"Man, now that's low. I've never equated being gay with drug abuse. How could you?! Ian, come smack your boy around. He's gone off the deep end."
I think you have again forgotten the difference between an equation and an analogy.
"You didn't get my point. I'm not surprised. I talked about this perspective thing already. How long do you think a world would be populated if it were entirely populated by gays? It'd certainly solve overcrowding..."
You didn't get ours. The point is not about reproductive success, it is about the absurdity of giving someone an option they can't exercise and telling them its fair. I'll try again: "hey christian, everyone is allowed to only go to temple. So you have equal rights! Cheers!" Oh, remember my followup point that a totally homogenous nation of any type is done for?
"Jesus, Ian, what do you want? Disclaimers at the end of every political ad where someone disagrees with you, that says, "No gays were harmed in the filming of this ad." ? ... Sit back. Breathe. Relax. No gays were harmed in the writing of this post. Nobody attacked. Get it? Just me, expressing my opinion. Just California voters, saying what they want.."
I know you're deliberately not empathizing about this, but there is a difference between offering an opinion (I am frequently hard on religion and Bush Co; others take on liberals here every chance they get) and supporting legislation that has as it's sole purpose the elimination of other people's rights. Your inability to see why that bothers the targets is probably 100% related to your stated disinterest in understanding and your lack of experience with similar attacks. One paragraph up is the issue where you were asked to consider how you would feel if your only option were to marry a man, and instead of responding about how that might not please you or something, you have a tangential response about the reproductive success of a state with only gay men. That is "not getting it."* Then you have this "love it or leave it" reply--almost not deserving of response. What, I can't speak up for my rights in my own home state? I'm sure you would have told Alabama blacks the same thing in the 60s.
"Everybody says they don't want the Federal government to get involved. But when the states (who everybody says they want to handle it at their level) do something you don't like, it's 'an attack. 'They did wrong.' 'The courts need to step in.'"
I don't recall saying a thing about the federal gov't. And yes, there can be attacks at the state level. Of course?
"Here you don't have a bloody idea of what you're talking about. Sexual harrassment charges can end careers. And they can be slapped on someone for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, or even about the wrong person."
Sigh. Do you really want to equate the way straights and gays serve in the military because straights can get into trouble for sexual harassment and gays can get in the same trouble for it AND be expelled for who they are? The POINT is inequity, why would you think I felt straights had total immunity?
"Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Think we can talk about our religion freely? That's Proselytizing. Say a prayer? Even a chaplain has to parse his or her words carefully."
Sigh. Again. Equity. When the words are carefully parsed at a gay military wedding, things will be equal. When gay partners get VA healthcare or housing. When they serve openly. We all know the military has restrictions-duh. We are talking about additional, unfair, and burdensome restrictions placed just on LGBs (well, I am; you're determined not to get it).
"You act like the military's a little social experiment, a little microcosm of freedoms everybody else 'should' have."
Ah, at least we found an issue you care about. You're getting PO'd. But you're missing the point. I'm not asking for a disco ball and a sex party. I'm asking that LGBs have the same right to serve openly and that all these pretenses about how we'll destroy cohesion and be blackmailed (don't ask don't tell facilitates that one) get dropped for the nonsense they are. There are a bunch of integrated military units which work just fine. Women were added with good success. Blacks were integrated despite the same objections about cohesion. Then, those LGB service members expect to be treated exactly the same and face the same restricted lives everyone else knows they'll get when they join. Meanwhile, your plan is to not care about DADT because some other unrelated restrictions apply to you. Evidently, these are the rights you were whimpering about previously--and yeah, that's restrictive. I would hate it. But remember: you had the freedom to choose it. *I* over a hundred hours a week for less than minimum after 8 years of higher education, and was under the thumb of the supervising doctors--and I am totally responsible for that choice, want everyone to be free to make it, and want everyone in the program to be treated the same. You don't catch me saying "well, the law that requires hispanics to work 60 hours a week is ok with me because I freely CHOOSE to work 100 myself."
"Oh, that's right. There aren't gay and lesbian parades, where punks make a mockery of religious images, symbols and personalities. Of course not. Gays couldn't be prejudiced. What was I thinking? They'd never do anything wrong. I hath seen the light, and it is a rainbow, thanks to brother Ian."
Do you know how many pride parades I've been to in my whole life? ZERO. I also find them objectionable. So don't lay that at my door. Don't tell me that everyone in a group should be punished for the actions of a few. Heck, the KKK members hold worse parades and you haven't asked them to lose their marriage rights. Black people commit more violent crimes, you want to take away their guns? Of COURSE some gay people are prejudiced; they're people. Another prejudice is assuming we're all the same.
"Nobody was stripped of a constitutionally protected right. Marriage isn't a right. Why can't you admit that?"
It's not something I have to "admit." Marriage has two meanings: religious and civil. Religious freedom (and the religious institution of marriage) should absolutely be left alone by the state. And there is no reason to restrict civil marriage to opposite sex couples. So why admit it? I don't believe it. Neither did the state Supreme Court. Those people were legal and state constitution experts. They're not perfect, but neither are they insane. If you think you, by stating your mere opinion that marriage is not a right, undid all the arguments that swayed these experts... well, maybe you're just tuned out.
"What could opponents have done with their side of it, Ian? Food on the table of people who can't afford it seems a better use than forcing a government to grant a particular type of sex practicioners various alterations to government functions."
Ok. I even asked you to think think think
WE spent money because WE were under attack. We aren't going to lift a finger against anyone else so a similar battle can't occur. I would say that spending to defend yourself is a bit more valid than spending to eliminate the rights of others (their words). Besides, the government wasn't being forced--gay marriage was working without incident, and without alteration to anything except the gender part of the marriage form. Lastly, the fact that you think LGBs are just regular people who insist in having a different kind of sex tells me a lot. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that LGBs have an identity they don't choose that is independent of behavior. I'd be gay if I never had sex--just like you'd be straight if you never had sex.
"And what about the new ones, Ian? When do we shake off the word 'homophobe?' How long will that one haunt everyone who disagrees publically with your groups' agendas?"
Another word we should get rid of is "racist," because that hurts some racists' feelings. Yeah. I will agree with you that it is overused. There definitely ARE homophobes, like some suitemates in college who were so disgusted by my identity (once I told them 9 months in) they couldn't look at or speak to me. Then there are people who just disagree, like creationist housemate Ricky my 3rd year. We had many great discussions and he didn't have any irrational fear of me or I of him. He was NOT a homophobe.
"I was the only white man within five blocks...."
That's a scary situation you describe (the guns, not the black people). I'm glad you were equal under state law when that happened. You understand physical threat. You haven't had anyone come for your civil rights yet.
"Not because I felt the need to tell people how I got my jollies off at night."
Hey, that's pretty callous. That reminds me of the jerks that assaulted me and sent me death threats in Virginia. We don't get that out here in California. Here, me just being my discreet self is a non event just like it is for the straights. I don't consider them to be talking about their sexual proclivities if they talk about their kids, and they don't resent me if I bring my partner to an office partner. I no more tell people about my jollies than you told those people who threatened you that you were white. You just weren't hiding. And I'm not going to deride your problem as being due to your need to go tell everyone in a black neighborhood that you were white.** Because that's not how it was, and that would be--stupid and dismissive of me. By the way, I lived in a really sketchy area of Boston at the end of the orange line, carried a knife for protection, and had my car stolen. That was to save some $ for my future. I made my cushy job (not at the VA incidentally) just like you.
"Ian. Your position on same sex marriage? It's not neutral, man. Just a friendly hint. There's one side, and you're on it. Then there's the other side, and you don't care. That's not neutral."
IF I had said my position was that gay marriage should rule the land, I could see where you were coming from. That changes marriage in the eyes of some--although it is neutral in that everyone is free to do their own thing. BUT what I clearly said, several times in this thread alone, is that MY position is to take the government out of marriage and the religion out of civil unions. Let churches be free to pick the couples they marry. Let government give out civil unions without prejudice informing the selection. THAT is neutral. READ my posts.
As for the justification for 8, I see you still have none. Why shouldn't they have supported it? It made marriage unequal. It serves no legitimate government purpose. It was very costly. It distracted us from real issues facing California. It was divisive (neighbors were NOT battling on my street during the months of gay marriage; that only came with the nasty Prop).
As for the fight that my side is losing, what country are you writing from? This is a setback. This was a reaction, however, to tremendous gains. About 40 years ago gay people didn't exist. They had no voice, no legitimacy, and no rights. Now? Married gays in two states, CUs in many, discrimination protection in many areas, huge strides in visibility and tolerance. Yesterday two married couples sent me pictures of themselves and their NO on Prop 8 signs and bumper stickers in support and the ones with the 4 year old girl told me she was explaining to her Grandpa why she believed in marriage equality. The next generation clearly supports marriage equality. All in half a lifetime. Heck, that is an inspiring loss to have!
PS: what the heck are you talking about, we mock people who bring in money and put food on the table? Most of my gay friends are physicians, the remainder as other professionals, and in all the couples at least one cooks well. Just what is it you think we do at work and home? It's not satanic rituals, it's regular work and food on the table just like everyone else.
*additionally the analogous situation would be a state with men and women where marriage was limited to same sex couples, not an all male state.
**You know, you've been yammering on about your straight sexual practices and proclivities and jollies just as much as me recently. Why can't you people get through a day without shoving sex in everyone's faces? Hmm?
Meanwhile, Colorado rejected a measure that would have made abortion the legal equivalent of murder by defining human life as beginning at conception. Yay for not going overboard.
