Gay Marriage: Put into it's proper perspective

It's the Gay & Lesbian forum, where people discuss issues related to being gay.

Still not listening, still not getting it. We aren't demanding the label - it's the bigots who have slapped a label on us as a means of avoiding having to deal with us as real people. The label very conveniently conjures up people's prejudices toward us, whatever form those take. It's the ultimate ad hominem, a means to be dismissive of us.

At the same time, how are we supposed to discuss issues in the Gay forum without using the word gay?

What this boils down to is that you'd like us to just shut up and go away. If we can't even use the word in a context where it applies, you effectively silence us.

Well, I'm not shutting up, and I'm not going away, and I will use the word gay in the Gay forum all I like, and at any other time that the context makes it relevant. So get over it already.

 

...because you haven't been made a near constant target of discrimination, belittlement, harassment and violence on the basis of your orientation.

No, it's probably one of the last things I would tell anyone in describing myself, because it's none of their effing business and I've learned not to trust people with that information. Real life differs considerably from this forum.

Actually, I'll agree with you that some gay people do exactly that. We've gone from a time when we had to gather together in the "gay ghettoes" for our own safety, to a time when some of us are experiencing greater equality and moving to the suburbs. If I have to read one more article bemoaning the loss of the gayborhoods and the things that make gay culture special, I may just puke. Can't have it both ways - either we want to be integrated members of society, or we don't. I personally see absolutely nothing to be gained from reveling in our marginalization, which is where most of what passes for "gay culture" comes from.

It makes me ill. And them some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) politician tries to take away all our gains, and I'm reminded that we aren't there yet, and of how much further we have to go.

 

Silence = Death. We're not going back into our closets for you.

 

Exactly; I agree.

And I'll give the deniers and homophobes (more labels) two choices of labels for those of us who are same-sex-oriented:

1. "Gay"

2. "Homosexual"

I can assure ANYONE that most homosexual or gay people see those designations as being acceptable, common and normal. We don't purposely or unnecessarily cling to the labels themselves.

And with little variance... if someone finds out that we are NOT "heterosexual" human beings, they WILL label us (very often using the disparaging terminology of their choosing). So, when I fight for my humanity or that of others (even away from this forum)... I will describe people as they must be described, to make things clear.

Really, it seems that some, protest our POSITIVE use of the term "gay", as we refer ourselves and others who happen to be "homosexual". And most people I've seen readily protesting the use of so common a term as "gay" or "homosexual" are 'projecting' their own problems or hangups onto the same. I've been around a LOT of straight and gay people... and relatively few people actually bring that up, unless the need to clarify or make it known is important. For example, when you are with a group of people you are hanging out with or seeking a mate... it can help to let people know your sexual-orientation in classy or discrete ways. After all, there ARE gay and straight people who are friends and hang out together. Unnecessarily awkward situations might be avoided, by discretely indicating one's sexual-orientation (amongst true friends).

 

closets??

About what? I just don't get you

Other than where you stick your willy there is no frikkin difference between you and me

why do you feel it important to let people know how you have sex?

Do you want me to get into how I do it? Frankly, it's none of your darn business

 

Well, that much is obvious.

Continuing to be dismissive and minimizing. I've already answered this sufficiently, and you refuse to address those points. Nothing left to say, really.

I don't.

Knowing that I'm attracted to the same sex (gay) doesn't even tell you if I'm having sex, much less how. So what's the big deal? Seems you'd prefer it if people acted as if sex and attraction were non-existent. I don't think it's important to let people know what I'm attracted to in most contexts, either.

Which brings us full circle. Why is it an issue at all that some people are attracted to the same sex? Your claim amounts to an accusation that gay people are the ones making a big deal out of it, and while I think it's fair to say that some are (protests, 'pride' events, stupid stunts like going to a Santorum rally, yelling to get people's attention, and then engaging in same-sex kissing just to provoke a reaction), many (if not most) of us are just trying to live our lives and wish it wasn't a constant source of anxiety.

What you refuse to even consider is why those things happen. This is where I remind you that only a short nine years ago people in a number of states could still be prosecuted for private, consensual acts between persons of the same sex. The laws vary by state; some apply to more than one sexual act, every state in which those laws remain applies them to same-sex coupling, and some apply them only to same-sex coupling. While the laws are not enforceable thanks to a Supreme Court decision, that doesn't mean we can breathe easy.

We haven't forgotten our past, and more to the point - we're continually reminded of it by people who would like to return to prosecuting any same-sex act without consideration for issues of privacy or consent.

It's not hard to predict the response to my arguments. Infrequent prosecution doesn't make the availability of prosecution less chilling. That a desire to return to criminalizing same-sex acts remains a part of some states' GOP platforms tells us that it's not just a few loudmouthed busybodies whom we should just ignore. The threat is real, and I'm not inclined to rely on the words of apologists who claim "it will never happen, it has no traction"; not when expanding GOP control of state governments has produced a new wave of legislation targeting us (not that I put any trust in Democrats, either).

The point is, I don't think it's anyone's business to know the details of my sex life, but when I'm made a political target, I'm not going to keep silent.

On a social level, I don't go around proclaiming my gayness to everyone. Other people don't proclaim their straightness to me (well, not most of them anyway). But it's not as if people pretend to be sexless, either. It becomes known through casual conversation that people are in relationships, and I'm not going to pretend that mine is heterosexual or non-existent, or that I'm asexual. Been there, done that. Hiding one's orientation requires constant effort, and usually isn't very effective anyway. It pretty much requires walling ourselves off from others socially, which makes people suspicious. It also tends to (*)(*)(*)(*) some of them off when they learn the truth: they consider it lying by way of omission. Some are hurt that we didn't trust them, others get mad because they really don't want to have anything to do with gay people, and feel like we've tricked them in some way.

Condemned if we do, condemned if we don't.

No. I haven't shared those details with you, and it's beyond ridiculous that you insist knowing my orientation amounts to telling you how I have sex. You focus exclusively on the sexual aspect, seemingly in an effort to ignore any and all other context in which our relationships take place.

 

Yes, what you propose is asinine. Demanding equality, but only for gay people.Because they are gay.

 

um aren’t you letting me know boat how you have sex should you keep that to yourself as well rather than admitting your heterosexuality

 

No one has done as you say. Stop lying.

 

You are an Anfrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal" kind of homosexual, seeking acceptance by aping heterosexuals through marriage. As opposed to a Michael Warner "The Trouble With Normal" kind of homosexual who dont want to change by trying to ape heterosexuals, but instead demand acceptance of the way they actually are.

The increasing rates of HIV among men who have sex with men I believe reflects that the Michael Warner type homosexuals are in the majority.

 

Nonsense. It is in the title of the thread. "Gay Marriage" as opposed to marriage for all.

 

wasn’t the thread title made by someone who doesn’t want gay marriage?

 

Likely so. But thats because "gay marriage" is whats being advocated for. What has been added in 6 states with gay marriage. In the 4 states where the courts mandated gay marriage, it was only the denial of marriage to gays that was determined to violate the constitution.

 

ah, your favorite strawman. can you quote him demanding equality ONLY for gays, because they are gay?

 

poppycock. the six states with same sex marriage, say nothing about having to be gay in order to marry someone of the same sex. this tired strawman has been beaten to death.

 

Saying that other kinds of marriage should be allowed is not an argument against gay marriage we all get this don’t we

 

Yeah, just as it "say"s nothing about having to be heterosexual in the other 44 states. But they all still have laws on the books that annul platonic marriages for a failure to consummate, because of the impossibility of procreation without it. And laws against closely related couples because of the potential of procreation.

 

Theirs laws that force a couple to divorce because they don’t have sex?

 

Prove the bolded portion. I want links to the text of the laws in every last one of those states, or your claim will be considered false. Because it is false, and you know it. Only a handful of states have laws that require sexual intercourse in order for the marriage contract to be considered consummated, I seriously doubt you can find one wherein the government goes snooping for proof of sexual intercourse, and it probably only ever comes up if one party goes seeking the annulment - not as a result of the government banning platonic marriages.

 

No, there aren't. It's just another lie.

 

Prove it. Link us to a post where I ever made such a demand. Otherwise, it's just another of many false claims you've made.

 

Aping? No. It's pursuing a lifelong commitment to one person - a value I was taught by my parents and grandparents (both married over 60 years, unto death). Yes, they were heterosexual; but aping implies imitation without employing intellect. It's meant to be an insult, pure and simple.

Sure, I try to cultivate the best traits of my parents and grandparents marriages - I'd be foolish not to, given their success.

Oh, and dividing gay people into "Andrew Sullivan" and "Michael Warner" types = creating a false dichotomy. I'm my own person.

Tell the whole story:

It says an increase in "estimated diagnoses", not in the rate of infection. Increased testing and earlier diagnosis likely play a role in that increase. It's also an estimate. That estimate could be inaccurate, "due to uncertainty in statistical models".

For another thing, "Men who have sex with men" doesn't mean gay. It's a broader spectrum of sexuality that includes bisexuals, and some of these are men whose primary relationship is heterosexual, but who also have sex with men.

Regardless, it's a clear indicator that education about safer sex practices either isn't reaching these men, or they're ignoring it for some reason.

Of course, what you're very conveniently ignoring is that only a fraction of gay men are actually infected or will become infected. It's not all of us, and not the majority of us.

And it's also not surprising that you would trot out the specter of HIV in order to demonize us. Must mean you're losing the argument, so you pull out the old standby. Pathetic.

 

??? I never claimed there are laws that "force a couple to divorce because they don’t have sex". And an accusation of a lie, coming from a person of your character, is meaningless. Although, I should have used the term dissolved, as most states it grounds for dissolution of the existing marriage as its only a handful that annul the marriage as if it had never existed.

 

Not true. The bans that were overturned applied to all marriages between persons of the same sex, and the rulings overturned those bans for all same-sex couples' marriages, not just gay couples. There is no requirement that a couple attest to nor prove that they are gay in order to obtain a marriage license in those states. One or both parties could be bisexual or even attracted primarily to the opposite sex. No requirement for them to engage in sexual acts with each other for their marriage to have the force of law.

Do we know the orientation of all the plaintiffs? Was that ever reported? Did every last one testify to being gay? The laughable part is this: It doesn't really matter what the plaintiffs' orientations were, only that they could show they had standing to pursue their cases. Since the law banned the recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex, they didn't need to be gay; they only had to be persons of the same sex seeking to legally marry.

What really matters is that the laws were found to lack a legitimate purpose. They were adopted to express disapproval of gay couples and their relationships, and contained nothing to forward the purposes claimed by proponents. However, that does not mean the ruling applies only to gay couples - you will not find a single ruling that limits the application of the law only to gay couples. The rulings apply to any same-sex couple not prevented by some other factor of law form legal marriage.

Repetition of the lie that "it was only the denial of marriage to gays that was determined to violate the constitution" won't make that true. The law was found to be unconstitutional because it created a class for a suspect purpose (expressing disapproval of gays), and in some of those cases was found to have failed even the lowest level of scrutiny, lacking a rational basis.

I do not believe for one moment here that you're just making an honest mistake. You have a law degree, and you therefore ought to know better. I can only conclude that you're employing dishonesty in an effort to confuse people.