wvderby, all I'm saying is that if you're intellectually honest, you'll have to admit that by your own logic, the neediness and attention-seeking that you allege applies to straight people who want to get married as well. If you're then saying that marriage as an institution is universally problematic, ok then. But if you're just pointing out gay people who want to get married as being needy and attention-seeking, it seems like you're only manifesting the basic antigay discrimination that pervades society. Silly gay people for wanting equal rights-->silly black people for complaining about sitting in the back!

I too am quite self-sufficient--I make six figures and I live a lifestyle that is a far cry from my working class background. I don't need the tax breaks of marriage, but I have enough awareness of self and the world around me to know that many other gay people are not similarly situated. Also, if I can't get the tax breaks or other advantages of marriage, why should I be subsidizing those tax breaks and benefits for my similarly situated straight counterparts?

Also, from a purely pragmatic matter, marriage-status doesn't just have minor tax implications, but also affects important legal rights like citizenship, parental rights, visitation rights, end-of-life decisionmaking, etc. But you wouldn't know that if you were apathetically thinking about your own situation. Think about the number of times you wrote the letter "I" in your last post. How about that for a stereotype--the self-centered gay man. I'm not flaming or baiting you. I'm just puttin' it out there...

[ March 31, 2006, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

No, heterosexual couples get married for reasons beyond attention. Some of them do get married for that reason, but there a factor in hetero marriage that 99.9999% of gay couples will never face.

It's called children.

oh and LOL @ the "self-centered" gay man. That would describe almost the entire gay population. Don't try to place a stigma on me that can be applied to almost anyone, gay or straight.

I am a gay man who earns very good money. Between my husband and I, it is much higher than the national average. We own a new home, a cottage, etc.

We don't need to be married, but when the law was changed up here in Soviet Canukistan, guess what?

We GOT married. We have the wills, the power of attorney's etc, as well as the laws that said a gay common law relationship is treated legally the same as a str8 one, i.e. almost the same as married.

But we WANTED to get married. We didn't need to, but after being together 25 years, I wanted to.

We didn't do it for anyone but us. But there was one advantage. The religious right ass****s in mine and Wayne's family had to shut up.

Cuz now that we're married, they have NO CLAIM. Something that they took great delight in hanging over our heads, that as soon as one died, the other would be out on his ass.

Well, it doesn't work anymore. I was finally able to tell them all to f**k off.

ANd then I went home and f**ked my husband till we were both crosseyed.

The issue is males are more self centered. Not that gay males are more than straight and vice versa.


Its part of the makeup of men. This issue shouldn't even be a part of the this debate.

Also, Derby your premise for arguing why you shouldn't be discriminated for being a Republican is interesting. By your own admittance, you state its based off financial reasoning. That is fine. However, that is a a very SELFISH ideology.

There are many masks. Not all are visual. Some are power, some are money,a and others vanity- physical apperance. Some are all three.

Its all a matter of perspective one where you discount your own, yet condem others for theirs.

LOL. Ill call you later.

[ March 31, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

I don't believe the claim that gay people have an average income that's triple that of straight people. Gay people in each tax bracket may have more disposable income than their straight counterparts, but much of that is b/c many gay people do not have kids.

But even if gay people were wealthier, are you saying that wealthy people should not be treated equally? That they should not be afforded the same rights and privileges as those less fortunate? That doesn't sound very Republican of you.

This issue isn't about economics or taxes for most of us. There are other issues, like survivor benefits, medical decision-making, and, most importantly for many, the ability to establish a real and legal family (of particular importance for those who are shunned by their biological families). I am happy that you feel you don't need marriage and no one has asked you to support it. All I would ask of you is that you don't deliberately do things to prevent the rest of us from getting it.

lol Chad, I made my point. My point is not to argue gay marriage. I REALLY don't care and am simply apathetic regarding the issue. Unless someone comes here preaching to the choir, their position on any issue will never be accepted no matter what arguments are provided. Preset notions are hard to overcome.

Point 2...
Most gay guys fit right into the left wing of the political spectrum and those of us that don't will never be accepted by the general gay population if their political viewpoint must be known.

Some of you see my point, some won't. Although I am gay, I don't belong here.

[ March 31, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: wvderby ]

Derby, you aren't the only conservative on this board. A minority perhaps, but not unrepresented.

You belong here just as much as anyone maybe even more so.

Financial reasoning is a very valid and understandable issue for someone to be a gay republican. However, you should applaud the Log Cabin for at least advocating their plight of marriage to the RNC even though they know its going its a no win situation beyond the McCain's and 20-25 percent of their core base
that actually are open to gay issues being part of the GOP platform.

That being said, I think people need to realize there are guys like yourself that are GOP supporters. Also, there is a militant left wing ideology of gay lifestyle and the DNC that many like myself can't relate to as many like yourself can't relate to the militant right.

All of this needs to be put into proper context and see that there is a middle where all of us have common ground. A common ground and realization that is more evident beyond the first glance.

[ March 31, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

A basic point in scientific research is that correlation doesn't equal causality. The reason that you may feel (whether perceived or real) shunned from the gay community could be because you espouse antigay positions (I don't know your political views outside this thread). Maybe you're an ass**** (not saying you are). Maybe you're ugly (not saying you are, but people are often shallow). I don't know anything about you--I'm just saying that there could be other factors involved--I wouldn't assume that you're shunned solely because you're conservative, since there are quite a few Republicans on this board who are welcomed, and I know quite a few gay Republicans in my real life who aren't shunned by the gay community. That said, you could be right but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

I agree that GymMountaneer--you shouldn't be chased away simply because someone disagrees with you. You at least made people including myself think through why we may (or may not) support gay marriage efforts and put us on the spot to make us articulate our reasoning.

[ March 31, 2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

It's all good. I'm used to being in the minority. I know who I am and I know my identity...and I'm just happy that my identity is not conformed to the typical idealogical "gay culture" defeatist stereotype. Good to know there are a few of us out there. wink

Even in Mass you aren't equal because the Feds do not recognize your marriage. An American citizen married to same gender spouse cannot get her/him residency.

I will - against my better judgment - weigh in here with an alternative opinion.

I do not believe that we should be working toward acceptance of 'gay marriage'.

- Marriage is a solemn religious vow. The Government should not be involved in sanctioning religious ceremonies of any kind.
- Marriage, since it is a solemn religious undertaking, is way to divisive in most of the US.

The Republicans and the Religious right have been playing a game of semantics over the last decade : and they have been winning. The WAY the concept is presented to the public in a one sound bite fashion is the determining factor on the way they will accept it.

Call it 'gay marriage' and they will fight you to the death. Call it 'Defense of Marriage' and you have every married couple in the US fighting for it.

A far better strategy in the long run might be to get the Federal government out of the business of recognizing religious relationships.

Leave 'Marriage' to the religious.

Perhaps we should be working toward finding another term to encompass the LEGAL RIGHTS that we are really seeking, and have that term (Domestic partner, Family, whatever ...) apply to any partnership or family unit that wishes recognition of those legal rights before the government.

IF we could find a single sound bite definition that meant 'give gay partners their legal rights to pay taxes and enter into contracts', without being perceived as ATTACKING what for many is a SACRED institution, then we will have even conservative republicans climbing on the bandwagon and more success in getting the legal rights that most gays really want.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for the RELIGIOUS Marriage of gays too. But that is not a fight we will win soon in many churches. We can go to other churches however - or - we can fight for slow change in religious views.

Probably in Sept, I will be getting married in a dual civil and religious ceremony in the UK. Luckily I am a resident of VT, so that many (but not all - federal recognition for example) of my legal rights are protected there. Because I own property in Boston, I could also switch my residency there and have similar rights protected without giving up my US citizenship (something I refuse to do).

I want the full spectrum of recognized civil legal rights. I don't give a damn what they are called as long as it does not make/keep me as a third class citizen.

I think we should be fighting Semantics and Sound bites with Semantics and Sound bites. Lets not get bogged down in trying to fight for our rights in such a way that 3/4 of the US thinks we are trying to attack their Religious views and their Marriages.

Rob

PS - If you really want to gain perspective, you should travel to a few of these countries where you can still be jailed for 10 years or even put to death for the act: It does... widen your views.

Ed for PS
R

[ April 01, 2006, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Just a thought to ponder...

A single person that chooses not to be married could ALSO be considered a "third class citizen" since they do not receive the same benefits of those that are married. This is the conclusion I draw from the context of some of the arguments I have seen on here.

BTW my picture is in my profile. Not to sound cocky, but I don't believe I would be considered "ugly" or unattractive by the majority of people.

[ April 01, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: wvderby ]

Attractiveness is in the mind.

Don't assume because you're good looking that you're attractive

"Attractiveness is in the mind."

I wouldn't say that always applies. Sounds like the old cliche "...but he has a good personality."

We all know what that means. Looks aren't everything but it does have a huge influence on people's attractiveness since it is usually the first thing that initially attracts you to someone. Usually people that argue differently are in denial that they are not very physically attractive themselves.

My comment has always been that I believe that a strong portion of attractiveness can be in the mind, especially as we mature and get older.

Young gays (and some of what I call the "Fashionistas") seem to be only about greek Gods and perfect fashion and attributes. "Oh, my God, he has a birthmark on his back. How could I do that?"

As I approached around 25/26 a few years back, I started noticing other things- like voice, eyes, laugh, humor, smile that I could hone in on. Someone that at first I thought was very average looking or just "somewhat cute" can become majorly attractive to me simply because he has a great heart.

Looks will fade as you age, but an ass**** will always be an ass**** no matter how tight and bootylicious his ass might be.

[ April 02, 2006, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: kick ]

You cannot deny that most people's initial attraction to someone is purely physical. Everyone has their preferences that go beyond the physical attraction. You can't determine whether someone fits those non-physical preferences until you actually get to know them...but usually (maybe not in ALL cases) the FIRST thing that draws you to another person IS their looks. That's all I was saying.

...and I would classify the gay male culture as predominantly superficial.

I think it changes somewhat with age... I guess you could say that I am the Ted of the QAF mantra.

Oh well, maybe sour grapes on my behalf. *sigh*

Your first impression of someone is usually much more complex than just their physical looks. You normally will also be responding (consciously or not) to how they're interacting with the people around them, body language, voice, etc. Your own mood at the time probably plays an important role as well in shaping that first impression.

JC- Thanks for stating that in better language than I could.

I can see what you mean about the actions and body language. As soon as I see a guy acting with feminine mannerisms, my attraction ends at that point no matter how appealing his actual body looks...it's still part of that physical aspect though. Physical looks, actions, and reactions. It's still the first impression(s) you get from someone.

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the practicality. Religious and Civil marriage are so strongly intertwined in this country that separating them is impossible. Any attempt to do so will be met with accusations of an attack on marriage (which it kind of is). With all the posturing over a made-up 'weakening of traditional marriage' currently in play, actually separating civil from religious would create actual substance to the accusation.
Unfortunately, Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage are stuck together.

I think the present course is pretty good. Ten years ago, who would have thought we would be where we are now? Opinion is swaying, and the religious right knows it. That's why they want Amendments now, because each day that passes, more and more people become sympathetic to gay rights.

You know, it is also an interesting fact that the only people I have ever heard make this claim are the anti-gay religious right. As someone else pointed out, socioeconomic status should not impact civil rights, but this argument is still used against ALL gay civil rights, not just marriage. The idea is, "those fags and dykes are rich, so they don't need 'special rights' like being included in job discrimination laws."

The reality is much different. The statistics on alleged gay and lesbian incomes derives from two main sources - magazine readership (e.g., surveys of readers of the Advocate) and attendance at national and regional GLBT conferences. Neither group is representative of all gays and lesbians, not only because their education levels will tend to be higher than the general population - just as a survey at the national NAACP meeting would not give you an accurate estimate of African-American family income.

IIRC, when broad-based surveys and analyses of gays and lesbians at all levels of the economic spectrum are done, gay male individuals make less than straight male individuals, most likely because of discrimination, and lesbians tend to make slightly more than straight female individuals, often because they are more highly educated and work in non-traditional fields than straight women. When couples are considered, two gay men make more than the national average for couples, two lesbians less, because most national households have a man and a woman contributing income. Gay men still make more than straight women, so their household income is a bit higher, while lesbians still make less than straight men, so their combined income is lower.

Here is one link with some work on the issue: Beyond Biased Samples

Now it is certainly all well and good for you, or any individual, to reject the idea of marriage for yourself, and I wonder when, if ever, this country will be ready to have a real discussion about whether marriage is truly the ideal we think it is. But until that time has arrived (and even then there will still be gay people who will want to get married), I firmly believe the fight for gay marriage is key - both because it provides legal recognition and respect for our relationships, and because it provides gays and lesbians a way to trump their blood relationships and have their life choices respected by their families, no matter how homophobic they may be.

I remember well when my great-uncle died in 1989, and the hospital treated his partner like dirt. My grandmother, who was the younger sister of my great-uncle, was livid at the treatment. Although my grandparents' generation was not "tolerant," that generation in my family had accepted Harry and Steve as a couple. I always thought Steve, the surviving partner, was tremendously lucky that Harry's closest relative thought that way - it spared him so much potential pain at a very vulnerable time. Lord knows, in Florida in the late 80s, it would have been exceedingly easy for my grandmother to find a homophobic judge to overturn wills or other legal protections Harry and Steve had in place.

Most other gay guys I know are fairly well off. Just take a look at this board for example. How many people on this board are professionals? This board is loaded with them. Also, why would you find it insulting that we make more money than straight people do? I personally take that as a compliment. I'm by no means rich myself but I do make well above the average "straight" per-capita income and run my own business. It's a sign of motivation, ambition and intelligence. Why the hell would you be insulted by that?

Those of us who follow the rule of law and the voice of the electorate and not our own emotions and personal preferences for judges to act as legislators fully understand and appreciate this decision. Only those who cannot grasp simple common sense would find such statements "extraordinary."

[ April 03, 2006, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

You using this board as a sample size, or your friends, is like Paul Cameron trolling the death notices in the gay newspapers, and using those to set the average life span of gay men.
It's called flawed science.

As well, just because you are "well off", and your friends are, doesn't prove a thing. Like tends to associate with like. be it African American gays, twinks, circuit party queens, professional gays, leatherbears etc.

It's human nature to be the most comfortable with those people you have the most in common with.

It also plays into the prejudices of str8's. I don't know how old you are, but god knows that gay men and women of my generation fought enough battles with the str8 community, that we don't need to start fighting the same battle with our own.

It's like a gay guy here at work. When he found out that Wayne and I had gotten married, his reaction was that "I don't see a need for gay's to be allowed to be married. I don't want to"

His attitude is very much like yours. The focus is so narrow, that you cannot see that just because something doesn't fit into your world, that you are generalizing it across the entire gay community.

We fight enough of that shit every day from the str8 community.

I sure don't! Methinks you're quite appealing.

lol thanks.

Number crunching is a funny thing. I wonder if any of these numbers include all the "MWM's" using a wife as a coverup for being gay you see looking for hookups on the internet. lol

wvderby - Stop blowing your own horn for five minutes and listen. Your attitudes are not the only valid ones around. Your way of being gay is not the only valid one either. Free your mind, please..

I've stated we all have our preferences. My political and social views certainly don't fit most people's perception of being gay. Nothing new to me to get accused of being closed minded for that reason. Disagreements and arguments happen. So what? What fun would the world be if we all agreed on everything?

This board would not exist.

You've more than convinced us (or whatever your perceived audience) that you're unlike any gay person we know...Now, more importantly, have you finally convinced yourself that you're not like those "gays?"

And if anyone needs to hear why gay marriage makes sense, read about Ireland:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../i122834D68.DTL

I honestly don't care about gay marriage. I just find it interesting that so many make it a centralized mission in their life to have it instigated. My beef with it is not in the general idea, it was that an organization that I used to be involved with became more concerned with the advocacy of gay marriage than issues I felt were more important and thus did not endorse their own candidate for the 2004 election. Most gay people are so self-centered that all they are worried about is BEING gay and are not concerned with other things in the world around them that influence every other aspect of their life.

As far as being like other gay guys...How many conservative gay republicans do you know? I never said I was the only one, I'm just pointing out that those of us that ARE generally are not accepted by those who aren't. What do you think would have happened if say for example:

The LCR (had they endorsed Bush) would have been running a Bush for President booth at a Pride parade? I'm sure we would see the "open minded" side of the general gay population. Pot-kettle-black.

I know some quite well!

As do I. As do many of us.

Wow!I usually avoid political discussions because basically I hate politics.However,when I read this comment "Most gay people are so self-centered that all they are worried about is BEING gay and are not concerned with other things in the world around them that influence every other aspect of their life." I just couldn't help myself.I don't think you should confuse fighting for respect and survival with being self-centered!I'm really shocked that a gay man would make such an elitist comment and I'm not surprised that you are a Republican because it sounds like you have lead a very privileged life.

Well said - and the absolutes are really a bunch of non-sense..."most gay people are[insert b***s**t statement]".

Everybody slow down here. I think we all know where everyone stands, so do NOT let this thread heat up in at all a personal manner or else it gets closed. As always, you can private someone of you wish.

Thanks!

Lock it down -

wvderby - The pain and confusion surrounding being gay can be overwhelming enough. When homophobia comes from within, it hurts even worse. If you learn to treat yourself with compassion instead of trying to fit into several acceptable compartments, you may find it easier to have compassion for others and where they are on the long road home.

See Marty, that hot,passionate temper almost got you into trouble again!!

You are actually accusing me of being homophobic?
Ok. Sorry if it bothers you that I think there are more important things in life than my sexuality. I do not "try to fit myself into several compartments." I AM who I AM. I believe what I believe on my own free will. Sounds more to me like others want me to fit THEIR idea of "gay." No thanks.

Eddie -you make me do bad things and yes, your avatar is Fabulous - with a capital F. eek!

Thank you,my love! XOX

wvderby - I appreciate that you have different opinions but everytime you state one, it seems defined in opposition to some predominately "gay" opinion. Reading your posts lead me to believe that you've got very limited, very urgently defined parameters to what's acceptably gay.

As far as gay marriage goes: Ireland's Prime Minister stated clearly that he doesn't believe sexual orientation should make people second class citizens. I think that's pretty definitive when discussing a gay person's right to marriage under the law. We pay the same taxes, contribute economically the same way the heterosexuals do. And the churches can do whatever they want to do. That's freedom of religion but they don't get to decide what others do under the law.

[ April 03, 2006, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

I doubled this up- forum leader- can you delete this one?

[ April 03, 2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: kick ]

I believe the issue of gay marriage should be less about the actual act of marriage and more about being a civil right.

Because marriage affords so many privileges (inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation, etc), it has essentially become a legal right. Because a sector of the population has not been afforded these equal opportunities.

You can insert blacks or women as the disenfranchised and right to vote versus homosexual and right to marriage....both are sectors of a population, both are privileges.

This argument should be sooooo flipping simple.

It just sucks when as gay men and women that we cannot agree simply that everyone deserves this privilege on some level.... if you were to say blacks or women could not agree that they deserve the right to vote, it would be ridiculous. Why would a homosexual disagree that we deserve the privileges that marriage brings?

Why exactly should this thread become simply a debate about the views of one, self-described "gay conservative"? If our friend from WV really does not care about gay marriage, why post about it?

Back to the main topic, if marriage is to be, as defined by the GOP, "one man and one woman" - I will state again it is beyond the time when we require politicians to prove their marriages are valid according to this definition. Therefore, lets see the DNA testing that proves Jenna and Barbara are actually the spawn of King George II and his murdering concubine; let's demand proof that Elizabeth Dole could have, sometime in the past of course, actually produced children; let's finally start showing what DOMA and other laws are really about - pure and unadulterated anti-gay hate.

When all the "conservatives" out there actually support mechanisms to enforce "one man and one woman" (e.g., no intersexed people allowed to marry, no infertile people allowed to marry, no people with any genetic challenges whatsoever allowed to marry), then they will have a leg to stand on. Until then, their only aim is to stop the fags and the dykes, and we need to point that out.

[ April 03, 2006, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]

I don't think anyone was insulted by that. Believe me, not all non-Republicans are money-averse. I like making the salary I make and would love to make more. But I don't think the claim you made is accurate. Anyone can look at a relatively small sample of a certain population and extrapolate out to an erroneous conclusion.

This board's membership is hardly representative of the entire gay population. First, we all have the money to own computers and have high-speed internet access. We all have received a better-than average education as evidenced by our ability to write and use proper grammar (well, most of us, anyhow wink ), and by our willingness to engage one another in political discussions and policy debates. The group before you is hardly representative of the larger society, not to mention representative of the gay community. Like yours, my friends are almost all similarly situated (professionals with advanced degrees, excellent wage earners, property owners, etc.), but I don't think that we are the norm.

There is nothing inherent in gay people which causes them to make more than their straight counterparts. So unless I see hard facts to back up the claim that a gay man makes, on average, three times that of a straight man, I simply cannot believe it to be true. I am not insulted by it, I just don't think it's based on fact.

[ April 04, 2006, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

Well, I would expect gay per capita income to be higher because gay children aren't being counted. Per capita income is strongly influenced by dependency ratio, which is going to be significantly lower for gays. Household income would probably be closer.

In any event, there are no reliable statistics of any kind about gays because of the difficulties in obtaining a representative sample. Any technique you use is going to oversample out gays who are more likely to live in in and around the major urban centers of the northeast and west coast, which are the most affluent parts of the country. Social class and education may also influence whether you're out or not.