A Note to my Friends

[Trathena]

Thank you for this conversation, Rule.*

Marriage is absolutely a religious practice, and as you know, there are many, many gay religious citizens, and yes, they can find churches that will give them that spiritual union they want.

No matter how many churches marry people--gay or straight--we need that civil marriage.  But straight people who get civil marriages can go anywhere in the country and their marriage is recognized.  They can move from state to state and they remain married wherever they go.  That's not the case for civil unions for gay people.  And NO politician who says he/she supports only civil unions adds that they want this changed.  They, instead, leave it up to the states (and we all know how well that worked during Jim Crow).  They all act as if giving us the crumbs of civil unions isn't an insult.  And it is.  Until a politician says, "I'm against gay marriage, but I support civil unions for gay people that are recognized throughout the country, and will introduce legislation for this," I'll still consider him/her a bigoted politician offering nothing more than a separate but equal policy.  Crumbs from the table.

A large percentage - almost 40% actually - of my family is gay, so I care deeply about this issue.

It's clear that we're on the same side here.  As a gay woman, I think I often have knee-jerk reactions to those who are against me having the same civil rights as the sexual majority.  This is a civil rights issue.

Obama's best characteristic is his ability to recognize both sides of an issue and find a compromise, and I personally feel that he's accomplished that with this issue.

Stepping away from the civil rights issue for a moment, I'm also concerned that Obama voted to confirm Condi Rice.  That disappointed me.  Actually, I haven't really cared for him since his, "We believe in an Awesome God in the Blue States" comment at the DNC in 2004.  Who the hell was he speaking for, because it sure wasn't me.

Peace,
Trathena

*Please let me know if you don't want me abbreviating your name.

[TheRuleofThree]

Thank you for this conversation, Rule.*

Marriage is absolutely a religious practice, and as you know, there are many, many gay religious citizens, and yes, they can find churches that will give them that spiritual union they want.

No matter how many churches marry people--gay or straight--we need that civil marriage.  But straight people who get civil marriages can go anywhere in the country and their marriage is recognized.  They can move from state to state and they remain married wherever they go.  That's not the case for civil unions for gay people.  And NO politician who says he/she supports only civil unions adds that they want this changed.  They, instead, leave it up to the states (and we all know how well that worked during Jim Crow).  They all act as if giving us the crumbs of civil unions isn't an insult.  And it is.  Until a politician says, "I'm against gay marriage, but I support civil unions for gay people that are recognized throughout the country, and will introduce legislation for this," I'll still consider him/her a bigoted politician offering nothing more than a separate but equal policy.  Crumbs from the table.

A large percentage - almost 40% actually - of my family is gay, so I care deeply about this issue.

It's clear that we're on the same side here.  As a gay woman, I think I often have knee-jerk reactions to those who are against me having the same civil rights as the sexual majority.  This is a civil rights issue.

Obama's best characteristic is his ability to recognize both sides of an issue and find a compromise, and I personally feel that he's accomplished that with this issue.

Stepping away from the civil rights issue for a moment, I'm also concerned that Obama voted to confirm Condi Rice.  That disappointed me.  Actually, I haven't really cared for him since his, "We believe in an Awesome God in the Blue States" comment at the DNC in 2004.  Who the hell was he speaking for, because it sure wasn't me.

Peace,
Trathena

*Please let me know if you don't want me abbreviating your name.

Your point is valid and true, and I appreciate your further explanation.  I fully agree, also, that same-sex civil unions should be a nationally recognized institution equal in every way to traditional heteronormative unions.  I think our only disagreement in this instance is how to interpret Obama's position and what we should expect of a potential president to guarantee they'll accomplish.  There is no doubt in my mind that our country isn't far away at all from the time that homosexuality isn't so taboo and our laws reflect that reality, but similarly I have to face the reality that there are a lot of uneducated people out there who cling to old fake science and flawed rationale to justify the systemic separation of an entire lifestyle from the norm.  Any law a president will attempt to pass will inevitably face the scrutiny of the other branches of law, and the fact is that there are millions of people in this nation who still oppose civil unions for gay couples - enough to the point that they actively vote in politicians who promise to vote against any measures promoting the unions.  The reality of this means that steps must be actively taken towards the ultimate goal while compromising in some cases for the social education to follow.  That is to say, in other words, that a president must pass what (s)he can that will have enough judicial and legislative support to be enacted into law and ultimately implemented.

The task, then, at least from my point of view, is to vote for a candidate who has the ability to negotiate up-front for short term goals and has the ideology (though I hate using that word - Althusser would have my head) to accomplish and pursue long term goals. In this instance, that translates to finding a person who I believe can get support immediately for legalizing same-sex civil unions and has the conviction and intelligence to demand ultimate equality. Obama, I feel, fits that mold.

As far as the "we worship an Awesome God in the Blue states," I don't think Obama felt he was speaking for every citizen of the "blue states," no more than he meant to imply that everyone who lived in the "red states" had a "gay friend."  He was speaking, rather, for the demographics that are commonly overused in the media to stereotype entire hoards of voters with different opinions, i.e. "Christians always vote Republican" or "Gay people only vote Democrat" when in actuality there are countless people who in fact are the opposite and do vote for a party you wouldn't expect them to vote for.  Obama does reference his faith quite a bit, which is something that I'm sort of unclear on in terms of my own opinions (I'm a spiritual person but don't really belong to any organized religion and I believe that spirituality is a relative, personal experience).  There's no denying that it's something that politicians use to get votes, but with Obama I feel that he truly understands the concept of "separation of church and state" considering he taught Constitutional Law and he is truly the type of christian that volunteers and loves rather than judging and hating.

As far as Condeleeza Rice goes, I'm sure he'll be asked to clarify his vote on that sometime in the process, which I hope he'll do.

And by the way,you're welcome to call me whatever you'd like, including my name (Brock).

[FeebleFables]

The thing is, the gay rights issue is an issue about equality, and I find it odd that any government, republican or democrat can stand in the way of equality. I think the vine is ripe in the US and it was here in Canada a few years ago, to really just address the issue and resolve it. It's understood that lobbying is a major part (unfortunately) of a government system, and there's no doubt that the right-wing ultra-conservative Christians are lobbying the republicans to even bar any legal challenges to marriage as anything other than man-woman. Lobbying aside, I'm not sure how much a democrat cares about these special interest groups, but that doesn't mean they don't want to get the votes come election time, and the more they stay moderate on the issue, the easier it will be to win over those middle of the road voters.

I may not be able to vote in the US, but I certainly watch the political trends closely as they do tend to translate into the rest of the world. I do like this Obama character, even if he's not pushing hard enough for something that seems like such a no-brainer. But wait and see, if the democrats get back into office, I'm sure things will start to change for the better.

As for the whole "Marriage vs. Civil Unions" deal, there isn't really a case there, call it what you want, in the end it's just equality. as long as a gay couple has the same exact rights as a straight couple, it doesn't matter WHAT you call it. I say just look at what happened in Canada as an example, along with taking the government to court and winning the constitutional right to live equally, the government made a compromise and just passed a law protecting religious institutions from performing the ceremony, that way, the religious institutions' rights were protected to discriminate how they see fit in their private institutions, and gays were free to get their equal opportunity union in a public institution and call it whatever they want, the choice being: marriage. If the religious institutions have a problem at this point, it's moot, because their personal freedoms are upheld, and any further complaints are just public discrimination.

Another equality issue that needs to be resolved is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of gays in the military... That's just just patchwork, and it's public level discrimination. Almost every other NATO country has an open poilcy and the US has to get in line.

[BuddyGoodness]

I never really understood why the use of the word marriage was such a sticking poijt for some gay people.  Bring up the point that civil unions give the exact same benefits as marriage and they would tell me it is not the same so I believe the word marriage grants more than social legitimacy, I think they fight for their union to be declared a marriage because that would be the equivalent of true equality instead of one term for them and one term for others.  Perhaps religious gay people should form their own church instead of trying to convince rigid, stubborn churches to accept them.

I feel the states should decide if they wish to allow civil unions/marriages for gay people but the federal government should ensure that any union/marriage is valid in all states.  I believe Obama brings up religion so often in his speeches because he is trying to appeal to as large a base as possible, he is trying to forge a coalition to get himself elected.  While it bothers me that a presidential candidate must be openly pious now a days to possibly become president it doesn't bother me too much because I know that more often than not it is just another case of the politician pandering to a particular audience. I think his stance against gay marriage is another example of this, he is trying to appeal to homophobes and homosexuals at the same time by not taking an extreme stance in either direction.  Don't ever mistake what a politician says in a stump speech to be what they truely believe nor should you assume that they will keep the promises made on the campaign trail or adhere to their public beliefs once they reach office.  Obama might be against gay marriage on the stump but once in office he could actively campaign for it and bully congress into passing laws in favor of it.  I doubt this will happen but you need to keep in mind always that these are politicians, their entire career is based around juggling various interests and manipulating people to get what they want.  To be anything other than cynical is to leave yourself open to huge disappointment at least now days.

[Trathena]

There is no doubt in my mind that our country isn't far away at all from the time that homosexuality isn't so taboo and our laws reflect that reality, but similarly I have to face the reality that there are a lot of uneducated people out there who cling to old fake science and flawed rationale to justify the systemic separation of an entire lifestyle from the norm. . . . The task, then, at least from my point of view, is to vote for a candidate who has the ability to negotiate up-front for short term goals and has the ideology (though I hate using that word - Althusser would have my head) to accomplish and pursue long term goals.

And here's where I lose patience. Here's where I get so angry. I'm tired of accepting second best. I'm tired of being told to be satisfied with second best. I'm tired of people saying, "Why can't you just wait until the country is ready?" Why should I wait? Why should I fucking wait, when there are candidates--either Kucinich or the Green Party--who don't think I should wait?

You say that there are uneducated people out there who cling to their bigotries like security blankets. And you then say that it's necessary for our politicians to pander to them. This is how we got here in the first place. This is why we're at war. This is why our country is so very, very fucked up. It's become acceptable to believe pseudo science. It's become acceptable to be bigots. It's become acceptable to not read, to admit that we know nothing about anything with no shame whatsoever. It's become acceptable to vote for a non-reading frat-boy who is ignorant of anything and everything worth knowing. At least it's acceptable for 52% of our voting population to do so (and another 3/4 to not vote at all).

And we treat this willfully ignorant, bigoted, superstitious, hateful, primitive population as if they're worth talking to, whose opinions are actually worth considering.

Yes, it's a free country. Yes, they're free to be willfully ignorant, bigoted, superstitious, hateful, and primitive. But our leaders? They should stand up to them. They should shame them. Recently, on the YouTube Debate, I almost had an orgasm when John Edwards said that he doesn't want the votes of those who will not vote for Clinton or Obama because of their gender or race. He basically told all of those voters (and we know there are many thousands of them) to go fuck themselves. It was brilliant. It was brave. He told a bunch of sexist racists he didn't want their vote. This is what these politicians should say to those who want to keep gays as second class citizens. I just can't vote for a candidate who I see pandering to the hateful.

Sigh. Ok, I've ranted enough. If you've put up with me this far, thank you.

Added after 12 minutes:

Perhaps religious gay people should form their own church instead of trying to convince rigid, stubborn churches to accept them.

They have. They do it all the time. The UCC, the Unitarian/Universalists, many of the Disciples of Christ, and even some Episcopalian churches welcome gay people, marry them, and even have gay pastors. I do feel sorry for--but also annoyed at--gays and lesbians who remain catholics, methodists, baptists, etc. I don't understand why they'd stay in churches that don't want them.

I feel the states should decide if they wish to allow civil unions/marriages for gay people but the federal government should ensure that any union/marriage is valid in all states.

I agree. We already have a precedent with this with age of consent. In, say, New Hampshire a 40 year old man can marry a 13 year old . . . I'll just say it . . . CHILD, and his marriage is legal in states that don't allow 13 yr. olds to marry. So this married couple could move to Mass., and their marriage would remain legal. But a lesbian couple who married in Mass. couldn't move to New Hampshire without pretty much divorcing. It's so fucked up!

I think his stance against gay marriage is another example of this, he is trying to appeal to homophobes and homosexuals at the same time by not taking an extreme stance in either direction.

I long for the day when saying, "All citizens deserve the same rights" isn't considered an "extreme" stance.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

sorry for the hiatus.

let's not "church" up marriage; marriage has very little to do with religion--this coming from someone studying to be a united methodist minister. in fact, marriage is all about property acquisition. i did not marry for sake of religious rite, but for sake of other perks and benefits that comes with matrimony--e.g. insurance, "next of kin", and i can make medical decisions for my partner if my partner ever becomes incapacitated. the latter of which is the most important. all persons who are in love with their partners--regardless of sexuality--should be afford these options. sadly, they are. many persons cannot fulfill all these duties due to society's myopic understanding of sexuality. and they try to hide it under the guise of religion. funny, the church performed a number of same-sex marriages--not unions--during the  enlightenment period of europe. after all, never once in the biblical text is there a prohibition against homosexuality: the term simply never appears in the text. the christian argument for one exclusive sexuality cannot be justified by using christian scripture, bottom line. a christian message that is oppressive is anathema to the ministry of jesus. as far as i am concerned when Matthew Shepard was crucified on that fence in Laramie, that was christ. sorry for the preaching. i normally like to keep this side--the religious facet--of myself a secret for a plethora of reasons, many of which are inherently obvious.

now, as for the case of civil unions. we learned in the 60s that separate was not equal. let us learn from our past and not make the same mistake again: sexual minorities should be allowed the right to marry. sexuality is not a choice and those with a differing sexuality should not have their relationship relegated to a second-class status. just as modernity had it's civil rights movements, so will post-modernity. post-modernity will include acceptence for all sexualities without caveats.

last but not least: Trathena, if all those persons left those churches--"catholics, methodists, baptists, etc"--who can those churches be redeemed?

[TheRuleofThree]

There is no doubt in my mind that our country isn't far away at all from the time that homosexuality isn't so taboo and our laws reflect that reality, but similarly I have to face the reality that there are a lot of uneducated people out there who cling to old fake science and flawed rationale to justify the systemic separation of an entire lifestyle from the norm. . . . The task, then, at least from my point of view, is to vote for a candidate who has the ability to negotiate up-front for short term goals and has the ideology (though I hate using that word - Althusser would have my head) to accomplish and pursue long term goals.

And here's where I lose patience. Here's where I get so angry. I'm tired of accepting second best. I'm tired of being told to be satisfied with second best. I'm tired of people saying, "Why can't you just wait until the country is ready?" Why should I wait? Why should I fucking wait, when there are candidates--either Kucinich or the Green Party--who don't think I should wait?

You say that there are uneducated people out there who cling to their bigotries like security blankets. And you then say that it's necessary for our politicians to pander to them. This is how we got here in the first place. This is why we're at war. This is why our country is so very, very fucked up. It's become acceptable to believe pseudo science. It's become acceptable to be bigots. It's become acceptable to not read, to admit that we know nothing about anything with no shame whatsoever. It's become acceptable to vote for a non-reading frat-boy who is ignorant of anything and everything worth knowing. At least it's acceptable for 52% of our voting population to do so (and another 3/4 to not vote at all).

And we treat this willfully ignorant, bigoted, superstitious, hateful, primitive population as if they're worth talking to, whose opinions are actually worth considering.

Yes, it's a free country. Yes, they're free to be willfully ignorant, bigoted, superstitious, hateful, and primitive. But our leaders? They should stand up to them. They should shame them. Recently, on the YouTube Debate, I almost had an orgasm when John Edwards said that he doesn't want the votes of those who will not vote for Clinton or Obama because of their gender or race. He basically told all of those voters (and we know there are many thousands of them) to go fuck themselves. It was brilliant. It was brave. He told a bunch of sexist racists he didn't want their vote. This is what these politicians should say to those who want to keep gays as second class citizens. I just can't vote for a candidate who I see pandering to the hateful.

Sigh. Ok, I've ranted enough. If you've put up with me this far, thank you.

Added after 12 minutes:

Perhaps religious gay people should form their own church instead of trying to convince rigid, stubborn churches to accept them.

They have.  They do it all the time.  The UCC, the Unitarian/Universalists, many of the Disciples of Christ, and even some Episcopalian churches welcome gay people, marry them, and even have gay pastors.  I do feel sorry for--but also annoyed at--gays and lesbians who remain catholics, methodists, baptists, etc.  I don't understand why they'd stay in churches that don't want them.

I feel the states should decide if they wish to allow civil unions/marriages for gay people but the federal government should ensure that any union/marriage is valid in all states.

I agree.  We already have a precedent with this with age of consent.  In, say, New Hampshire a 40 year old man can marry a 13 year old . . . I'll just say it . . . CHILD, and his marriage is legal in states that don't allow 13 yr. olds to marry.  So this married couple could move to Mass., and their marriage would remain legal.  But a lesbian couple who married in Mass. couldn't move to New Hampshire without pretty much divorcing.  It's so fucked up!

I think his stance against gay marriage is another example of this, he is trying to appeal to homophobes and homosexuals at the same time by not taking an extreme stance in either direction.

I long for the day when saying, "All citizens deserve the same rights" isn't considered an "extreme" stance.

I think that maybe you're missing my opinion, which isn't that we shouldn't have a representative that demands full and equal benefits immediately. I agree that any "small steps" demean the movement and degrade the community. My point, however, is that no matter how supportive a president may be of a certain movement, without the ability to get legislative support they are almost certainly stuck and won't be able to accomplish what they aim to.  Obama is promising to accomplish what he knows he can gain support for, which ultimately will be a move towards what HAS to be accomplished, which is full and complete equality.

By the way, I think its a little unfair to champion Edwards as someone who doesn't "pander to the hateful" when his message towards the concept of gay marriage is more religious and anti-equality than Obama's.  I think he's a fantastic person and makes a great leader, but I am more troubled by his statements regarding civil unions and marriage than Obama's.

I'm happy to have this discussion with you, Trathena. Your view is valid and educated, and obviously comes from a place of conviction and personal experience.  Ultimately I think we agree that change MUST occur soon or we'll be facing an even greater social crisis than we could expect.

[BuddyGoodness]

And here's where I lose patience. Here's where I get so angry. I'm tired of accepting second best. I'm tired of being told to be satisfied with second best. I'm tired of people saying, "Why can't you just wait until the country is ready?" Why should I wait? Why should I fucking wait, when there are candidates--either Kucinich or the Green Party--who don't think I should wait?.

I understand the impatience for equality, but when you are talking about millions and millions of people, change will never come overnight and that is an unfortunate fact.  In a perfect world injustices like that would be corrected immediately but our world is far, far, from perfect.

[Trathena]

I have no idea what happened with my coding in my previous post. It didn't look that way in preview. I think it has to do with my weird habit of putting double spaces after periods.

My point, however, is that no matter how supportive a president may be of a certain movement, without the ability to get legislative support they are almost certainly stuck and won't be able to accomplish what they aim to. Obama is promising to accomplish what he knows he can gain support for, which ultimately will be a move towards what HAS to be accomplished, which is full and complete equality.

You're approaching this in a more rational way than I am. Therefore, we have nothing else to talk about. ;-)

Seriously, what you wrote reminded me of what Clinton went through with his "gays in the military" troubles. He wanted that badly, but there was zero support for it. Health Care reform too. So, yes, I guess I do appreciate Obama's honesty in promising only what he knows he can accomplish, so as not to get our hopes up. And Clinton and Edwards too.

Also, I'm feeling kind of rude about coming in your nice thread asking for support for a candidate you like (a fine and honorable candidate, I might add) and pissing all over it. So thank you for taking me so much in stride.

By the way, I think its a little unfair to champion Edwards as someone who doesn't "pander to the hateful" when his message towards the concept of gay marriage is more religious and anti-equality than Obama's. I think he's a fantastic person and makes a great leader, but I am more troubled by his statements regarding civil unions and marriage than Obama's.

Oh, I know Edwards is against gay marriage for stupid christian reasons. His wife being for it doesn't mean much. I did appreciate him admitting that it is a painful struggle with him, however. I believe him when he says it hurts him to be against marriage. Don't get me wrong though. I don't think he's a champion for gay rights. I do admire the hell out of him for what he said regarding women and race though. That was kick-ass. A politician saying he doesn't want a racist's vote? A politician who shows disdain for the ignorant? When has that ever been said as strongly or as clearly? My badly worded point was that I'd like to see this for all minorities.

I'm happy to have this discussion with you, Trathena. Your view is valid and educated, and obviously comes from a place of conviction and personal experience. Ultimately I think we agree that change MUST occur soon or we'll be facing an even greater social crisis than we could expect.

Absolutely. Change across all aspects of our culture needs to happen and soon, not just civil rights. Personally, I don't hold out much hope.

Peace,
Trathena

Added after 12 minutes:

I understand the impatience for equality, but when you are talking about millions and millions of people, change will never come overnight and that is an unfortunate fact.  In a perfect world injustices like that would be corrected immediately but our world is far, far, from perfect.

The Stonewall riots were over 30 years ago. But it's important for me to admit that much of the problems for gay rights are due to the LGBT community itself. Your post reminded me of the brilliant play "Angels in America." For those who haven't seen it, Roy Cohn is talking about why he doesn't consider himself a homosexual:

Like all labels they tell you one thing, and one thing only: Where does an individual so identified fit into the food chain, the pecking order? Not ideology or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Not who I fuck or who fucks me, but who will come to the phone when I call, who owes me favors. This is what a label refers to. Now to someone who does not understand this, a homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men, but really this is wrong. A homosexual is somebody who, in 15 years of trying cannot get a pissant anti-discrimination bill through the city council. A homosexual is somebody who knows nobody and who nobody knows. Who has zero clout. Does this sound like me Henry? (bolding mine)

20% of the gay voting population voted for Bush in 2004.  Where I live, if I told the LGBT community that we have two gay bars: one is owned by a 50-yr-old gay activist, who participated in the Stonewall riots.  The other is owned by a hot straight guy who never intended his bar to be gay, and is advertising in the free, conservative college paper to change that.  Given a choice, many, many of them would ask which bar plays the best music.

So this is part of our problem too.

[erikpemberton]

Brock, you're awesome, I love ya, but damn - every thread you participate in turns into War & Fucking Peace. Hahaha

[TheRuleofThree]

Also, I'm feeling kind of rude about coming in your nice thread asking for support for a candidate you like (a fine and honorable candidate, I might add) and pissing all over it. So thank you for taking me so much in stride.

Actually, this is exactly what I was aiming for.  Lots of times for most people there's an extra "x" factor that prevents them from fully supporting  a particular candidate, or there may be misunderstanding on their positions due to certain media outlets that preach opinion as fact.  This thread is doubtlessly my endorsement of Obama as well as an attempt to spread that support, and part of that is having an honest and frank discussion with people about his strengths and weaknesses.  You have EVERY right as both a gay woman and as an American citizen to support a candidate who stands for your rights and to fight against candidates who stand against them.  My ultimate goal as a supporter is to represent my candidate best by opening myself up to debate and refusing to ignore any particular point or beat around an issue.  I ultimately hope that maybe someone on this board could say to themselves "Well, he's not ignoring criticism and he's answering questions.. he's not calling names or disregarding facts... maybe Obama isn't a tool after all." So, really no thanks is necessary - rather, thank YOU for bringing meaning to my thread.

Absolutely. Change across all aspects of our culture needs to happen and soon, not just civil rights. Personally, I don't hold out much hope.

Honestly, and I hate to get on a pulpit here... but Obama really is my hope for change.  He represents such a new approach to politics, especially in Washington where he really is an outcast in terms of allegiances. His campaign has refused any money from lobbyists or PAC's, yet he raised the most money of any candidate. People say he doesn't have enough experience, but he has EXACTLY the same amount as Lincoln did (and he worked out pretty well, right?).  There IS hope for the nation in every regard... our society, our safety, our environment, big business...it can all be kept in check if we had a leader who represented change and hope, something we haven't had for at LEAST 6 years now.

20% of the gay voting population voted for Bush in 2004.  Where I live, if I told the LGBT community that we have two gay bars: one is owned by a 50-yr-old gay activist, who participated in the Stonewall riots.  The other is owned by a hot straight guy who never intended his bar to be gay, and is advertising in the free, conservative college paper to change that.  Given a choice, many, many of them would ask which bar plays the best music.

So this is part of our problem too.

As a rule of thumb we all have a way of shooting ourselves in the foot.  The GLBTQI movement is stuck in a hard place because arguing for sexual autonomy almost completely nullifies the argument for gay marriage.  There is a LARGE movement within your community (as I'm sure I don't have to tell you) towards arguing AGAINST same-sex civil unions because in many ways it endorses monogamy as a sexual institution in the way that marriage as it currently is endorses heterosexuality coupled with monogamy. Any way you slice it, a state-sanctioned sexual preference is a bit icky, and for a long time heterosexuals had the excuse of children to argue against homosexual monogamy - i.e. marital benefits ultimately serve "families" the most, essentially helping children out and therefore serving a greater good. Our society is waking up, though, at least it seems that way. Now that people know that a) marriage right now isn't exactly sacred (what's the current divorce rate, like 50%?) and b) gay people are just as good at parenting as straight people - or just as bad.

Brock, you're awesome, I love ya, but damn - every thread you participate in turns into War & Fucking Peace. Hahaha

Truly, I've come to believe that anything less is a waste of time.  

[BuddyGoodness]

Brock, you're awesome, I love ya, but damn - every thread you participate in turns into War & Fucking Peace. Hahaha

Truly, I've come to believe that anything less is a waste of time.  

Get a room.

[TheRuleofThree]

Brock, you're awesome, I love ya, but damn - every thread you participate in turns into War & Fucking Peace. Hahaha

Truly, I've come to believe that anything less is a waste of time.  

Get a room.

Pretty much every other thread devolves into GIFs and one-liners.  It really HAS gotten to where I feel that the threads that are meaningful, at least to the posters, tend to involve either disagreement or longer, more thoughtful responses.  I'm happy that this thread is one of them.

[Trathena]

last but not least: Trathena, if all those persons left those churches--"catholics, methodists, baptists, etc"--who can those churches be redeemed?

I'm assuming you mean "how can those churches be redeemed." I don't think they'll be redeemed by gay people remaining members--whether silently or not. Homosexual relationships go against fundamental moral codes on which these religions and churches are founded (and I'm including ALL Abrahamic monotheistic religions here). I don't understand praying and tithing in churches that consider us sinful. There are plenty of gay-friendly Christian sects.

I like what you've said about biblical precedence (I like what you've said in general, actually), but in my experience, this argument doesn't go very far with fundy Christians. It's true that the gospels don't attribute any anti-gay rhetoric to Jesus. I don't know why this is. I don't have enough biblical scholarship to speak authoritatively on this, but my guess is that either Jesus truly didn't say anything about it, or the writers didn't feel it was important enough to include it. And then there are the interesting tidbits of the "beloved disciple" and The Secret Gospel of Mark. So who knows?

But there is plenty of negativity to go around in the OT and in Paul's letters. And, truth be told, most Christians nowadays are not Christians, but rather Paulians. So saying that Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality doesn't go that far when someone is determined to think poorly of us. Most Christians today worship Jesus, but they sure don't follow him.

So as far as the churches changing, yes, it's happening. It's weird though, because even the gay-friendly churches pray from a book and worship a God that condemns them. But that is none of my business, and getting off in territory I really shouldn't talk about!

Added after 25 minutes:

My ultimate goal as a supporter is to represent my candidate best by opening myself up to debate and refusing to ignore any particular point or beat around an issue.  I ultimately hope that maybe someone on this board could say to themselves "Well, he's not ignoring criticism and he's answering questions.. he's not calling names or disregarding facts... maybe Obama isn't a tool after all." So, really no thanks is necessary - rather, thank YOU for bringing meaning to my thread.

Ok, erik is right. You're awesome.

I try not to be a "one-issue voter." As I said earlier, these days, it comes down to two things: are you for the war? Are you against gay marriage? In 2004 it was: Are you for the war? Are you against gay marriage? Did you vote for the Patriot Act?

I try very hard not to let me being gay (bisexual, to be more specific) be the ONLY issue. And, as I said earlier, Obama's support for Rice is very troubling. And the thing is, it wouldn't be so troubling if he'd then NOT voted for Gonzales. I mean, really, what were his reasons for this? Is Gonzales any worse than Rice? I don't understand his reasoning, and it seemed SO political. I do hope these questions are eventually raised, but I don't think they will be unless he gets the nomination.

Honestly, and I hate to get on a pulpit here... but Obama really is my hope for change.  He represents such a new approach to politics, especially in Washington where he really is an outcast in terms of allegiances.

Except for those two concerns, I also think that Obama would be a good leader. Hell, a pile of sticks and dirt would be better than what we have. Seriously. I mean that most sincerely. A fucking pile of sticks and dirt would be better than what we have. So Kucinich will not get the nomination. The Green Party will not get a large enough percentage to get anywhere. But if either Obama or--dare I say it--Edwards get the nomination, we'll have either of them as President, and that won't be a bad thing.

As a rule of thumb . . .

Hee!

There is a LARGE movement within your community (as I'm sure I don't have to tell you) towards arguing AGAINST same-sex civil unions because in many ways it endorses monogamy as a sexual institution in the way that marriage as it currently is endorses heterosexuality coupled with monogamy.

Hmm. Are you talking about polyamory? Actually, I don't think I know about this. I do know that many gay people don't care about marriage rights, simply because they're not interested in "living like the straights." Is this what you're meaning?

[TheRuleofThree]

So as far as the churches changing, yes, it's happening. It's weird though, because even the gay-friendly churches pray from a book and worship a God that condemns them. But that is none of my business, and getting off in territory I really shouldn't talk about!

Ironically today the first Gay Bishop in America endorsed Obama.  Here is the link.  CNN also reported here that the bishop noted;  

"Frankly, I don’t think there’s any major candidate that is where we in the gay community would hope they would be on our issues. That being said, I would say the senator has been enormously supportive of our issues. We appreciate his support for civil unions.”

Interesting that he echoed your sentiments, Trathena.

I try not to be a "one-issue voter." As I said earlier, these days, it comes down to two things: are you for the war? Are you against gay marriage? In 2004 it was: Are you for the war? Are you against gay marriage? Did you vote for the Patriot Act?

I try very hard not to let me being gay (bisexual, to be more specific) be the ONLY issue. And, as I said earlier, Obama's support for Rice is very troubling. And the thing is, it wouldn't be so troubling if he'd then NOT voted for Gonzales. I mean, really, what were his reasons for this? Is Gonzales any worse than Rice? I don't understand his reasoning, and it seemed SO political. I do hope these questions are eventually raised, but I don't think they will be unless he gets the nomination.

There are still lots of debates coming up, including a very interesting one that will be sponsored by Slate and Huffingtonpost.com that is entirely internet based. You should consider submitting your question. Largely though, I have to say that Alberto Gonzalez appears to me as much more obviously inept and incapable than Condi Rice, who in retrospect has been instrumental in the campaign to confuse and convince but at times appeared very intelligent and competent.  That's just me though - I certainly can't speak for Obama.

Except for those two concerns, I also think that Obama would be a good leader. Hell, a pile of sticks and dirt would be better than what we have. Seriously. I mean that most sincerely. A fucking pile of sticks and dirt would be better than what we have. So Kucinich will not get the nomination. The Green Party will not get a large enough percentage to get anywhere. But if either Obama or--dare I say it--Edwards get the nomination, we'll have either of them as President, and that won't be a bad thing.

Unfortunately I think that one of the downfalls of our political process is the fact that compromises really have to be made by ALL voters when it comes to the candidate they support. I mean, really...did Kerry really excite anyone that voted for him?  If so, it was only because he represented the alternative to Bush. Hopefully this year there is a bit more passion behind the support of the candidates that make it.  Plus the Green Party at least has some reason to like the guy!

Hmm. Are you talking about polyamory? Actually, I don't think I know about this. I do know that many gay people don't care about marriage rights, simply because they're not interested in "living like the straights." Is this what you're meaning?

Not so much polyamory, though it's a fringe example of a type of non-heteronormative group fighting against civil unions.  Essentially, most homosexuals are still part of the broader sexual subset of monogamists.  The argument for legalizing civil unions is that the state is endorsing and supporting one lifestyle choice, one sexuality, by only allowing heterosexual monogamists to enter into marriage.  Proponents of gay marriage argue that this treats alternative relationships like homosexuality unfairly by refusing to extend those rights to a couple just because their the same sex.  There are completely other sets of people, though, who make up another category - who express their sexuality in more "queer" or fringe ways such as through three-way relationships, swinging, etc.  Those people feel as though THEIR rights are slighted because they have never chosen to enter into monogamy, and that by the queer movement endorsing a civil union or gay marriage bill society is still placing further limits on accepted sexual behavior by further marginalizing relationships that aren't monogamous.  Of course, it would be practically impossible to introduce a system through which benefits could be given to people who claimed to be "married" to three, four, or more people, so basically their argument to the queer community is "fuck marriage."  In other words, undo the social structuring that puts THEM outside the norm, and level the social and sexual playing field.

As alternative as many lifestyles are, most monogamous couples love the (albeit imagined) improvement of their lives through the institution of marriage and the simplicity (sometimes) of a relationship with one other person. But the point is that this fringe group is right - to argue for civil unions and same sex marriage on the basis that sexuality shouldn't be discriminated against and that all lifestyle options should have equal opportunity under the law is really a flawed argument because you're still defining "lifestyles" as "monogamous lifestyles." Even further arguments come from proponents of age-of-consent repeals, who believe they are being discriminated against because they cannot enter into relationships with people who are not considered adults in the law (i.e. children).  Basically sexual autonomy, fully and completely, will be hard to fully accomplish for these people.

Ultimately though the overwhelming majority of the population supports monogamous relationships (at least in their words, not so much in their lifestyle), which is why the state provides assistance and alternative taxes and such to those who want to enter into long term monogamy.  

Sorry for the rant, I've done a lot of work in college on Queer Theory and it's next to impossible to make these discussions short and easy.