The Gay Guy wrote:
In my experience, doing outdoorsy things is no longer considered “straight” – more kinda sexual-preference-neutral. I could easily imagine a gay acquaintance saying to me, “Hey, wanna go ‘camping’ this weekend, wink wink nudge nudge?” I mean, if he didn’t know I wasn’t gay. And he was attracted to me. And I mentioned my affinity for Andrew Lloyd Webber, and stuff.
Hmmm, doesn’t sound too “sexual-preference-neutral” to me. 
Most of my gay male acquaintances’ idea of “roughing it” is lousy room service, so I still maintain straight men still corner the market on the outdoors.
Although I do sometimes go to an all-gay-male campground from time to time. But the big camping event I go to every year is probably 85% straight (that’s 10,000 people, too).
{sigh} Labels, labels, labels…
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
I was just reminded today of someone (and I do not remember the fair lady’s name here on SDMB) who once told me to stop arguing to the fundies, Jeezers and conservatives that being gay isn’t a choice. Her rationale was that it cheapens the issues of equal rights and equal treatment, and reinforces to people that we have something to defend, whereas truly it’s something that doesn’t need to be defended regardless of whether it’s innate or it’s a choice.
Who told me this? C’mon, you know who you are. (It actually might have been in this thread, but my ISP is giving me a headache today, so I thought I’d just ask.)
What are folks’ thoughts on this idea?
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
The Gay Guy wrote:
Sounds expensive. Where do they get the money for such extravagant living? Will I suddenly inherit a fortune if I become gay? Will I have to give it up if I de-convert? Or is it just that they save money by not having a girlfriend who expects them to spend a lot on her?
– tracer, who’s resisting a very strong urge to ask how much interior decorators earn.
What, haven’t you heard? Gays are a far more wealthy demographic than any other… according to the radical right. :rolleyes: DINK - Double Income, No Kids, maybe? Then again, I’m hardly wealthy, so this is one stereotype I wish I could live. 
A mint, if they get the right clients (an ex of mine is an interior designer).
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
Hey, here’s something that really bugs me…
What is it about marriage that Gay Rights Activists think is so important to homosexuals? I mean, I understand that there’re legal implications and insurance advantages and such, but among all the nifty things that come with marriage, what aspect is attractive to a gay person (or, what do you like about the thought of marriage?)
I have my own convoluted and repetitive theories on the subject, but having had minimal homsexual experiences (unless you count my Theatre involvement), I’m not in any situation to make an authoritative statement on the subject.
(By the way, if this has already been asked, just tell me I’m a silly boob or something and go on to the next question).
Being in the theater was a homosexual experience, SPOOFE? My goodness, how explicit were the plays you guys put on?
I was reading one of the Chick Tracts (strictly for amusement, of course), and it mentioned that before AIDS, the average lifespan of male homosexuals was 42, and that AIDS “only” lowered this to 39. This sounds like a blatant lie, which wouldn’t be very Christian of them. Do you have any reliable statistics on this matter? I’d accept a vague recollection of a third-hand rumor as being more likely to be true than a Chick Tract, but it would put my mind at ease to hear something reliable.
Oooh, I know exactly where that figure came from. The “research” of Dr. Paul Cameron. He arrived at that figure by reading the obituaries in gay publications. Only he did that during the AIDS epidemic, so it sounds Mr. Chick has selective forgotten his facts.
It’s explained really well in this link: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
Oooh, I know exactly where that figure came from. The “research” of Dr. Paul Cameron. He arrived at that figure by reading the obituaries in gay publications. Only he did that during the AIDS epidemic, so it sounds Mr. Chick has selective forgotten his facts.
It’s explained really well in this link: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
Oooh, I know exactly where that figure came from. The “research” of Dr. Paul Cameron. He arrived at that figure by reading the obituaries in gay publications. Only he did that during the AIDS epidemic, so it sounds Mr. Chick has selective forgotten his facts.
It’s explained really well in this link: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
Diddley
Every gay person you ask is probably going to give you a different answer, but I think the overarching “meta-answer” as it were is that inability to access marriage is probably the greatest badge of institutionalized inequality for gay people there is.
waterj2
Reliable statistics on the average lifespan of male homosexuals? no. Reliable debunking of the idiotic stat given above? Sure. The figure was derived from the “research” of Paul Cameron. Cameron is a thoroughly discredited “researcher” who has been drummed out of every reputable professional psychological and sociological organization with which he was ever associated for deliberately misinterpreting and falsifying data. he has a positive mania about homosexuality and his “research” always manages to support the conclusion of the right-wing nutjobs who finance it. His “study methodology” for determining the life expectancy of male homosexuals was to read the obituaries. If the obituary was for a single adult male he assumed it was for a homosexual. If it used phrases like “after a long illness” he assumed the cause of death to be AIDS. There has been no replication of his results and this “study” like everything else he has ever touched, is tainted and my feeling is it must be assumed to be bogus unless independently verified.
Otto said:
“I think the overarching “meta-answer” as it were is that inability to access marriage is probably the greatest badge of institutionalized inequality for gay people there is.”
I get it… it’s not entirely about the material advantages that come with being married, as some people think.
Thanks!
-SPOOFE
Actually, I don’t give a damn about the material advantages. Nor would I get a civil marriage if the only reason to do so was for tax breaks. In fact, I can get married right now in a religious ceremony and not have to worry about the legal entanglements.
However, I support the idea of civil marriage or a close approximation because, as it stands now, any relationship I get into will not be recognized by my own government. I could invest twenty years of my life in a relationship, but we would not be legally a family, yet a heterosexual couple married two days would be.
That’s the inequality that bugs the hell out of me.
The Gay Guy and his pals are here to help.
As Otto said, everyone’s got their own thoughts on it. Me, personally, two reasons - legal rights and societal affirmation.
The legal rights are what the main jist of the fight is all about - equal treatment under the law. And it’s not just the benes - ask any married couple, and they’ll tell you there are probably more problems then there are advantages to being married (taxes, for example, become much more convoluted). But equality means taking the good with the bad.
Society affirmation is much harder to get, but more important to have. As it stands, I can get up in front of my friends and family in my church and be forever united with the man that I love (regardless of the legal equality of that contract). But that commitment will always be looked upon with disdain by the majority of society until we go about changing the way society looks at people (and this goes for racism and sexism as well). Is it a bad thing to want to change the way society views a segment of its population from a negative one to a positive one? Of course not. But I think the legislation in Vermont is not a movement to force people to change their minds, but rather a reflection that people’s minds are changing.
I will refrain from comment, but snicker accordingly. 
Well, yes, it’s been asked, both in this thread and the one or two other gay marriage threads. Check them out if you want a more detailed accounting of views and such.
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
Yup. After all, do heterosexuals only get married for the material benefits? Or do some actually get married for superfluous reasons, like, oh, I don’t know, being in love?
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
I’ve been lurking but here I go:
One of my favorite counter-gay marriage arguments is “Gay marriage will ruin the ‘institution’ of marriage!”
Uh…
I am getting married in july. I can’t even fathom a way that gay marriage will make my marriage any less meaningful or special or whatever.
I was remarking to the very person im gonna marry that normally I can understand arguments that support positions which aren’t mine… I may not agree but at least I can get a handle on them. But this one? I just don’t get it. I think people who say that gay marriage somehow degrades hetero marriage have to go look at their OWN marriages.
Also, I’ve started using the phrase “that is sooo hetero” instead of “That is soooo gay!”. Just to make a point… Try it sometime… People will get the funniest looks. hehehe…
One more point. I was thinking that one could look at gay marriage as a sex discrimination issue. For example, take 2 lesbians: In this case, the marriage would be allowed if lesbian A were a male, or vice versa. Isn’t that a form of sex descrimination? Or am I just spouting nonsense…?
I’ve been lurking but here I go:
One of my favorite counter-gay marriage arguments is “Gay marriage will ruin the ‘institution’ of marriage!”
Uh…
I am getting married in july. I can’t even fathom a way that gay marriage will make my marriage any less meaningful or special or whatever.
I was remarking to the very person im gonna marry that normally I can understand arguments that support positions which aren’t mine… I may not agree but at least I can get a handle on them. But this one? I just don’t get it. I think people who say that gay marriage somehow degrades hetero marriage have to go look at their OWN marriages.
Also, I’ve started using the phrase “that is sooo hetero” instead of “That is soooo gay!”. Just to make a point… Try it sometime… People will get the funniest looks. hehehe…
One more point. I was thinking that one could look at gay marriage as a sex discrimination issue. For example, take 2 lesbians: In this case, the marriage would be allowed if lesbian A were a male, or vice versa. Isn’t that a form of sex descrimination? Or am I just spouting nonsense…?
Ugh sorry.
I hate it when that happens.
Thanks for de-lurking. Stay and play a while.
You’re not spouting nonsense. The Hawaiian lower courts felt the same. They stated that current marriage laws were a form of gender discrimination. However, the state then passed an amendment before the case could reach the state Supreme Court. The amendment removed marriage out from under the Equal Protection clause of the state Constitution. (I’ve always wondered if that state Amendment would hold up to US Supreme Court review).
Soe the Hawaiian Supreme Court had no choice but to dismiss the case.However, they let the lower court rulings stand, which were:
Quoted from Lambda Legal website.
So essentially, it was a loss in Hawaii, but is an indication that the sexual discrimination point of view might work in other states.
Also, I have often heard the argument about the Equal Protection clause in the US Constitution. Which is that homosexuals have the equal right to marry…the right to marry someone of the opposite gender just like everyone else.
I have thought that a way to counter that argument is to say that I have the right to marry a man, but Esprix doesn’t. Esprix has the right to marry a woman, but I don’t. That’s not equality under the law.