As occurred on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" last night from SUNY at Albany:
MATTHEWS: ...Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of so much in this country. People come here, a lot of immigrants. The "New York Times" recently began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just
straight people getting married, but gay people who want to announce their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?
CLINTON: No.
Front and center, Team Billary apologists! Ex-plaaaaain, hut!
Full Version: Say It Isn't So, Hillary!
Political expediency.
Later in the show she did say she was for civil unions, but that is still not good enough for me. Why should she and all other straight people be the only ones able to have a f**ked-up MARRIAGE and still get all the benefits!!!
She lost alot of points with me over this.
She lost alot of points with me over this.
I am a Democrat and I am sick of the gutless "liberals" who will not stand up for us. Is it so hard to say, "I believe everyone in a loving partnership should have that relationship recognized. I don't think the country (or NY state) is ready for gay marriage, but I do support providing those rights that we can."
Still, it's better than the Repubs - there was an interesting article in Details magazine entitled "Does George Bush Hate Gays," which described the environment for gay and lesbian employees of the White House and conservative members of Congress - basically it's a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and certainly Don't Bring Your Partner to the Office Christmas Party." At least any gay members of Hillary's staff can talk about their partners.
Still, it's better than the Repubs - there was an interesting article in Details magazine entitled "Does George Bush Hate Gays," which described the environment for gay and lesbian employees of the White House and conservative members of Congress - basically it's a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and certainly Don't Bring Your Partner to the Office Christmas Party." At least any gay members of Hillary's staff can talk about their partners.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
I am a Democrat and I am sick of the gutless "liberals" who will not stand up for us. Is it so hard to say, "I believe everyone in a loving partnership should have that relationship recognized. I don't think the country (or NY state) is ready for gay marriage, but I do support providing those rights that we can."
Still, it's better than the Repubs - there was an interesting article in Details magazine entitled "Does George Bush Hate Gays," which described the environment for gay and lesbian employees of the White House and conservative members of Congress - basically it's a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and certainly Don't Bring Your Partner to the Office Christmas Party." At least any gay members of Hillary's staff can talk about their partners.
I've actually wondered about William1685 on this front. Seriously, not trying to be a jerk, but are you out at work in the republican political environment? I used to work in a heavily conservative field (defense) and was the customer contact until I came out, then things changed, I eventualy left the company and became much more successful, so it turned out OK.
I am a Democrat and I am sick of the gutless "liberals" who will not stand up for us. Is it so hard to say, "I believe everyone in a loving partnership should have that relationship recognized. I don't think the country (or NY state) is ready for gay marriage, but I do support providing those rights that we can."
Still, it's better than the Repubs - there was an interesting article in Details magazine entitled "Does George Bush Hate Gays," which described the environment for gay and lesbian employees of the White House and conservative members of Congress - basically it's a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and certainly Don't Bring Your Partner to the Office Christmas Party." At least any gay members of Hillary's staff can talk about their partners.
I've actually wondered about William1685 on this front. Seriously, not trying to be a jerk, but are you out at work in the republican political environment? I used to work in a heavily conservative field (defense) and was the customer contact until I came out, then things changed, I eventualy left the company and became much more successful, so it turned out OK.
The form of this debate highlights the laziness of the media, politicians, and even most gay activists. This fight over "marriage" rather than "civil unions with all the same civil rights that straights have" is a smokescreen thrown up by religious bigots that gay rights' supporters keep walking into. By keeping the argument about "redefining marriage" rather than "equal rights", people who whine about not being able to have the stupid word -- "marriage" -- miss the boat.
Most people making this argument seem to think that the ability to marry is the magic bullet -- that it will show the straight world "We're just like you." Well, guess what:
a) We're not.
Even if we were, there are plenty out there that would never feel that way.
So stop making the fight about the way you're being treated and start making it about the rights you're being denied.
Most people making this argument seem to think that the ability to marry is the magic bullet -- that it will show the straight world "We're just like you." Well, guess what:
a) We're not.
Even if we were, there are plenty out there that would never feel that way.So stop making the fight about the way you're being treated and start making it about the rights you're being denied.
First of all, however and for whatever reasons she has been demonized in the press, HILLARY CLINTON IS NO LIBERAL. She has never been a standard-bearer for the left wing of the Democratic Party. I don't have the time to research & confirm this, but I have always grouped her with the corporate-coddling DLC Democrats who wish to push the party further to the right on social issues as well, abortion excepted. Also, now that she is an elected politician in her own right, surely she bears in mind how her hubby got burned by the Republicans on gays-in-the-military & would prefer to side-step this issue or, in this case, give a short answer & change the subject. Not that I'm defending her at all, just speculating as to her motivations.
I suppose that there's no point in asking any Republican senator this question, because we all know what the answer will be.
[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]
I suppose that there's no point in asking any Republican senator this question, because we all know what the answer will be.
[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]
I agree it is more about rights than the antiquated institution of marriage. I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other.
The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people.
You can aspire to be as screwed up as straight people, but I think the civil union idea with shared benefits and rights is a far better idea.
The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people.
You can aspire to be as screwed up as straight people, but I think the civil union idea with shared benefits and rights is a far better idea.
[quote]Originally posted by DC_guy:
I've actually wondered about William1685 on this front. Seriously, not trying to be a jerk, but are you out at work in the republican political environment? I used to work in a heavily conservative field (defense) and was the customer contact until I came out, then things changed, I eventualy left the company and became much more successful, so it turned out OK.
No problem, good question. I don't actually work for the GOP or for a member of Congress, so that isn't a real problem for me. Where I work, I've never made a point of coming out, but I've never made a point of talking about chicks or anything like that. I don't know if people know or not. We really don't have that many office functions, so that's never really come up. We have a Christmas party each year, but I'm not dating anybody, so it's really not an issue.
All of my straight, conservative Republican friends know I'm gay, and they're all "cool with it." When we're hanging out I'll sometimes mention if a guy's hot, or something like that. They know when I've hooked up, etc. They're good guys (and gals).
I've actually wondered about William1685 on this front. Seriously, not trying to be a jerk, but are you out at work in the republican political environment? I used to work in a heavily conservative field (defense) and was the customer contact until I came out, then things changed, I eventualy left the company and became much more successful, so it turned out OK.
No problem, good question. I don't actually work for the GOP or for a member of Congress, so that isn't a real problem for me. Where I work, I've never made a point of coming out, but I've never made a point of talking about chicks or anything like that. I don't know if people know or not. We really don't have that many office functions, so that's never really come up. We have a Christmas party each year, but I'm not dating anybody, so it's really not an issue.
All of my straight, conservative Republican friends know I'm gay, and they're all "cool with it." When we're hanging out I'll sometimes mention if a guy's hot, or something like that. They know when I've hooked up, etc. They're good guys (and gals).
All of these people that are worried about gay marriage are usually concerned with the whole sodomy thing too.
I say that they should let gay marriage happen. I mean really, If you let gay people get married, there will be a whole lot less gay sex going on. Just look at your straight friends. We all know that Marriage = No sex. Right?
I say that they should let gay marriage happen. I mean really, If you let gay people get married, there will be a whole lot less gay sex going on. Just look at your straight friends. We all know that Marriage = No sex. Right?
[quote]Originally posted by MSUBobcat:
We all know that Marriage = No sex. Right?
Bingo.
We all know that Marriage = No sex. Right?
Bingo.
Hillary? Don't you mean Hitlery?
Hillary is still trying to cling to the phrase moderate, here I think, because I think she still has some plans down the road. Correct me if I am wrong, but did President Clinton take the same stance when asked this question. I too, believe its unfortunate, but I still like Hillary, think she has lots of energy to offer the Democratic Party, but its very unfortunate she took the position she did. I saw her on "Hardball".
I forgot to add, I would love to hear Shrubs' answer to this exact same question. I could just hear him stutterin now!!
[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
I forgot to add, I would love to hear Shrubs' answer to this exact same question. I could just hear him stutterin now!!
[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
Shrub's already responded, in general, to gay rights - I believe the phrase, from Ari Fleisher, was "the President does not want to make someone's sexual orientation a political issue." Or something like it.
I really doubt Shrub is really bigoted against gays, but he is beholden to the most active wing of his party, the "Christian" conservatives. They are the ones urging him to pressure the BB/BSA (see other thread) and criticizing him for not overturning Clinton's exec. anti-discrimination order, and for actually hiring gay people (gasp!).
No matter who the politician is, I just wish someone would stand up for something once in a while! We have far too many on the left, the right, and everywhere in between who speak in diplomatic dispatches that don't say anything.
I really doubt Shrub is really bigoted against gays, but he is beholden to the most active wing of his party, the "Christian" conservatives. They are the ones urging him to pressure the BB/BSA (see other thread) and criticizing him for not overturning Clinton's exec. anti-discrimination order, and for actually hiring gay people (gasp!).
No matter who the politician is, I just wish someone would stand up for something once in a while! We have far too many on the left, the right, and everywhere in between who speak in diplomatic dispatches that don't say anything.
Where's the surprise? The male half of Billary signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
If you saw the Sunday talk shows last week, Pelosi has joined "the center" too. f**k 'em all.
If you saw the Sunday talk shows last week, Pelosi has joined "the center" too. f**k 'em all.
Sorta seems to me than when the best critique someone might have of Ms. Clinton is to call her Hitlery then it's pretty lame indeed. That would be the junior high school debate format, but I think that even they might do better.
As to the crux of the issue, I am a bit disappointed with Hilary for that stand as well. It seems to me that to the contrary, she should have learned with the silly don't ask, don't tell policy of her husband's, that it is indeed better to simply take a stand based on principle that just compromise everything away just to try and appease people who will hate you anyway. Bill should have outright abolished any policy against gays in the military and then let Congress overturn it if they wanted to, which they would have. It would have just been a little show of backbone and integrity. But nonetheless he was still my favorite prez in my lifetime. At least he and Hilary have some intellect to draw from.
As to the crux of the issue, I am a bit disappointed with Hilary for that stand as well. It seems to me that to the contrary, she should have learned with the silly don't ask, don't tell policy of her husband's, that it is indeed better to simply take a stand based on principle that just compromise everything away just to try and appease people who will hate you anyway. Bill should have outright abolished any policy against gays in the military and then let Congress overturn it if they wanted to, which they would have. It would have just been a little show of backbone and integrity. But nonetheless he was still my favorite prez in my lifetime. At least he and Hilary have some intellect to draw from.
I am not at all surprised at Hillary Rodham Clinton's response. I have been studying her public and party-focused stands closely since she became the junior Senator for New York and I think I've figured her out.
When she speaks to the national media, or when she's outside New York City, she tends to shift radically to the center-right. This is the face she wants to put forward to "keep" upstate New York and Long Island (which is actually to the left of her, though I don't think she's figured this out yet, having spent far too little time in New York to catch on), as well as blunt criticism of her as a leftist. Not that it works--it only makes her appear opportunistic, cynical and Janus-like. But her political advisers, for reasons beyond her New York position, are urging her to follow this route. This is also part of her make-nice behavior in the Senate, even to extremist Republicans--well, part of it. I think she's actually more genial than most people think.
When she is speaking to or among Democratic party faithful types (especially gay voters), or when she does not feel the spotlight is on her, she is much farther to the left (Left). WAY FARTHER. When speaking with some Democrats a few months ago she supposedly lit into Bush with a vehemence that would make Gerhard Schröder or Dennis Kucinich jealous--but interestingly (hmmm), her actual remarks were not reported. Remember, this is the same woman who, without an office, literally memorized all sorts of byzantine structures and arcana in an effort to orchestrate a truly socialist health care system--what she was envisioning was to the left of what Britain, Canada, France, and many other nations have. (Try Sweden or Norway.) I am not denouncing the effort, and she was quite impressive in her role, but she was not trying a piecemeal, centrist approach.
Hillary is, from what I have witnessed up close, quite comfortable with homosexuals, especially lesbians. Very comfortable--she seems like she's among her element. At speeches I witnessed at gay venues, and among gay people, she was quite at ease, and if the national mood were more accommodating, she would probably be all for gay marriage. Several of her friends and associates in politics (like Eleanor Acheson, for example) may fall into this camp, though I have no proof. But Hillary lists to the center for fear, I believe, that if she came out publicly and on the national stage, she'd be immediately branded as a leftist wacko (she already is, so why not just cut your losses?)--and I really think that she has presidential aspirations. New Yorkers probably wouldn't have a problem with her coming out for gay marriage--George Pataki could do this easily and still be elected by a wide margin; she basically has the same constituency as Pataki and the more liberal Schumer, with such a high percentage of strong Latino and Black New York City supporters (whom she turns against every so often) as well as upscale suburbanite women in Nassau, Westchester and Suffolk counties. These constituencies gave her such a plurality in the Senate race that she only needed to win small portions of the non-urban upstate areas), that she could go this route and get away with it. But she WOULD NEVER WIN any states outside the northeast and California (and perhaps Illinois, where she's from, and Hawaii) if she took a more open stand.
So I see Hillary's response as somewhat cynical and expedient (like her welfare stand), though I think that Left to her own devices, she would really be much further to the Left than we see, and would gladly participate in a gay marriage...oops, she already has a (male) spouse!
[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
When she speaks to the national media, or when she's outside New York City, she tends to shift radically to the center-right. This is the face she wants to put forward to "keep" upstate New York and Long Island (which is actually to the left of her, though I don't think she's figured this out yet, having spent far too little time in New York to catch on), as well as blunt criticism of her as a leftist. Not that it works--it only makes her appear opportunistic, cynical and Janus-like. But her political advisers, for reasons beyond her New York position, are urging her to follow this route. This is also part of her make-nice behavior in the Senate, even to extremist Republicans--well, part of it. I think she's actually more genial than most people think.
When she is speaking to or among Democratic party faithful types (especially gay voters), or when she does not feel the spotlight is on her, she is much farther to the left (Left). WAY FARTHER. When speaking with some Democrats a few months ago she supposedly lit into Bush with a vehemence that would make Gerhard Schröder or Dennis Kucinich jealous--but interestingly (hmmm), her actual remarks were not reported. Remember, this is the same woman who, without an office, literally memorized all sorts of byzantine structures and arcana in an effort to orchestrate a truly socialist health care system--what she was envisioning was to the left of what Britain, Canada, France, and many other nations have. (Try Sweden or Norway.) I am not denouncing the effort, and she was quite impressive in her role, but she was not trying a piecemeal, centrist approach.
Hillary is, from what I have witnessed up close, quite comfortable with homosexuals, especially lesbians. Very comfortable--she seems like she's among her element. At speeches I witnessed at gay venues, and among gay people, she was quite at ease, and if the national mood were more accommodating, she would probably be all for gay marriage. Several of her friends and associates in politics (like Eleanor Acheson, for example) may fall into this camp, though I have no proof. But Hillary lists to the center for fear, I believe, that if she came out publicly and on the national stage, she'd be immediately branded as a leftist wacko (she already is, so why not just cut your losses?)--and I really think that she has presidential aspirations. New Yorkers probably wouldn't have a problem with her coming out for gay marriage--George Pataki could do this easily and still be elected by a wide margin; she basically has the same constituency as Pataki and the more liberal Schumer, with such a high percentage of strong Latino and Black New York City supporters (whom she turns against every so often) as well as upscale suburbanite women in Nassau, Westchester and Suffolk counties. These constituencies gave her such a plurality in the Senate race that she only needed to win small portions of the non-urban upstate areas), that she could go this route and get away with it. But she WOULD NEVER WIN any states outside the northeast and California (and perhaps Illinois, where she's from, and Hawaii) if she took a more open stand.
So I see Hillary's response as somewhat cynical and expedient (like her welfare stand), though I think that Left to her own devices, she would really be much further to the Left than we see, and would gladly participate in a gay marriage...oops, she already has a (male) spouse!
[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
As occurred on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" last night from SUNY at Albany:
MATTHEWS: ...Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of so much in this country. People come here, a lot of immigrants. The "New York Times" recently began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just
straight people getting married, but gay people who want to announce their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?
CLINTON: No.
Front and center, Team Billary apologists! Ex-plaaaaain, hut!
I found it interesting that you bring this up. She went on to say that she is for civil unions and domestic parnterships.
Please tell us which one of your party leaders would have answered "yes" to this question.
Jesse? Trent? Dumbya? Fallwell?
Which ones???
As occurred on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" last night from SUNY at Albany:
MATTHEWS: ...Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of so much in this country. People come here, a lot of immigrants. The "New York Times" recently began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just
straight people getting married, but gay people who want to announce their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?
CLINTON: No.
Front and center, Team Billary apologists! Ex-plaaaaain, hut!
I found it interesting that you bring this up. She went on to say that she is for civil unions and domestic parnterships.
Please tell us which one of your party leaders would have answered "yes" to this question.
Jesse? Trent? Dumbya? Fallwell?
Which ones???
Smatter, RZB? Did I touch a nerve? You come a bit late to the debate.
The difference between the GOPers you mentioned and Team Billary is that they never pretended to endorse gay marriage as she has. Kinda like Bill caving in on gays in the military, no? We can disagree with them, but we can't accuse them of doubletalking on this issue.
At any rate, not to shy from your question: the next group of leaders in the GOP - Pataki, Giuliani and maybe even me if I make it to Washington someday - will be much more supportive of domestic partners, gay marriage or whatever label equal partnership rights will be under at that time. Not now, no, but later, yes. And that's worth sticking around the GOP and working for.
BTW, m1011's comment, "I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other. The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people," is one of the most cold and heartless opinions on this subject I've ever heard. Count me out from that world-view.
The difference between the GOPers you mentioned and Team Billary is that they never pretended to endorse gay marriage as she has. Kinda like Bill caving in on gays in the military, no? We can disagree with them, but we can't accuse them of doubletalking on this issue.
At any rate, not to shy from your question: the next group of leaders in the GOP - Pataki, Giuliani and maybe even me if I make it to Washington someday - will be much more supportive of domestic partners, gay marriage or whatever label equal partnership rights will be under at that time. Not now, no, but later, yes. And that's worth sticking around the GOP and working for.
BTW, m1011's comment, "I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other. The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people," is one of the most cold and heartless opinions on this subject I've ever heard. Count me out from that world-view.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
At any rate, not to shy from your question: the next group of leaders in the GOP - Pataki, Giuliani and maybe even me if I make it to Washington someday - will be much more supportive of domestic partners, gay marriage or whatever label equal partnership rights will be under at that time. Not now, no, but later, yes. And that's worth sticking around the GOP and working for.
Do Pataki and Giuliani qualify as the "next" group of leaders? Aren't they considered leaders now? Or do they actually have to be elected or appointed to positions in Washington first?
At any rate, not to shy from your question: the next group of leaders in the GOP - Pataki, Giuliani and maybe even me if I make it to Washington someday - will be much more supportive of domestic partners, gay marriage or whatever label equal partnership rights will be under at that time. Not now, no, but later, yes. And that's worth sticking around the GOP and working for.
Do Pataki and Giuliani qualify as the "next" group of leaders? Aren't they considered leaders now? Or do they actually have to be elected or appointed to positions in Washington first?
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Smatter, RZB? Did I touch a nerve? You come a bit late to the debate.
The difference between the GOPers you mentioned and Team Billary is that they never pretended to endorse gay marriage as she has. Kinda like Bill caving in on gays in the military, no? We can disagree with them, but we can't accuse them of doubletalking on this issue.
At any rate, not to shy from your question: the next group of leaders in the GOP - Pataki, Giuliani and maybe even me if I make it to Washington someday - will be much more supportive of domestic partners, gay marriage or whatever label equal partnership rights will be under at that time. Not now, no, but later, yes. And that's worth sticking around the GOP and working for.
BTW, m1011's comment, "I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other. The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people," is one of the most cold and heartless opinions on this subject I've ever heard. Count me out from that world-view.
When did she "pretend" to support gay marriage? I have been following Hillary Clinton for many years, long before most people had ever heard of her and I have personally met her before. I have never, ever heard or read anywhere where she endorsed gay marriage. Im not sure why this is viewed as some sort of suprise or change of policy.
Id be interested to know which party you think is more supportive of domestic parnterships/civil unions.
Also, please let us know what your CURRENT leaders positions are...Tom DeLay? Trent Lott?
I wont be holding my breath!
Smatter, RZB? Did I touch a nerve? You come a bit late to the debate.
The difference between the GOPers you mentioned and Team Billary is that they never pretended to endorse gay marriage as she has. Kinda like Bill caving in on gays in the military, no? We can disagree with them, but we can't accuse them of doubletalking on this issue.
At any rate, not to shy from your question: the next group of leaders in the GOP - Pataki, Giuliani and maybe even me if I make it to Washington someday - will be much more supportive of domestic partners, gay marriage or whatever label equal partnership rights will be under at that time. Not now, no, but later, yes. And that's worth sticking around the GOP and working for.
BTW, m1011's comment, "I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other. The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people," is one of the most cold and heartless opinions on this subject I've ever heard. Count me out from that world-view.
When did she "pretend" to support gay marriage? I have been following Hillary Clinton for many years, long before most people had ever heard of her and I have personally met her before. I have never, ever heard or read anywhere where she endorsed gay marriage. Im not sure why this is viewed as some sort of suprise or change of policy.
Id be interested to know which party you think is more supportive of domestic parnterships/civil unions.
Also, please let us know what your CURRENT leaders positions are...Tom DeLay? Trent Lott?
I wont be holding my breath!
JIP, I see Pataki and Giuliani along with McCain as the next generation only because W's in the WH now. All three of them will be much more supportive of gay rights than W, unfortunately, isn't. No news there.
Which brings me to RZB. Is it impossible for you to debate without rancour and petulance? The issue here is Hillary, NOT W or any of the Republitrogs you mentioned. That, as you say, is old news - as well as off topic. No need to start a new thread though - we're all painfully aware of their shortcomings on our issues. (Hell, it's drummed into our heads daily by the media, especially the gay press.) Some of us are working to change them though, not just standing around getting all worked up into fits of pique and doing nothing constructive. (I really hate repeating myself!)
Note also that my post was addressed to Team Billary apologists, not just the Woman Herself. HRCamp - and please don't tell me they're "non-partisan" - and the other Demologues portray her as supportive of gay marriage, even if she's fence walked on that subject. For her to reveal her true feelings on the subject, as well as for others to so freely forgive her for doing so, which make her not at all that different from the three progressive GOPers I mentioned, only when asked directly for them is refreshing for its candor, but hardly reason for her to receive accolades from the "gay community," whatever that is, whether she's personally encountered them (at fundraisers?) or not.
This empress has no clothes and I, for one, want to be spared the sight of her parading about any more than absolutely necessary.
Which brings me to RZB. Is it impossible for you to debate without rancour and petulance? The issue here is Hillary, NOT W or any of the Republitrogs you mentioned. That, as you say, is old news - as well as off topic. No need to start a new thread though - we're all painfully aware of their shortcomings on our issues. (Hell, it's drummed into our heads daily by the media, especially the gay press.) Some of us are working to change them though, not just standing around getting all worked up into fits of pique and doing nothing constructive. (I really hate repeating myself!)
Note also that my post was addressed to Team Billary apologists, not just the Woman Herself. HRCamp - and please don't tell me they're "non-partisan" - and the other Demologues portray her as supportive of gay marriage, even if she's fence walked on that subject. For her to reveal her true feelings on the subject, as well as for others to so freely forgive her for doing so, which make her not at all that different from the three progressive GOPers I mentioned, only when asked directly for them is refreshing for its candor, but hardly reason for her to receive accolades from the "gay community," whatever that is, whether she's personally encountered them (at fundraisers?) or not.
This empress has no clothes and I, for one, want to be spared the sight of her parading about any more than absolutely necessary.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
JIP, I see Pataki and Giuliani along with McCain as the next generation only because W's in the WH now. All three of them will be much more supportive of gay rights than W, unfortunately, isn't. No news there.
Which brings me to RZB. Is it impossible for you to debate without rancour and petulance? The issue here is Hillary, NOT W or any of the Republitrogs you mentioned. That, as you say, is old news - as well as off topic. No need to start a new thread though - we're all painfully aware of their shortcomings on our issues. (Hell, it's drummed into our heads daily by the media, especially the gay press.) Some of us are working to change them though, not just standing around getting all worked up into fits of pique and doing nothing constructive. (I really hate repeating myself!)
Note also that my post was addressed to Team Billary apologists, not just the Woman Herself. HRCamp - and please don't tell me they're "non-partisan" - and the other Demologues portray her as supportive of gay marriage, even if she's fence walked on that subject. For her to reveal her true feelings on the subject, as well as for others to so freely forgive her for doing so, which make her not at all that different from the three progressive GOPers I mentioned, only when asked directly for them is refreshing for its candor, but hardly reason for her to receive accolades from the "gay community," whatever that is, whether she's personally encountered them (at fundraisers?) or not.
This empress has no clothes and I, for one, want to be spared the sight of her parading about any more than absolutely necessary.
Nice try, but you obviously cant come up with any example where she has said she supported gay marriage.
Your "working to change" has been a failure - your party keeps moving to the right. I notice you didnt answer the question of which party is more supportive of gay issues. I think we all know the answer to that.
Also unanswered is where Dumyba, Lott and DeLay stand on gay marriage. Again, we all know the answer to that!
The issue of where repugs stand is not off issue. You bring it up about Hillary like it is some kind of negative yet your party is far more
opposed to domestic partner/civil unions than the Democrats.
Do the 3 republicans you mentioned support gay marriage?
[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
JIP, I see Pataki and Giuliani along with McCain as the next generation only because W's in the WH now. All three of them will be much more supportive of gay rights than W, unfortunately, isn't. No news there.
Which brings me to RZB. Is it impossible for you to debate without rancour and petulance? The issue here is Hillary, NOT W or any of the Republitrogs you mentioned. That, as you say, is old news - as well as off topic. No need to start a new thread though - we're all painfully aware of their shortcomings on our issues. (Hell, it's drummed into our heads daily by the media, especially the gay press.) Some of us are working to change them though, not just standing around getting all worked up into fits of pique and doing nothing constructive. (I really hate repeating myself!)
Note also that my post was addressed to Team Billary apologists, not just the Woman Herself. HRCamp - and please don't tell me they're "non-partisan" - and the other Demologues portray her as supportive of gay marriage, even if she's fence walked on that subject. For her to reveal her true feelings on the subject, as well as for others to so freely forgive her for doing so, which make her not at all that different from the three progressive GOPers I mentioned, only when asked directly for them is refreshing for its candor, but hardly reason for her to receive accolades from the "gay community," whatever that is, whether she's personally encountered them (at fundraisers?) or not.
This empress has no clothes and I, for one, want to be spared the sight of her parading about any more than absolutely necessary.
Nice try, but you obviously cant come up with any example where she has said she supported gay marriage.
Your "working to change" has been a failure - your party keeps moving to the right. I notice you didnt answer the question of which party is more supportive of gay issues. I think we all know the answer to that.
Also unanswered is where Dumyba, Lott and DeLay stand on gay marriage. Again, we all know the answer to that!
The issue of where repugs stand is not off issue. You bring it up about Hillary like it is some kind of negative yet your party is far more
opposed to domestic partner/civil unions than the Democrats.
Do the 3 republicans you mentioned support gay marriage?
[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
This all strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The Clintons have been in the public eye for ten years now. It's well documented that they are congenitally untruthful and lack any vestige of honesty. There is nothing the least bit new or noteworthy in either their repulsive cynicism or the shameful sycophancy of their apologists. I'm not sure why any of this would even raise an eyebrow at this point.....
Munson Man - the horse is dead, stop beating it...
MCMacnamara - thank you for illuminating the difference between civil unions/domestic partnerships and marriage. Why any intelligent gay person with any reasonable understanding of American politics would fight to use the word marriage is beyond me. We're not the same as straight people though we are entitled to the same legal rights. Marriage in this country will always maintain a certain religious sanctity, admittingly hypocritical even amongst the religious, but still, it should not be what we're fighting for, and the word itself continues to cloud the issue.
I have no doubt that Hilary is simply playing the same political game both parties play these days. Bush has been pretending since his campaign for president began..and what's happening now? Every extreme right wing demand is being implemented or worked towards. Hilary may be sly and overly intelligent for a politician, but Bush, his family, and his administration are the first class deceivers in our country. I just wish they'd actually do something once and for all about our national security besides spend money and talk tough talk while destroying our economy. Go to war already, let's get it done with. Remember, "We'll get Bin Laden, dead or alive." When? Just in time for the next presidential election? If we must have the hawks in office, be hawks for god's sake.
MCMacnamara - thank you for illuminating the difference between civil unions/domestic partnerships and marriage. Why any intelligent gay person with any reasonable understanding of American politics would fight to use the word marriage is beyond me. We're not the same as straight people though we are entitled to the same legal rights. Marriage in this country will always maintain a certain religious sanctity, admittingly hypocritical even amongst the religious, but still, it should not be what we're fighting for, and the word itself continues to cloud the issue.
I have no doubt that Hilary is simply playing the same political game both parties play these days. Bush has been pretending since his campaign for president began..and what's happening now? Every extreme right wing demand is being implemented or worked towards. Hilary may be sly and overly intelligent for a politician, but Bush, his family, and his administration are the first class deceivers in our country. I just wish they'd actually do something once and for all about our national security besides spend money and talk tough talk while destroying our economy. Go to war already, let's get it done with. Remember, "We'll get Bin Laden, dead or alive." When? Just in time for the next presidential election? If we must have the hawks in office, be hawks for god's sake.
[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Munson Man - the horse is dead, stop beating it...
He's probably not capable of it. That's the way it is with the anti-Clinton brigade. They just Can't. Let. Go. But just try and mention the 2000 presidential selection....
Munson Man - the horse is dead, stop beating it...
He's probably not capable of it. That's the way it is with the anti-Clinton brigade. They just Can't. Let. Go. But just try and mention the 2000 presidential selection....
[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Go to war already, let's get it done with... be hawks for god's sake.
Sorry Bryan, but I hope that was an attempt at sarcasm cuz I don't think anyone REALLY wants war.
Go to war already, let's get it done with... be hawks for god's sake.
Sorry Bryan, but I hope that was an attempt at sarcasm cuz I don't think anyone REALLY wants war.
Bryan D and Joe in Philly - Sorry, but as much as you guys would like to have a conversation about one of the Clintons without bringing up their political history, it's not possible because it's part of the public record of two people who are still in public life. I fully understand your not wanting to be reminded of it, but frankly it's fair game for public officials to be judged by their public records and history - always has been. I've seen comments on here about Ronald Reagan and the elder Bush, both of whom have been out of office for quite some time now, but both of whom are still spoken of with great venom by many Democrats. Sound familiar? I also have no doubt that about the time of the 2012 Presidential election Democrats - no doubt including many who post on here - will still be ranting about the 2000 Preseidential election even if all the parties involved are gone from public life by then. Given that, I hope you'll pardon me if the understandable attempts to whitewash the Clintons record leave me just a bit bemused.
[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
This all strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The Clintons have been in the public eye for ten years now. It's well documented that they are congenitally untruthful and lack any vestige of honesty. There is nothing the least bit new or noteworthy in either their repulsive cynicism or the shameful sycophancy of their apologists. I'm not sure why any of this would even raise an eyebrow at this point.....
Where the hell are you talking about?
Hillary Clinton has never been in favor of gay marriage so Im not sure why gmgsfo is brining it up like she has swithced positions/flipped flopped whatever...
What is "untruthful" about that?
This all strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The Clintons have been in the public eye for ten years now. It's well documented that they are congenitally untruthful and lack any vestige of honesty. There is nothing the least bit new or noteworthy in either their repulsive cynicism or the shameful sycophancy of their apologists. I'm not sure why any of this would even raise an eyebrow at this point.....
Where the hell are you talking about?
Hillary Clinton has never been in favor of gay marriage so Im not sure why gmgsfo is brining it up like she has swithced positions/flipped flopped whatever...
What is "untruthful" about that?
She hasn't been in favor of gay "marriage" but she has expressed support of domestic partnerships and civil unions. Marriage is a very old word with more baggage than the Kennedys'...Gay partnerships and unions with all the legal equalities is what we're fighting for...
Since the only Republican accusation/charge/innuendo that was ever proven in a court of law was lying about the blowjob (how horrible!), I think that the ongoing and habitual dislike of the Clintons has to do with towing the party line, believing everything ever rumored or insinuated about them. Rally around the troops and all that jazz regardless of truth. Plus, a very smart aggressive gal who's smarter than most of the men and willing to take charge never really jells with the good ole boy network. Much too threatening.
[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]
Since the only Republican accusation/charge/innuendo that was ever proven in a court of law was lying about the blowjob (how horrible!), I think that the ongoing and habitual dislike of the Clintons has to do with towing the party line, believing everything ever rumored or insinuated about them. Rally around the troops and all that jazz regardless of truth. Plus, a very smart aggressive gal who's smarter than most of the men and willing to take charge never really jells with the good ole boy network. Much too threatening.
[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]
RZB, You just can't let go of the anger, can you? It infects every post you make. I've answered each of your rhetorical questions; you just refuse to listen. If it's cheap shots you want me to make against fellow GOPers, look elsewhere. It ain't gonna happen. I haven't shied away from recognizing their shortcomings and haven't hesitated to do so elsewhere than on this board. In other words, in the party, where it counts and where it's part of a plan to change.
My own, and my fellow gay Republicans', efforts to change the party from within haven't been a failure because they far from finished. You might choose to give up, assuming you ever did anything politically, legally, or otherwise to improve the lot of gays; we don't. (Just what are your credentials in that department, anyway? Elections? Cases? Legislating? Fundraising?)
You consistently demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what we in Log Cabin have achieved within the GOP, let alone here in SF or CA. To the extent we've attempted to inform you, you repeatedly reject the facts. How else could anyone state that the GOP "keeps moving to the right?" Fine, sit satisfied in your ignorance. It's your problem, not mine. And it shows.
My own, and my fellow gay Republicans', efforts to change the party from within haven't been a failure because they far from finished. You might choose to give up, assuming you ever did anything politically, legally, or otherwise to improve the lot of gays; we don't. (Just what are your credentials in that department, anyway? Elections? Cases? Legislating? Fundraising?)
You consistently demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what we in Log Cabin have achieved within the GOP, let alone here in SF or CA. To the extent we've attempted to inform you, you repeatedly reject the facts. How else could anyone state that the GOP "keeps moving to the right?" Fine, sit satisfied in your ignorance. It's your problem, not mine. And it shows.
[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
I also have no doubt that about the time of the 2012 Presidential election Democrats - no doubt including many who post on here - will still be ranting about the 2000 Preseidential election even if all the parties involved are gone from public life by then. Given that, I hope you'll pardon me if the understandable attempts to whitewash the Clintons record leave me just a bit bemused.
Actually people of whatever political persuasion should not stop talking about, discussing and trying to fix the problems that led to the disputed 2000 election, because it was a disgrace on our democratic system, and utterly unacceptable for an advanced democratic republic like the United States of America. If it happened in Haiti, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, or Ecuador, to name a few nations that have had questionable elections in the last 10 years, we would shake our heads and say, they need to get their acts together. Yet the world's richest nation, the global leader in advanced technology, the oldest continuous democracy in the world has to have its Supreme Court usurp its role and cancel a vote count to place someone in office? Whatever you have to say about the Clintons, and they are both worthy of criticism and debate, the 2000 president election was a blight and a horrorshow, and its aftermath was even more outrageous. Even some conservatives have concluded this, though their man was placed into the executive seat.
I also have no doubt that about the time of the 2012 Presidential election Democrats - no doubt including many who post on here - will still be ranting about the 2000 Preseidential election even if all the parties involved are gone from public life by then. Given that, I hope you'll pardon me if the understandable attempts to whitewash the Clintons record leave me just a bit bemused.
Actually people of whatever political persuasion should not stop talking about, discussing and trying to fix the problems that led to the disputed 2000 election, because it was a disgrace on our democratic system, and utterly unacceptable for an advanced democratic republic like the United States of America. If it happened in Haiti, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, or Ecuador, to name a few nations that have had questionable elections in the last 10 years, we would shake our heads and say, they need to get their acts together. Yet the world's richest nation, the global leader in advanced technology, the oldest continuous democracy in the world has to have its Supreme Court usurp its role and cancel a vote count to place someone in office? Whatever you have to say about the Clintons, and they are both worthy of criticism and debate, the 2000 president election was a blight and a horrorshow, and its aftermath was even more outrageous. Even some conservatives have concluded this, though their man was placed into the executive seat.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
RZB, You just can't let go of the anger, can you? It infects every post you make. I've answered each of your rhetorical questions; you just refuse to listen. If it's cheap shots you want me to make against fellow GOPers, look elsewhere. It ain't gonna happen. I haven't shied away from recognizing their shortcomings and haven't hesitated to do so elsewhere than on this board. In other words, in the party, where it counts and where it's part of a plan to change.
My own, and my fellow gay Republicans', efforts to change the party from within haven't been a failure because they far from finished. You might choose to give up, assuming you ever did anything politically, legally, or otherwise to improve the lot of gays; we don't. (Just what are your credentials in that department, anyway? Elections? Cases? Legislating? Fundraising?)
You consistently demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what we in Log Cabin have achieved within the GOP, let alone here in SF or CA. To the extent we've attempted to inform you, you repeatedly reject the facts. How else could anyone state that the GOP "keeps moving to the right?" Fine, sit satisfied in your ignorance. It's your problem, not mine. And it shows.
What makes me angry is when people post information as "facts" that are blatantly false. Something that you have a habit of doing. Case in point - you recently said in one of your postings that the first women elected U.S. Senator and first women elected governor of a state were republican. You were wrong on both counts. 0 for 2! Perhaps you should start checking sources instead of using "your own personal recollection."
As for answering all my questions, you never do! You duck, hide, squirm and then say that you already answered them.
Your reply sounded a bit angry too! Smatter,gmgsfo? Still smarting from getting your ass kicked by Pelosi?
RZB, You just can't let go of the anger, can you? It infects every post you make. I've answered each of your rhetorical questions; you just refuse to listen. If it's cheap shots you want me to make against fellow GOPers, look elsewhere. It ain't gonna happen. I haven't shied away from recognizing their shortcomings and haven't hesitated to do so elsewhere than on this board. In other words, in the party, where it counts and where it's part of a plan to change.
My own, and my fellow gay Republicans', efforts to change the party from within haven't been a failure because they far from finished. You might choose to give up, assuming you ever did anything politically, legally, or otherwise to improve the lot of gays; we don't. (Just what are your credentials in that department, anyway? Elections? Cases? Legislating? Fundraising?)
You consistently demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what we in Log Cabin have achieved within the GOP, let alone here in SF or CA. To the extent we've attempted to inform you, you repeatedly reject the facts. How else could anyone state that the GOP "keeps moving to the right?" Fine, sit satisfied in your ignorance. It's your problem, not mine. And it shows.
What makes me angry is when people post information as "facts" that are blatantly false. Something that you have a habit of doing. Case in point - you recently said in one of your postings that the first women elected U.S. Senator and first women elected governor of a state were republican. You were wrong on both counts. 0 for 2! Perhaps you should start checking sources instead of using "your own personal recollection."
As for answering all my questions, you never do! You duck, hide, squirm and then say that you already answered them.
Your reply sounded a bit angry too! Smatter,gmgsfo? Still smarting from getting your ass kicked by Pelosi?
+ = Nancy Pelosi
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
+ = Nancy Pelosi
Hey William - Now do one for Tom DeLay!!
+ = Nancy Pelosi
Hey William - Now do one for Tom DeLay!!
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
...m1011's comment, "I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other...[and it's] even less applicable to gay people," is one of the most cold and heartless opinions on this subject I've ever heard.
Why heartless? I agree with m1011's assessment, with the key word being "expect." I know at least one male couple who plan a lifelong monogamous commitment: I love them both and admire them for it. ... BUT such a relationship is not universally suitable for everyone.
Spare me your moral censure if I don't embrace a lifelong mate, like a wolf or a Catholic (a Woody Allen line I think)...
...m1011's comment, "I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other...[and it's] even less applicable to gay people," is one of the most cold and heartless opinions on this subject I've ever heard.
Why heartless? I agree with m1011's assessment, with the key word being "expect." I know at least one male couple who plan a lifelong monogamous commitment: I love them both and admire them for it. ... BUT such a relationship is not universally suitable for everyone.
Spare me your moral censure if I don't embrace a lifelong mate, like a wolf or a Catholic (a Woody Allen line I think)...
[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Hey William - Now do one for Tom DeLay!!
I can't think of a way to make a hammer, so this will have to suffice:
+ + + +
Hey William - Now do one for Tom DeLay!!
I can't think of a way to make a hammer, so this will have to suffice:
+ + + +
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I can't think of a way to make a hammer, so this will have to suffice:
+ + + +
To bad theres no way to reflect that new blow dried hair look.
I can't think of a way to make a hammer, so this will have to suffice:
+ + + +
To bad theres no way to reflect that new blow dried hair look.
What's wrong, exactly, with using a blow dryer?
At any rate, I can see now that DeLay is Raze's new obsession.
At any rate, I can see now that DeLay is Raze's new obsession.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
What's wrong, exactly, with using a blow dryer?
At any rate, I can see now that DeLay is Raze's new obsession.
Im delighted that he's there, I hope he is on TV often and speaks his mind!
What's wrong, exactly, with using a blow dryer?
At any rate, I can see now that DeLay is Raze's new obsession.
Im delighted that he's there, I hope he is on TV often and speaks his mind!
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other.The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people.
Less applicable? -Why?- gay people can't be faithful? - That is totally insulting. Or did I misunderstand- please explain.
I think it is rather silly to expect humans to be joined forever and to maintain fidelity to each other.The elevation of this outdated idea to a standard measure of relationship is even less applicable to gay people.
Less applicable? -Why?- gay people can't be faithful? - That is totally insulting. Or did I misunderstand- please explain.
I agree...just because it's common for gay men (str8 men, too, but it's usually a secret ) to have open sexual relationships doesn't mean that it's unlikely or unrealistic to have a stable one on one relationship that includes monogamy. Many men confuse "unlikely to be monogamous" with "not mature enough to have dick discipline."
It's all about personal choice and each specific relationship.
It's all about personal choice and each specific relationship.
My opinion is that people grow and change and their affectional preferences do so as well. The expectation that a person should form a lifelong relationship and maintain sexual fidelity, is, I think, an outdated idea for both gay and straight people.
As for gay people specifically, our relationships have been more open and more fleeting. In addition, we have not had the imposition of law or religion to force us into the heterosexual model. I would hate to have us rush into that place and create the same situations that straight people have when they ponder a divorce.
The idea is that love dies and when it does we should not be trapped by marriage. Domestic partnership seems like a good beginning for the acknowledgment of gay relationships.My thoughts are not meant to be cold, heartless or insulting. They are practical and reality-based. You guys take all of this far too seriously !!
As for gay people specifically, our relationships have been more open and more fleeting. In addition, we have not had the imposition of law or religion to force us into the heterosexual model. I would hate to have us rush into that place and create the same situations that straight people have when they ponder a divorce.
The idea is that love dies and when it does we should not be trapped by marriage. Domestic partnership seems like a good beginning for the acknowledgment of gay relationships.My thoughts are not meant to be cold, heartless or insulting. They are practical and reality-based. You guys take all of this far too seriously !!
MO1101,
A one on one main relationship, gay or straight, which includes sexual fidelity, is hardly outdated...Perhaps unachievable for many, but not outdated. Not everyone has a hard time staying forcused on one person sexually...it really depends on who you are and when you meet and what does it for you...And what some call love dying is actually just the end of the lust...this is when real love can start to grow if a couple chooses to dig deep and go for it...but there's a maturity necessary to do that, and again, the choice to grow and heal and experience this kind of relationship...Harville Hendricks is a great author to read on this subject..
While it's certainly vogue and arguably easy/natural to be a wandering homo (and god bless that learning experience), gay and straight people alike will still spend their lives with one main relationship (which doesn't always maintain monogamy) much of the time. It's natural, too. I think many gay men are easily threatened by the vulnerabilty and trust it takes to maintain a central relationship. I think men in general are threatened by vulnerability...women usually are the ones in heterosexual relationships who keep things together. In general. Great relationships thrive on building trust and communication which takes a great deal of vulnerability sometimes...
Some will spend time with many along the way, some will spend time with just a couple of intense relationships over their lifetime, and some will spend their lives with just one person....it depends on your trip, your journey, your own personal learning curve. What I don't like is when people on either side of the issue try and argue what's right for others. If someone wants to be monogamous with one person: great! If someone wants to spend their lives dating many: great! Just respect that while we're all a lot more similiar than different from one another, we have the right to make our choices based on our own experiences and desires.
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]
A one on one main relationship, gay or straight, which includes sexual fidelity, is hardly outdated...Perhaps unachievable for many, but not outdated. Not everyone has a hard time staying forcused on one person sexually...it really depends on who you are and when you meet and what does it for you...And what some call love dying is actually just the end of the lust...this is when real love can start to grow if a couple chooses to dig deep and go for it...but there's a maturity necessary to do that, and again, the choice to grow and heal and experience this kind of relationship...Harville Hendricks is a great author to read on this subject..
While it's certainly vogue and arguably easy/natural to be a wandering homo (and god bless that learning experience), gay and straight people alike will still spend their lives with one main relationship (which doesn't always maintain monogamy) much of the time. It's natural, too. I think many gay men are easily threatened by the vulnerabilty and trust it takes to maintain a central relationship. I think men in general are threatened by vulnerability...women usually are the ones in heterosexual relationships who keep things together. In general. Great relationships thrive on building trust and communication which takes a great deal of vulnerability sometimes...
Some will spend time with many along the way, some will spend time with just a couple of intense relationships over their lifetime, and some will spend their lives with just one person....it depends on your trip, your journey, your own personal learning curve. What I don't like is when people on either side of the issue try and argue what's right for others. If someone wants to be monogamous with one person: great! If someone wants to spend their lives dating many: great! Just respect that while we're all a lot more similiar than different from one another, we have the right to make our choices based on our own experiences and desires.
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]
I don't disagree with you about relationships, I think that marriage, as it presently exists,is an oudated idea.
If it were to be a renewable contract or something that does not impose the lifelong, unbreakable bond stuff, then it would be more applicable to life in the 21st century.
I find it insulting that it is the ONLY way to validate relationship in this society.
If it were to be a renewable contract or something that does not impose the lifelong, unbreakable bond stuff, then it would be more applicable to life in the 21st century.
I find it insulting that it is the ONLY way to validate relationship in this society.
Marriage doesn't validate anything and clearly you're too caught up in what society (the ever vague and impossible to define society) thinks. It provides many legal advantages and confers the illusion of committment. It's important if you're having children and it's important if you believe in it. A renewable contract sounds more like a business proposal than an adult committment. Are you a child of divorce?
[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Many men confuse "unlikely to be monogamous" with "not mature enough to have dick discipline."
Bryan-I agree with you on this one..BUT although I DO want to spend the rest of my life with my partner and be totally faithful-I don't see any reason to have a commitment ceremony/get married. Maybe because we are both over 40 and have kids to think about as far as inheritances etc.For us financially - socially -sexually one guy is all I want but marriage is just not necessary.- IMO.
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]
Many men confuse "unlikely to be monogamous" with "not mature enough to have dick discipline."
Bryan-I agree with you on this one..BUT although I DO want to spend the rest of my life with my partner and be totally faithful-I don't see any reason to have a commitment ceremony/get married. Maybe because we are both over 40 and have kids to think about as far as inheritances etc.For us financially - socially -sexually one guy is all I want but marriage is just not necessary.- IMO.
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]
Evening, guys! While my Spanish Rice with Red Beans and Pork - entirely home made - cooks, I'll reply to the last 24 hrs. worth of posts. Beautiful day here in SF, BTW. 70 or so and a fine sunset to walk home with.
OK, RZB, here's you:
Here's me pre-Election Day:
And post:
You see, I'm not at all POd about my loss; we all recognized it was a long shot from Day 1. What else could it be in a town where Demo registration exceeds GOP by 4-1? That story's been told; I've met my goal of regaining my seat on the state GOP Cen Comm. - anything else was icing on the cake. In fact, we're all somewhat surprised and pleased that I managed to lower Pelosi's margin of victory by 6 points from her last two elections; from 85% to 79%. And judging from an earlier post on this board after Election Day, as well as what I've heard from my moles in the Pelosi camp, The Great Woman was herself concerned she didn't do as well as she expected. (79% win not good enough? Power distort judgment much? Can you spell H-U-B-R-I-S?) Anyway, I'm not at all pissed. I feel pretty good and a lot of people feel pretty good for me, which makes me feel even better. As my sister would say, "Happy Mikey!" To which I reply, "YES!" (Sorry to sound giddy - I love to cook and it makes me kinda WILD!) (Memo to Gator Jamie: HELP!)
OK, now for factual errors: sure I make 'em, but as Twin58, I believe, will attest, I admit them when I do.* Neither you nor anyone else is in any position to demand that I answer rhetorical, set-up questions you may pose. (Cf., "I'm not in an American courtroom!") Certainly I don't expect you or anyone else to respond when I post "commands" for Team Billary to appear front and center and report. That's called a sense of humor. I thought they had that down South. TX IS in the South, isn't it??? Or do you fancy yourself in some sort of "Energy Belt?" And again, review of the record reveals that I answer them anyway. Hell, I'm a lawyer! That's all I do!
Now for Bill W: Catholics and wolves come together in your mind, huh? Well, I'm one of the former and while I won't say I resent your religious slur - doing so would be too cliche and put the personal into the public - I will say that I do disagree with your worldview on relationships. I agree that "expect" is a key consideration, but isn't that what we're aiming for in gay marriage, which is, after all, the topic of this thread? Fine, I won't expect monogamy of anyone but myself and whomever I may become mongamous with, but don't "expect" me to sanction promiscuity or serial "relationships," especially when they go awry and the parties to them come looking to the state (i.e., my tax dollars) for relief.
Finally, m1011, successor to the underappreciated jetliner: true love, like true art, never dies. The idea is that love is a form of art, which is timeless. Idealistic, yes, but so are art and beauty, and love is a beautiful thing. Once gained, it can never be lost, though its objects may be. How ironic that the GOP has become the last bastion of romantic idealism, but it has, judging from your sentiments and so many others from the bitter left. The world turned upside down, no? And barely the millenium begun.
____
*Per my acknowledgement that I was wrong about the first Senatrix being a Democrat from AR. However, we've yet to debate the first lady Governor issue. I say she was a Repubicienne from Montana, but correct me if I err and I'll admit it gladly.
OK, RZB, here's you:
Here's me pre-Election Day:
And post:
You see, I'm not at all POd about my loss; we all recognized it was a long shot from Day 1. What else could it be in a town where Demo registration exceeds GOP by 4-1? That story's been told; I've met my goal of regaining my seat on the state GOP Cen Comm. - anything else was icing on the cake. In fact, we're all somewhat surprised and pleased that I managed to lower Pelosi's margin of victory by 6 points from her last two elections; from 85% to 79%. And judging from an earlier post on this board after Election Day, as well as what I've heard from my moles in the Pelosi camp, The Great Woman was herself concerned she didn't do as well as she expected. (79% win not good enough? Power distort judgment much? Can you spell H-U-B-R-I-S?) Anyway, I'm not at all pissed. I feel pretty good and a lot of people feel pretty good for me, which makes me feel even better. As my sister would say, "Happy Mikey!" To which I reply, "YES!" (Sorry to sound giddy - I love to cook and it makes me kinda WILD!) (Memo to Gator Jamie: HELP!)
OK, now for factual errors: sure I make 'em, but as Twin58, I believe, will attest, I admit them when I do.* Neither you nor anyone else is in any position to demand that I answer rhetorical, set-up questions you may pose. (Cf., "I'm not in an American courtroom!") Certainly I don't expect you or anyone else to respond when I post "commands" for Team Billary to appear front and center and report. That's called a sense of humor. I thought they had that down South. TX IS in the South, isn't it??? Or do you fancy yourself in some sort of "Energy Belt?" And again, review of the record reveals that I answer them anyway. Hell, I'm a lawyer! That's all I do!
Now for Bill W: Catholics and wolves come together in your mind, huh? Well, I'm one of the former and while I won't say I resent your religious slur - doing so would be too cliche and put the personal into the public - I will say that I do disagree with your worldview on relationships. I agree that "expect" is a key consideration, but isn't that what we're aiming for in gay marriage, which is, after all, the topic of this thread? Fine, I won't expect monogamy of anyone but myself and whomever I may become mongamous with, but don't "expect" me to sanction promiscuity or serial "relationships," especially when they go awry and the parties to them come looking to the state (i.e., my tax dollars) for relief.
Finally, m1011, successor to the underappreciated jetliner: true love, like true art, never dies. The idea is that love is a form of art, which is timeless. Idealistic, yes, but so are art and beauty, and love is a beautiful thing. Once gained, it can never be lost, though its objects may be. How ironic that the GOP has become the last bastion of romantic idealism, but it has, judging from your sentiments and so many others from the bitter left. The world turned upside down, no? And barely the millenium begun.
____
*Per my acknowledgement that I was wrong about the first Senatrix being a Democrat from AR. However, we've yet to debate the first lady Governor issue. I say she was a Repubicienne from Montana, but correct me if I err and I'll admit it gladly.
Love most certainly DOES die, fade or be transformed to something else. It is not necessarily about lust or sex, it is about being in the same orbit of another, and moving into another orbit.
You can have your romantic notions, they don't work for everyone.
You can have your romantic notions, they don't work for everyone.
Thanks for letting me keep them; how will you do without them?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.