Because if you had met gay people, you would surely, surely have realised that they don’t choose to be attracted to same sex partners, they are just born that way.
This may not go for all gays. But most of the ones I know are so obviously, obviously G.A.Y. I don’t mean camp/effeminate/butch stereotypes - I just mean (men mainly - I know few gay women) guys that clearly don’t have that straight male vibe. Guys that I know would never find me sexy even if I looked like Marilyn Monroe-come-Pamela Anderson-come-Cindy Crawford.
They are not the same as straight men. They are DIFFERENT. They are wired to fancy other men.
When you meet (some/most) gay guys - this is just so obvious. I just can’t understand how the gay bashers can deny gayness as a natural thing - albeit a minority one, albeit one that “deviates from the norm”, whatever.
I look at someone like Bush and I just cannot understand how he cannot perceive this. Which makes me wonder if he has ever actually properly met or talked to gay people?
Yeah, “bashing” gay marriage is about as mindless as saying that people who oppose gay marriage are bashing it. Or about as mindless posting that Bush has never met a gay person, when he has nominated several openly gay people to his administration.
Gay marriage is opposed by something like 60% of the population of the US. It might behoove you to try to unerstand that rather than just dismiss it out of hand. You act as though the US represents the only civilization ever to exist and not recognize gay marriage.
I myself and completely neutral on the subject. But I can understand that principled people on either side of this issue can hold divergent views without necessarily being evil or wanting to “bash” anyone.
I don’t know if gay people are gay until I’m told (as a result, I’ve had crushes on very hot gay guys before). Probably if you don’t know very many gay people, you wouldn’t notice that vibe, at least not conciously.
And when I look at Bush, I wonder how he can perceive anything.
I can’t. Opposition to gay marriage stands precisely opposite to my conception of what being “principled” means. I can understand and respect people who are opposed to any number of principles I hold dear, because there are good reasons for being on either side of the debate. Short of being against the entire institution of marriage, I’ve never heard a single good reason for being opposed to gay marriage that didn’t boil down to either an irrational dislike of gays, or an attempt to enshire religious beliefs as law. I would have trouble seeing anyone who holds either of those positions as being “principled.”
For those who claim to know gay people yet still oppose same-sex marriage, the obvious follow-up question is how you explain yourself to them. I read this article about the MA constitutional convention seeking to ban SSM in that state earlier today and this all-too-typical response stood out.
I doubt there are very many SSM opponents who would state flat-out to, say, a Jewish couple that their religion ought to bar them from access to marriage, yet you all apparently feel no shame about saying it to gay couples.
I hope he had the opportunity to shower shortly thereafter.
I’m sorry that you’re so unhappy, Otto, that you go out of your way to insult people. Hurting people try to hurt others, so I hope you find peace with whatever is bothering you. It’s really sad.
I am not sure the relevence of the above statement. In 1950, I bet 60% of the population opposed the full integration of blacks into society, yet it was accomplished because it’s the right thing to do. If 60% of the population opposed women working outside the home, should we fire all the females in the workplace and send them packing back to the kitchens where they belong, admonishing them to turn in their shoes on the way and telling them they better be knocked up within a year? How does 60% of the population oposing gay marriage justify depriving 6-10% of the population of some of their basic human rights? Can you answer these questions, please? ( without resorting to archaic superstitions or the “ick” factor )
Heh, the only way I’d support a gay marriage bann is if they also outlawed adultery. This article in today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution says that a state Representative advocates just that (it’s near the bottom). I found that very amusing, to say the least.
As an aside, I’ve always thought the state should only recognize civil unions between partners and leave the whole ‘marriage’ thing to the churches; in other words, make marriage ceremonial/personal while the civil unions take care of all the legal issues involved when 2 people decided to pair up. I’m thinking that’s to commonsensical to ever fly, however.
I never said it justified anything. I just said that it seems silly to dismiss out of hand a belief held by a majority of Americans. And it’s unclear that marriage is a “basic human right” in that the gov’t is required to recognize it-- for straight, gays, siblings, or polygamists. We’ve decided in this country that government can regulate marriage. I’d rather see the gov’t completely out of that business altoghether. But if it is to regulate marriage, then it’s reasonable to expect that not all “partnerings” are going to be, or should be, recognized as marriage.
We got to where we are, with the privileges and responisbilities of marriage defined as they are, over hundredsd of years under the assumption that the marriage would be between one man and one woman. If it had been openned up beyond that from the beginning, it’s unclear that we would be where we are now (with the same privileges…).
No, Teelo, it’s not about the words husband or wife. It’s about being seen and treated as legitimate human beings in a legitimate relationship. Like it or not, people look at your union differently when you’re married as opposed to living together. A lot of it’s very subtle, and I doubt most people even realize they’re doing it, but it happens. It’s about being legally and socially viewed as the parent of your partner’s child. It’s about being the next of kin for the person you’ve committed to being with for the rest of your life, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. It’s about a million things big and small that straight people take for granted every day.
One of Dr.J’s coworkers went through all the paperwork to give her partner power of attorney, property rights, etc., that were similar but not equivalent to being married. (Their legal status is more like business partners than family.) It took her a couple of months and a couple thousand bucks in legal fees. We got all that and a lot more by filling in two forms and giving the state of Louisiana $27. They’ve been together for years, relocated to be with one another, supported each other through med school and residency, and bought a house together, just like we have. The only real difference between their relationship and ours is that they have the same sort of genitalia, while ours is different. So why the huge difference in how hard it is to be recognized as legal kin?
Because there’s something about standing in front of your friends and (hopefully) family, perhaps in a place of worship with a member of the clergy presiding, or in a lovely garden filled with flowers, and taking sacred vows - sacred to the both of you, at least - to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health…
Wait, that could also be a hetero wedding. The answer to your question is “For the same reasons straight folk do.”
There’s also the legal protection, too. Yeah, that can be important and necessary at times, no? Especially when a lot of gay people have evil parents (as does my common-law spouse Jeremy) who could potentially “step in” in the case of death or illness of their child (who is suddenly important, even though they rejected him or her years ago) and force the partner out of the picture.
It happened to Jeremy before, when his partner committed suicide a little over 10 years ago. So help me God, it will never happen to him again, nor will it happen to me.
Although now that I’ve named him sole beneficiary on my life insurance, I sleep with one eye open, in case he gets ideas, you know.
And…where are we? Life on this planet’s just ducky, isn’t it?
I’m unclear as well: are you suggesting that it would be somehow less desirable to live in this day and age if gay marriages had been accepted all along? How so? Give me an example, please - because I believe that any two people in love deserve to celebrate their relationship, and that includes being recognized as a married couple.
Spellcheck, people!
I hestitate to post this, for I know I shall soon be burned to a crisp, but…
I am gay. I do not support government recognition of gay marriages (I actually lean towards getting the government out of the business of recognizing marriages entirely). I believe that a homosexual orientation is largely unchangeable, and I fully accept that two members of the same sex can feel love for each other, but I just as firmly believe that marriage was instituted by God, and should be between a man and a woman.
