Previous 21 - 30 Next
I'll top it. You bring commentary from this gay man as if it's representative of all gay men with little to NO context about the legacy of isolation unique to gay people only in a few ways. One could take away the word gay, and this could be true of MOST men. Males of isolated and marginalized minorities have been indicted with this same behavior. Leaving out that minorities are kept in such a state of different social and political restriction, other aspects that are more available become more valuable and urgent. Most MALES are less restrained because there was a time they didn't have the same risks as the results of sex. They don't get pregnant was one reason. And once most STD's had a cure, a fatal one hadn't been a fact of human life for a century. Don't try and make pathology something EXCLUSIVE to gay people, because they are at more risk for it. It's not from behavior unique or exclusive to them. But you wouldn't acknowledge or factor in what discrimination and bigotry does to a minority. You'd rather pretend the minority is deserving of it, only for the single distinguishing attribute they have. But that's been done before. To black men and Jewish men too.
Before ss marriage was EVER an issue, heterosexuals have made it clear what an EXPENDABLE commodity children are. The proof is in how many children are aborted and abandoned at will. The children living in poverty and in abusive and violent situations. Heterosexuals aren't vetted for fitness to parent by the gov't, and this society is reaping the results in the casual violence committed everyday, and the density of prison populations that are mostly hetero men and women. It's a good thing that a child isn't casually and irresponsibly conceived by gay people. Children have ALWAYS been a commodity, period. It's only been a 100 years since child labor laws went into effect. People had children to keep their farms and other enterprise going. Women were breeding chattel and children considered social security. Quit projecting heterosexual behavior on gay people. You can't hide from the facts.
Discriminating ONLY against gay people isn't exercising a belief, it's committing an act of discrimination that's against the law. Gay people are paying the costs of a huge population of unwanted children who end up on welfare, in jail and addicted. Gay people are saddled with ALL the same taxes, public funding and the welfare state, with NONE of the same benefits they've paid for. Nor any of the same rights and protections of the jobs they have, and the law abiding accountability as well. Yet, you're the one whining about what's unfair? Any fair minded justice would look at you and call it that. SS marriage doesn't reduce the number of children born into society. But this society DOES need non parent adult's money, support and taxation too. As well as adults to adopt and foster children abandoned by their bio moms and dads. Looks like gay people, regardless what a minority they are, still make a tremendous contribution. If you're going to complain, please state some facts. Making claim after empty claim is long past it's sell by date.
Can't blame gay people for that. It's heterosexuals that wanted no fault divorce. And you're not questioning THAT.
Eddie: I just told you and search the facts, the gov't hasn't eliminated any laws regarding the care of children. As I just said it can't ensure or enforce a child will have a mother and father over their lifetimes. The gov't hasn't banned divorce see? And the gov't isn't defining marriage between ANY two people, but two non related, consenting adults who share the same sexual orientation. No children or intent of them is required to have the right to marry. The gov't doesn't require or enforce that sex ONLY be reserved to make babies and only for people who can. What's ridiculous about your comment is how you place pathology as if exclusive to gay people. Simple being homosexual and a parent does NOT hinder the well being of children. If you were THAT concerned about it, why hasn't anyone tried to change the laws on the books in 35 states in which grown men can marry underage girls? These are archaic and antiquated laws. What about more severe punishment, like sterilization for any man who isn't paying child support or any adult criminally CONVICTED of child abuse? Being a gay parent isn't abusing a child. The FACT that you don't know the difference in that, is more neglectful than you'd be willing to admit. And people who work in law enforcement aren't the least bit impressed with false accusers.
You don't have to love, condone or feel anything about gay people you don't want to. However, equal justice and opportunity under the law for self determination and self reliance and happiness is a RIGHT in this country. And the proven results of such social justice matters more than your feelings. Our society is better for expanding fairness and equal access to gay people. It does not come at the expense of you or your God. Why? Because there is no moral or religious test for civil and human rights and shouldn't be for anyone. No one has to prove themselves worthy of being married in our society or any society really. The ethic at work is that marriage is encouraged and something for anyone to aspire to and have access to. Heterosexuals presumably marry someone of their same sexual orientation and should. Gay people are doing the same, under the same standards as everyone else. Or hadn't you thought of that? There is no fertility, religious, morals, endurance or health status test for the right to marry. Only consent, age minimum and kinship status are the only restrictions. Gay people meet these and AGREE to. It's when you try to subject them to tests that no one else is you have a conflict. Blame your hypocrisy trying to pass as moral reform.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the understanding of gender, and different variations on gender based behavior as been mostly misunderstood. Men especially entitling themselves to controlling those who they expected to be treated a certain way according to gender, and not individual ability and virtue. To this day, the value of femininity is still underserved and those who don't conform to rigid standards of being male and female...are violated. So that doesn't mean traditions around being male and female have always been GOOD ones. Indeed, the ONLY things that matter and it's result, is equal justice, treatment and opportunity under the law. Social justice and advancements in it to open the same choices to each human being is a standard you should be applauding. No one is EVER hurt by this standard. Men have protested this, whites have, heterosexuals have protested. Anyone who was dominant (and mostly cruel in it), has protested another group having such opportunity. But it still turned out to be a good thing for the betterment of society. I find Blackwell's attitude, especially as a black man, to be offensive because were it not for the same social justice being expanded to gay people, he as a black man might still be answering to white men's whims. There is no reason why gay people should have to be subject to heterosexual whims either.
How do you think up such things that have NO basis in fact? To answer your list: 1. The gov't hasn't denied it. The gov't has no way of making anyone marry, or have children. Nor can they stop anyone from having children whether married or not. 2. See, #1. And, the gov't can't ensure or enforce that a child have a mother and father. The gov't is satisfied that a responsible adult is willing to love, support and meet a child's needs regardless it's NOT the biological mother and father. Hence adoption, step parenting are accepted by law. 3. Since same sex marriage became law, people (gay or not) have continued to marry and procreate (not necessarily in that order anyway). And not a soul has denied that marriage and children are legally connected. 4. Prove where that link has been severed because of gay people 5. Gay people with children have proven quite effectively how important children are to them. The ones especially who have adopted children difficult to place and no one wanted. Those children thrived and their lives were saved by the loving compassion of gay adults, single or married. Note that none of the most outspoken anti ss marriage leadership have never themselves adopted a child. And certainly haven't adopted children who weren't ideal. 5. There is no morals, fertility, parenting, or endurance test for ANYONE to qualify to marry. No one. The ability to parent is not bestowed on GROUPS. Sexual orientation and gender has NOTHING to do with the quality that anyone will bring to A marriage and parenting. It's an INDIVIDUAL talent. And gay people as proven over and over again, have the same talent and potential as anyone else. 6. You're either mistaken or an outright liar. No such identification exists that ssm advocates are child abusers or are more abusive. You seem to forget that ssm advocates have GONE TO COURTS, and brought evidence, facts and empirical information that blows your comment out of the sky. We had PROOF on our side. Don't you EVER forget it.
In response to:

Grammy’s Same Love

du2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 1:28 PM
Historically, gays have been dealt a great deal of abuse, violence and have had to live down irrational prejudices against them for too long. And despite that, changes have occurred through DUE PROCESS OF LAW. No one should be expected to tolerate unfair bigotry and VIOLENCE against their number in this country. Your admonishment that gay people vilify bigotry, and don't tolerate discrimination is in itself dehumanizing. You don't have any rights to abuse another human being and fellow citizen based on their SINGLE attribute. Especially if that attribute bears no anti social tendencies. Just because you refuse to acknowledge that, doesn't mean society can or should accept YOUR lack of perspective. There is no equivalent here. This is a country that's bent towards justice. Your problem is not even YOU can think of or prove a rational reason to make law abiding, responsible gay citizens an exception to that equal justice and opportunity under the law.
In response to:

Grammy’s Same Love

du2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 1:22 PM
That's a stereotype that Jews have had to suffer. That they made more money, and did so, at the expense of other people's economic success. And committed anti Semitic likes to believe that. Just as someone committed to being anti gay will believe any negative stereotype they heard about gays. But who really has the credibility to know what actually being Jewish is? And who should you believe? The non Jewish anti Semite on Jews, or a Jew? Why believe a non gay, anti gay person on the life of being gay? You wouldn't believe a racist about people of color, would you? So who is Jackson, who is ANY anti gay straight man to opine on gay people at all? I'm a straight, black woman. And find Jackson's exploitation of stereotypes, misinformation and outright myth about gays, as offensive if he'd uttered the same about Jews or a particular national origin.
In response to:

Grammy’s Same Love

du2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 11:04 AM
Of course folks like yourself Ken, keep repeating something that the pro equality side NEVER said. And you're ignorant of history of gay people in the world, AND in America. The histories of gays and blacks is closer to SIMILAR than not. I'll say this again, ignore it. But it's still the truth. Gays are a historical and global MINORITY. They will never have the socio/political status to influence a democratic process. What gays have in common is their ONE attribute being used as a means of dehumanizing THEM in masse and committing them to unjust, tortuous and dangerous actions against them. A SINGLE, harmless, immutable biological attribute. It's been as evil and cruel to do so, as it has to do it to a person because of their color, gender, national origin or disability. The SINGLE difference gay people have, and regardless it does not render them anti social, a threat or socially or intellectually incompetent. It's used against them as if they are all those things. Just because it's NOT about color (and for gays of color it is), doesn't mean that there is a rational or good reason to be just as inhumane against gays and blacks or women have also endured.
Previous 21 - 30 Next