Gay Marriage Part 1 (11/2006 -2/2012)

[Josefus]

Only on Forumosa could so much verbiage be extended in a misguided attempt to justify such an idiotic, homophobic stance.

Only on Forumosa? You really think the rest of the world, let alone the internets, is really a rosy, rainbowy, homofriendly place? Really?

bob, you are clearly an idiotic homophobe.
Careful lest you end up like Okami and Screaming Jesus.

[Fox]

All human efforts at positive loving relationships should be sanctified and protected by law, equally. People with children, old people, and the disabled should be extended greater courtesy, too. That's common sense.

[bob]

All human efforts at positive loving relationships should be sanctified and protected by law, equally.

Careful, you'll be branded an idiotic, trash talking homophobe before long.
.............................................................................................................................

My only point is that if gay people be extended the right to same sex marriage and the rights that that entails then straight people should be able to do the same thing. That's IT. If you can agree to that we are in agreement, if you can't you are (god I hate to use the phrase) a heterophobe, I guess.

The only critic of what I am saying that had anything even remotley substantive was Poagao asking me about the special rights thing. There are special rights, scholarships granted to only gay people etc. but they aren't numerous or large enough to be taken that seriously. I mispoke there. Somehow he picked up an anti-gay tone or something in there. Maybe it was the use of quotes. Maybe "gay" sounds homophobic. I dunno. What I meant by it was "gay" as opposed to "straight" or "asexual" or whatever else.

Not that I care all that much but being called a homophobe is a bit weird. I have been around gay people my entire life. Most of my favorite people are gay. Would I agree though that they be given economic priveledges based on their gayness that are not extended to me? Not on your life. Why the fuck would I?

White guys my age lived through what you could call "the age of special rights and priveledges extended to everyone except your demographic." It was a curious age to live through and one that left many of us with resentments. I could go on to talk about how there are still scholarship programs intended to balance the male/female ratio in universities still in place loooong after the number of women both entering university and graduation surpassed men, or the aborigineee friends I had that enjoyed all manner of priveledges not available to me or any other of a number other examples of special treatment handed out but it's like talking to a wall. If you don't go for the liberal agenda hook line and sinker you are labeled ignorant or bigoted or sexist. People are so stupid they think that by naming something they have undersoood it and that's the end of the conversation.

Next time you are in a big Canadian city go down to the soup kitchen and see how many middle aged white guys you see standing in line. See if they don't form a majority. When you are done with that come back and talk. Till then, meh...

You either agree that straight people be granted the sme rights as gay people or you are, what's the word, do we have to use "heterophobic?" It doesn't seem accurate. We need to invent a word to describe a person who discrimintaes against heterosexuals. People who have faced a great deal of dicrimination "as" homosexuals have a difficult time imagining that such a contrary state of affairs could exist, or rather do know exactly but have a hard time believing that someone would talk about it since nobody else does, for whatever reason. There is absolutley no question that the number of openly gay people assuming positions of power and influence is on the increase. Is it that hard to imagine that they might themselves be capable of the same sort of disciminatory behaviour that they were once victims of?

It is the blindness of it that fascinates me. The hypocrisy. A good many zionists I imagine had experience with ww2.

[Chris]

My only point is that if gay people be extended the right to same sex marriage and the rights that that entails then straight people should be able to do the same thing.

And straights would have that right. But how many people would act on it? Precious few, I would think. And if more than a few did, who cares? It's not my business or yours.

Freedom for all and let the chips fall where they may, I say.

[Dragonbones]

My only point is that if gay people be extended the right to same sex marriage and the rights that that entails then straight people should be able to do the same thing. That's IT. If you can agree to that we are in agreement, if you can't you are (god I hate to use the phrase) a heterophobe, I guess.

bob, there's not going to be any test for gayness, anymore than there is currently a test for heterosexuality before man-woman marriages. Just as gay people do sometimes engage in the latter, straight people would have the option of engaging in a same-sex marriage if such were permitted, so you're harping on a non-issue.

I mispoke there. Somehow he picked up an anti-gay tone or something in there.

As did I -- so my apologies if that's not where you were coming from, but it came across that way. Your writing can be a bit hard to follow, you know.

Most of my favorite people are gay. Would I agree though that they be given economic priveledges based on their gayness that are not extended to me? Not on your life. Why the fuck would I?

But there are no such priviledges, nor would there be if same-sex marriage were allowed. You continue harping on a non-issue.

In fact, there are MANY priviledges and opportunities open to straight people in our society, and closed to anyone who is openly gay, so a rare, special scholarship for a gay person is hardly matter for concern.

There is absolutley no question that the number of openly gay people assuming positions of power and influence is on the increase.

Excellent! It's good to see a decrease in prejudice and an increase in opportunities for any group which has been discriminated against.

[Poagao]

I have been around gay people my entire life.

So has everyone else, whether they know it or not.

Would I agree though that they be given economic priveledges based on their gayness that are not extended to me? Not on your life. Why the fuck would I?

Nobody is saying that they will. Not even you are saying that, though you seem to think you are.

White guys....

Yes, you are a horribly mistreated race.

People are so stupid they think that by naming something they have undersoood it and that's the end of the conversation.

I'd tread carefully here if I were you.

Next time you are in a big Canadian city go down to the soup kitchen and see how many middle aged white guys you see standing in line. See if they don't form a majority. When you are done with that come back and talk. Till then, meh...

Are they substantially more represented among the homeless population than other races and ages with respect to their respective percentage of the total population?

You either agree that straight people be granted the sme rights as gay people or you are, what's the word, do we have to use "heterophobic?"

Again with the imagined rights you keep alluding to: What. Are. They? Gay people are free to marry members of the opposite sex. If marriage equality passes, straight people will be just as free to marry people of the same sex.

People who have faced a great deal of dicrimination "as" homosexuals have a difficult time imagining that such a contrary state of affairs could exist, or rather do know exactly but have a hard time believing that someone would talk about it since nobody else does, for whatever reason.

You know this from first-hand experience, or is there a reason for the "'as'"?

It is the blindness of it that fascinates me.

You're not alone.

[bob]

Let's give up. You have no idea what I think and there is apparently no way for me to explain it to you.

[Chris]

White guys my age lived through what you could call "the age of special rights and priveledges extended to everyone except your demographic."

Oh yes, it's sooooooo hard growing up white in the US...

[bob]

Race based and sex based entitlement programs are racist and sexist. If the governmment is going to have any business in helping out the disadvantaged it should help those in poverty. If a particular race or sex is disadvantagd it will recieve assistance based on the fact that it is poor. That's it. What is it now thirty or forty years in and it is still neccessary to explain THAT? Unbelievable.

[bob]

Then why specify "gay" marriage? That's all I'm saying.

bob, you're talking trash. Why, when fighting to extend equal (not special) voting rights (e.g. to blacks, or women), would people sometimes refer to it by the name of the group, e.g. 'women's right to vote'? Because that's the group fighting for equal rights. That didn't mean anyone was fighting for special rights for that group that the empowered males didn't have, nor did it mean that women only cared about their own group. But there were probably some men making such ludicrous arguments at the time.

Similarly, when fighting to extend equal (not special) marriage rights to those who do not currently have equal rights, it is reasonable to refer to this by the name of the group which is currently discriminated against, and thus we may talk about either 'equal marriage rights for all, regardless of gender or sexual orientation', which is quite wordy and cumbersome, or we can talk about 'gay marriage' rights.

Enough with the 'special rights' hogwash. If you're against extending equal rights to people regardless of sexual preference because it makes you uncomfortable, why not just say so?

Uh, because I am not? I started this because I was concerned that a right was going to be "denied" people because of their sexual orientation. It's not that difficult to understand I don't think. Anyway, that's an example of that weird "with us or against us" mentality that I was talking about earlier.

Right now it is gay people who are actually prevented from obtaining the marriages they want and so the movement naturally has been for gay marriage rights and took that name. What I am suggesting is that if the people involved want to be more inclusive they should change the term to same sex marriage. If they don't they will be guilty of "precisely" the same sort of discrimination that they claim to be fighting against. I don't know what all that other mumbo jumbo you wrote was about. There is a term, it's "same sex "marriage.