impatient with Washington.

“His position has been causing some problems for those of us working in the states, those who are against it are using him for cover,” said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda, who called on Obama to fulfill another neglected campaign promise and back the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks the federal government from extending benefits to married same-sex couples.

Gay activists cringed recently when reminded by Donald Trump, of all people, that Miss California Carrie Prejean shared the same position on gay marriage as the progressive president.

“I’m still optimistic that the president is going to be good on his word,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Networks, which opposes the military ban.

“No one believes that [anti-gay federal policies] will be miraculously changed overnight,” said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who added nevertheless that his group is “frustrated at the pace of progress.”

Behind the scenes, patience is wearing thin.

“People are far angrier than they’re saying publicly, because they don’t want to jeopardize [White House] relationships with the groups,” said John Aravosis, an openly gay blogger who speaks to gay leaders. “But everyone is feeling like we’ve entered a danger zone where the administration is backing away from us fast, and I can tell you that the professional gay crowd in Washington, D.C., to a person, feels a sense of impending betrayal.”

The most heated battle is in California, where some of the same voters who overwhelmingly elected Obama also passed a referendum barring same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 has since energized the state’s gay rights movement.

The Army linguist, Dan Choi, spoke at a rally across the street from the Beverly Hills Hilton while Obama spoke inside at a high-dollar fundraiser late last month. The group organizing the rally, the Courage Campaign, has gathered 140,000 signatures on a letter to Obama asking him to rescind the ban.

Back at the fundraiser, Messina had the same message delivered in a somewhat more intimate setting.
He was walking through the men’s room at the Beverly Hilton when Mike Bonin, an activist and former Obama campaign staffer who loves the president “the way Walt Whitman loved Abe Lincoln,” confronted him.

“I told him I was disappointed that [Obama] talked about justice and equal opportunity and across the street stands Dan Choi, who’s about to be booted out of the Army,” he recalled of the faucet-side chat.

Messina, Bonin said, responded that the White House hadn’t forgotten, and complained that the administration hasn’t gotten enough credit for signing a ban on hate crimes against gays and lesbians into law, but was ultimately “noncommittal.” Bonin, who said he kept Messina standing by the sinks for about ten minutes before letting him proceed to his destination, said marriage advocates in California have been using Obama campaign tools and strategies to push the White House.

“All the people who signed this petition for Choi, all the people who are outside across the street at this rally, all the people who are coming to these [political training camps] are Obama people who love and support our president,” he said. “But he didn’t stand up for us, and until he does we’re going to love him enough to be tough on him.”

Obama and Gay Activists

[Alinestra Covelia]

...look into a mirror and see the ass staring back at them ... turning the other cheek...

Sorry, this made me titter childishly. Ass cheeks are funny.

[Ben Kenobi]

People that use "life is not fair" to support their bigotry should really look into a mirror and see the ass staring back at them.

What, do you honestly believe I spend my time going out there and beating the crap out of someone just because he's gay? Just because I disagree doesn't mean that I think gay people are not due the same respect as everyone else. Why are you labelling someone who has a philosophical disagreement over what constitutes marriage to be a bigot? It's a category mistake. You are assuming that I would treat any deviation from this concept based on whether someone is gay or not. That's very, very wrong.

The idea of marriage is the point. It doesn't matter who's going away from it. I've tossed numerous arguments against the free love crowd, which I notice you've not brought up once. I suppose that's because I only hate gays.

Yes the world would be a better place if we did. Bigots like BK should read the part of their bibles that focus on compasion and turning the other cheek and maybe they would again be people that are looked up to, instead of laughed at and pitied. And the church wonders why people are fleeing from it.

Romans 1:24-7

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Yes, I believe in the bible. I believe that everyone is a sinner and that we are all in need of redemption. I believe that anyone who is truly repentent for the acts that he has committed will be forgiven by Jesus Christ. I believe that anyone who has engaged in homosexuality is a sinner in need of redemption, and must turn away from their sin if they wish to be saved.

You ask me to show compassion, and love for my neighbour. What compassion is it to withhold from them the truth? Sinners are destined for an eternity in hell, none of us are exempt.

[Ben Kenobi]

The "right interpretation", because it's neatly codified into rules.

It's a private hospital. Would you prefer the hospital to shutter? Best that they continue to provide the best care that they can.

They've got no obligation to let straight families be with each other, but it's likely they do.

Exactly so. It's their prerogative whom they permit to be on their property. It doesn't matter that it's a hospital, they can refuse entry to anyone as a visitor. The speculation is that she was denied because she was gay, but from what I can see that wasn't the case. It could be that the other partner did not want her there. Did you ever think of that? I love my grandmother dearly, but she did not want me there when she was sick. She didn't want to see anyone.

They've got no obligation to let gay families be with each other, and apparently, they don't. Even when the gay families have more legal paperwork to help them.

My father passed away without so much as a by-your-leave. Be thankful, is all I can say.

Apparently, the partner did, at one point, say she wanted her mate to be with her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

Mr. Alonso, the hospital spokesman, says that except in special circumstances, children under 14 are not allowed to visit in the trauma unit.)

Which they provided later. I don't see the issue. Seems like it was an extraordinary accommodation not a rejection and that there were damn good reasons for them to refuse visitors. You left out the pertinent fact that she was in a trauma ward not a regular bed.

Some things are timeless, and you clearly do not grasp that.

What do you consider timeless?

I do. I think it's twisted, as it's very clear that while Griselda loves deeply, the husband does not.

So you think she's the poor exploited woman who needs to be liberated in order to experience true joy.

Do you think she's unhappy with the situation?

It's not like you actually merit more interesting words.

I don't know why people bother. BTW, it just makes me laugh when people insult me like the way you did. It really does.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't worry, the point will be lost on BK. He'll probably just throw out a different arguement that he hasn't seen a black beaten on the street lately to prove that they aren't discriminated against anymore.

That's something I have seen, btw.

I really don't see this 'climate of persecution' against gay people. I have seen them spraypaint my church with '*** haters'. They were even so kind as to leave their bright red stencils.

Just who is doing the persecution there?

[Ming]

First... your anti "free love" stuff is yet another straw dog. There is a reason no one else even bothers to address you whines, they are irrelevent to the discussion.

Yet again, you show what a miserable christian you really are. You continue to JUDGE other people when Jesus commanded you to leave judging to God. You call people sinners but it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO JUDGE, that is god's place. What right do you have to label somebody a sinner? BAD CHRISTIAN, and a bigot to boot. You claim you have no problems with gays, but then like the bigot you are, you claim you want to deny them the right to get married... Again, show compassion and love thy neighbour, and leave the judging to the god you claim to believe in. But it seems pretty obvious that you are very selective in the words of God that you are willing to follow.

[Ben Kenobi]

First... your anti "free love" stuff is yet another straw dog. There is a reason no one else even bothers to address you whines, they are irrelevent to the discussion.

Why do you think I keep bringing it up? Perhaps because it is very relevant to the discussion at hand and my overall thesis. All I'm doing is connecting the dots. My objection is to a whole way of looking at the world.

Yet again, you show what a miserable christian you really are. You continue to JUDGE other people when Jesus commanded you to leave judging to God.

Where have I judged anyone? I haven't named any names. All I said is that anyone who's engaged in homosexuality has committed a sin, and that if they have not repented, they have put their souls in mortal danger.

You call people sinners

Everyone is a sinner. That was the first thing I said. All have sinned and fallen short of the law.

NOT YOUR PLACE TO JUDGE, that is god's place.

True, God will decide who goes to hell. He can read hearts and minds, I can't. What I can say is that a particular act is sinful.

What right do you have to label somebody a sinner?

Everyone is a sinner. To judge them is to say, "you are going to hell". That I cannot, and must not do. That is God's prerogative.

BAD CHRISTIAN, and a bigot to boot. You claim you have no problems with gays, but then like the bigot you are, you claim you want to deny them the right to get married...

I don't believe they can, in fact, get married. They can call it marriage, but it's not marriage.

Again, show compassion and love thy neighbour, and leave the judging to the god you claim to believe in. But it seems pretty obvious that you are very selective in the words of God that you are willing to follow.

"Endure correction as discipline."

I bet you don't even think that's in the bible.

Ok, here's a test. Give me the book and the verse for all the biblical quotes in my post.

[Ming]

I believe that anyone who has engaged in homosexuality is a sinner in need of redemption, and must turn away from their sin if they wish to be saved.

You are judging... not your place. Let God do the judging... He is the ONLY one in your religion that can make that call. God even commands you not to judge and that it's not your place. Again, you seem to ignore the word of god when you don't want to follow TRUE christian teachings. And then you try to hide behind semantics... well guess what, god won't be fooled.

And again... you are making judgements on what is and what isn't marriage. Maybe you should leave that to god as well.

Again... love they neighbour, don't deny them justice. It's not your place or call. Be a real christian for a change instead of a bigot.

[Elok]

I'd like to reiterate the point Monk raised, that Greek eros encompassed more than men and women. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_love for more detail.

Also, the modern, Western concept of "true love" is scarcely a thousand years old, and grew out of the musings of Breton troubadours. It started as a symptom of Medieval cultural derangement, that their greatest contribution to culture was a convoluted system to justify boning your friend's wife (or a little girl--the most popular work of the late Middle Ages, the Roman de la Rose, is a lengthy allegory of a twenty-year-old's attempt to deflower a barely-pubescent girl). It sort of grew from there. The idea that you should actually marry your "true love" instead of screwing her discreetly is only about five or six hundred years old (originally it was impossible for love to exist between husband and wife), and the elevated angelic elements we associate with it were inherited from a neurotic prude by the name of Dante. Which just goes to show that basing our values on the "traditional" ones is problematic at best.