scout

Exactly my point.


Last I checked it's legal to be gay or lead a gay lifestyle. The only thing outlawed in several states now is to get married in the traditional sense.



Life is bigoted. Everyone is bigoted in some sense of the word. What's wrong with a few moral constraints on society? Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why can't we all just live together in peace and obey the laws, even the ones we don't agree with. There's a time and place for all things under the sun. To break existing laws to get what you want is not the proper way get said laws changed or make anyone particularly sympathic to your situation. I personally don't agree with some speed limit laws, does that mean it's ok and I shouldn't have to obey the laws I don't agree with? No, it means I should lobby my representives to get the laws changed.

I think everyone should be tolerant of other views. Teaching kids to be tolerant is perfectly fine. Teaching acceptance is something totally different.
Teaching acceptance is teaching kids moral values their parents might not agree with. What's wrong with parents teaching their moral values to their children? Why does moral values have to be taught in school? One can be tolerant and still not accept someones chosen lifestyle as being morally healthy. I live near and work in the city gays proudly call the "gay capitol of the midwest". I have to be tolerant, tolerance which I most happily extend. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I have to morally agree nor morally support their lifestyle decisions. From what I understand it isn't necessarily marriage most of them want anyway, they merely want the same rights as married couples. This can be accomplished by legal civil unions, unless you live in Ohio. So be it then, if that's what they want then do what every other law abiding citizen does and get the laws changed. Don't you think it's a bit ironic that gays made this huge political statement, basically said "fuck you" to the system and society and now that the system and society has said "no fuck you", their leaving?

Charlatan

If we did that nothing would change. Some moral constraints are patently bad (i.e. Blacks not being able to marry whites, laws banning anal and oral sex, etc). If people had followed your reasoning and just obeyed the law there would be no impetus to change a pointless law.


I disagree. Breaking the law... especially one that is rather pointless brings attention to said pointlessness. It underscores the need to change the law. It is a form of protest. These people breaking the law, it should be noted, are also willing to do the time to see that change it made...

To get a bit hyperbolic... Do you remember someone named Rosa Parks? Or someone else named Nelson Mandela? What about Steven Biko?

These are all people who broke the law to stand up for something they believed in. There were definate consequences to their actions.

(And please don't anyone jump on me because I am hauling out some of the most exrtreme examples of this... They are, as I said above, hyperbole meant to underscore a point of view).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

tropple

Oh, fardles. You've pulled out the "some of my best friends are..." arguement, I'm left totally beaten. I bow to your youthful exuberance and surety.

Actually, "media" encompasses quite a bit more that your narrow definition.
Media is all of that, as well as printed matter.

I'm done with this thread. I don't see any point in trying to discuss this with you. You've obviously set your mind fixed that I can not have more knowledge or experience and I am not going to waste any more lunch breaks trying to convince you.

But have a nice whatever, no hard feelings.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

aliali

Maybe a little off topic, but has anyone noticed all of the republican doctor ads about the doctors having to leave their state or the practice because the laws that favor them don't favor them enough? The Hollywood far left started publicly talking about moving in 2000 if Bush won, but none of them did. More and more of them talked about it this time aroud. Now this thread is about gays leaving the country over same sex marriage, which, by the way Kerry was against. Bush winning didn't change anything there.

I say the movie stars, doctors, and angry gays can all leave if they want to.

Bet you almost no one does.

Nazggul

My point is that you clearly are not exposed to the population in question since your steriotype is so pathetically typical. There, you forced me to say it so you could understand me.

All of what? Maybe you need to read what I wrote again because you assume too much. All I said was "outlet," you assumed the narrow definition all on your own.

Yes, please crawl back into your hole. You obviously don't have a reasonable argument to back up your point of view so you resort to sophomoric banter.

__________________
"If something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

tropple

Ah, the idealistic outrage of youth.
Nazggul, go back in time to the point where I asked about gays who act out the media stereotype. Now think real hard. Why did your response drift off to gays who do not act out the media stereotype?

Let's just drop the media outlets portion. It's seems beyond you to imagine me wayching anything more than SPIKE or Comedy Central. I'm not going to try and dissuade you. Nor am I going to argue with you.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Janey

What does GLBT stand for?

Charlatan

Gay Lesbian Bi-sexual Transgender

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

kutulu

Even though both were opposed to same sex marriage they were very far apart in how much they opposed it.

Charlatan

Ultimately, I don't think this is about Bush being re-elected. It is about the referenda to ban gay marriage in 11 states (not to mention those that already ban them)... and the perceived notion that the moral right is driving the agenda at the white house (note: I said "percieved notion").

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Nazggul

Tropple, your ageism and droll commentary is more humorous than productive at this point. I can’t maintain a decent conversation with someone who makes such blatant assumptions beyond what I post. I'm not even sure what SPIKE is, and coming from you I'm quite sure I don't care.

I may not be done with this topic, but I am certainly done with you.

__________________
"If something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

Janey

I have this discussion with my friends quite often: what is the definition of gay? is it purely sexual (i.e. physical) or is it in the mind or a sliding scale of both?

for example, a guy who cross-dresses, is not essentially gay because he may still partake in sex with women. But if he is transgendered, is he gay if he continues to have sex with women? Or is the transgendered gay when he partakes in sex with men, because physically he is male (XY chromosome) but otherwise has adopted a female perspective?

Further, what are lesbians trying to do when there is a butch partner in a couple? does that mean that they are not really gay (mentally) while gay physically?

Charlatan

A guy who cross dresses may or may not be gay or bi-sexual. It all depends on what gender he prefers to have sex with. In fact, I understand that many (if not most) crossdressers are hetero... they just like dressing in women's clothes.

A transgendered person is not neccessarily homosexual. They are people who feel they were born into the wrong gender and wish to alter that with an operation. Their homosexuality is a seperate issue.

Lesbian with a butch partner... what about Gays with a "queen" partner? If they are gender MM or FF they are homosexual, regardless of how they externalize themselves.

(no study on this just listening to my gay and lesbian friends and my own observations... feel free to correct me if I am off base here).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Janey

okay, so it comes down to the pure physicality of it all. if we define M = XY (genetically) and F = XX, then regardless of how they externalize themselves, i.e. transgendering, cross-dressing, Queening, Butching, as long as you have an XX & XX pairing, or XY & XY pairing for sexual reasons, they are defined as gay.

In the case of communal living, they would not be defined as gay, because there is no physical relationship. what about remote relationships? eg, internet lovers, where there is no physical contact?

Charlatan

Wow, we are getting a bit off topic... oh well.

If I am I guy who loves men and when I think about being in a relationship with someone and that someone is a man... I am gay.

If I am that same guy and a can also see myself in relationships with women... that would make me bisexual.

If I am I woman who loves women and when I think about being in a relationship with someone and that someone is a woman... I am a lesbian.

If I am that same woman and a can also see myself in relationships with men... that would make me bisexual.


As for a post op transgendered male who likes to sleep with women... is that transgendered individual a lesbian or a heterosexual? Good question. My first instinct is to say they are hetero.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

guthmund

Yes, it's legal to be gay. I would like to point out, however, that in the 60's it was legal to be black as well. You just couldn't sit at the same table as I nor use the same bathroom. I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights movement and segregation, but this is the perfect analogy. "We" don't like black people, but see there's no real way to get rid of them, so, "We" magnanimously "give" them seperate, but equal. Except when concerning homosexuals, we haven't even done that. So, they can't even get married in the non-traditional sense.

To compare speed limits and gay marriage....well, let's not finish that sentence. Like Charlatan pointed out to break a blatantly stupid law is to point out that it's blatantly stupid. How is it not blatantly stupid to award half of society something and not all of society. How is it not blatantly stupid to say it's okay for you guys, but you fuckers, no way!?! Not to mention basing that decision on something as blantantly stupid as who you like hanging round in your bed.

There's nothing wrong with a few moral constraints on society. Can't walk around naked, can't beat it at the supermarket out in the open, can't marry animals, aren't supposed to have sex with them and the list goes on. The point I'm trying to make....We are all citizens of the United States. We vote, we work, we pay our taxes and pay our bills. Why do we deserve the right to be joined with someone we love and they don't? They're not trying to marry other animals, vegetables or minerals, right? Just another human being. Another citizen of the United States. I'm no better than them. I don't possess some super gene that makes me superior to them, do I? Why am I afforded the right and they aren't?

If this is about God, then make it about God. The government has no business legislating the will of the Almighty. It has no business legislating articles of faith, even if that faith is the majority. The purpose of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To speak for the littlest man and allow his voice to be heard just as well as the biggest. The government has no business in fulfilling articles of faith.



Why do you need to accept anyone elses chosen lifestyle? This particular lifestyle choice hurts no one. That being said, I fail to see how who I'm banging is any business of yours and your acceptance is both unwarranted and unwanted.

You don't have to be tolerant. People don't have to be tolerant. That's the beauty of America and free speech. Anyone can be a loud mouthed, homophobic shithead. And thanks to the size of the country, chances are they can find people just like them. However, it's a helluva a lot easier to spread intolerance as long as you appear to be tolerant. It's a lot easier to defend your position while dressed in a nice dark suit rather than cut off jean jackets with anti-gay pins and holding signs that say such charming things as "God hates fags" and "Matthew Shepard is burning in Hell."

Intolerance is intolerance no matter the source. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig...or one of my ex-girlfriends.... The methods may have changed, but the message remains the same.

You say you "happily extend" tolerance because you "have" to. If you didn't "have" to, would you "happily extend" that same tolerance?

I don't care a bit about what you want to call it. Marriage, Civil Unions, Civil Marriage Unions. I couldn't possibly care less. The point is make it the same for everyone or no one. I read online (it was a while ago and I have no idea where it might have been, I apologize) a modest proposal to make all unions as far as the government was concerned civil unions and let churches issue marriage licenses. If you wanted to be joined, you'd get a civil union. If you wanted to get the blessings of the church then you'd also have to get married. You'd have both. As far as the government was concerned joined couples would be in a civil union and equal under the eyes of the law. Marriage would be a superfluous add-on for those who wanted to have the church recognize their union. I don't know why I mentioned it, but it sounded pretty reasonable, so there it is....


What I find ironic is that the federal government, which is supposed to be about bringing folks together and inclusion for all, of the United States, a country founded on the principle that we're all equal under the law and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is giving anyone the big "fuck you." That's what I find ironic.

Nope. Wait. I find that sad.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Deckard

I feel very sorry for Americans. It seems everyone over there spends so much of their time trying to show pride in their libery and freedom. I've never seen so many flags as in the US on 4th of July. I reckon you've all been ripped off.

Charlatan

It *is* one of the great ironies in this world... a colossal example of double-think.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Janey

Well, yes it is a bit off topic, but these are conversations rather than debates aren't they? Can't they evolve as normal convesations do?

But I gather from your points that the mere thought of relationships with same gender (eg, desire without acting on it) will define one as gay. I think that what I am striving to discover is if it is a purely physical act, versus an emotional commitment.

Charlatan

I believe it's an emotional or mental state...

In order to be defined as "straight" I don't have to consummate my straightness... I simply have to understand that my lustful or intimate thoughts are for women rather than men.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

flstf

I see nothing wrong if people want to go to Canada. The U.S.A. has a long tradition of people immigrating here instead of staying in the country of their birth to try and make things better.

I don't think the brain drain will amount to much. I doubt the states will even notice that they are gone.

xxSquirtxx

Yes, because we all know how progressive Canada really is.

http://tinyurl.com/4xose

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty encouraged Muslim parents today to allow their children to attend public school classes that include the teaching of tolerance toward gays and lesbians.
McGuinty and Education Minister Gerard Kennedy both reached out to Muslim parents who are upset about what the Toronto District School Board calls “anti-homophobia education” at a downtown school.

“I think it’s important that all our children have the opportunity to learn about those things that distinguish one of us from the other, and that they learn to respect those differences,” McGuinty said.

“I think the kind of society that we should all aspire to is one where we respect each other’s differences.”

Controversy erupted after students at Market Lane Public School were shown videos that depicted the feelings of children who get taunted at school because their own parents are homosexuals.

Angry Muslim parents complained that their religious beliefs were getting less respect from the board than gay rights and demanded that their children be excluded on religious grounds from similar presentations in the future.

The board rejected their request last night on the grounds that allowing some students to be excluded from discussions about gay families would violate the rights of those children with same-sex parents.

“Ultimately, our civil values include respect for sexual orientation,” Kennedy said before a cabinet meeting today.

“I don’t think there’s any harm done to parents who find their children exposed to ideas that are different than the ones they teach at home.”

Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry said it’s not just Muslim parents that are concerned because students are learning lessons about family values that differ from what they might learn at home.

“Teaching tolerance at a young age is a must,” said Elmasry, who’s also a professor at the University of Waterloo. “But you have to balance that with the appearance that you are not promoting certain values, in this case homosexual families.”

Elmasry has himself been at the centre of controversy after suggesting in an interview that all Israelis over the age of 18 were legitimate targets for Palestinian militants — comments for which he has since apologized.

Conservative Leader John Tory said parents ought to have been told about the videos ahead of time. He said there are ways to ensure everyone gets the message of tolerance without running afoul of anyone’s religious beliefs.

“We should be able to find ways to teach that kind of mutual respect for one another without forcing people to feel they’re in a position where they have to take their children out,” Tory said.

Kennedy said schools have always been good at teaching diversity and must continue to play a major role in building a tolerant, multi-cultural society.

“I would like to encourage parents not to undermine that.”

Ontario’s New Democrats echoed the government’s position.

“I believe that human rights come above religious rights,” said NDP critic Michael Prue.

“I would hope Muslim parents would understand that they have chosen to move to a pluralistic society, and it goes along that that we have respect for everyone, including them.”

Kennedy urged the board to work with the Muslim parents to address their concerns, noting that it’s vitally important for all children to learn that some of their friends may have parents who are homosexuals.

“There are ways to teach respect that may not be offensive and still essentially accomplish the objective,” he said.

“But respect is something we’re not prepared to stand down on. . .and our schools are an important place of learning it.”

__________________
.

Janey

My problem with the Ministry's and the TDSB's postion is that they took it upon themselves to narrow the focus of teaching about anti-bullying to that of the very narrow segment of population which may be homosexual. And they expect parents to accept this which further re-inforces the validity of the alternative lifestyle to children in their formative years.

What they could have done to make the programme palatable to the majority of parents, is to grandfather in the homosexual parent group with the over all concern about bullying. taunting and bullying in the school yard is by no means restricted to kids with homosexual parents. My first day in a Canadian schoolyard (being born in Trinidad, of chinese parents) was in Grade 6, where some girls immediately called me a chink and said that I should go home to where i came from. !!! My sisters and I took to walking home together so that we wouldn't get picked on. And it didn't stop at the kids. Even Teachers automatically assigned me to ESL classes, even tho I was brought up with a British Education in Trinidad. Just because i was chinese looking.

So. Bullying has to be addressed as a whole. Enough of the breaking it out into its sub-divisions. This way we get buy-in from the parents of all segtments of society.

timalkin

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix