1.) I am a local amatuer golfer in a rural part of Kentucky. I'm not new to being out, just new to this website. A few things that bother me about the gay agenda is the fact that however intolerant religous fanactics and right wing convervative's views are of our culture we are in fact just as intolerant of theirs . I'm fully against opressing anyone from believing what they want to believe. Every human being has a god given right to believe what they want. Even if that means letting someones opinion differ from what i view to be correct. I don't appreciate flamboyant , in your face protesting for gay rights because it is not only harming the way people view us as a group it is only insticating the battle between both sides. Peace for our slice of society will only be found through ourselves. We should not try to control the minds of those around us , because we can't. What we can do is go about our daily lives as though nothing was different between the two sides. If "gay society" would focus more about taking care of themselves instead of changing the opinions of those whose minds are allready made up, i think our groups would find a way to meld together.....

just a few words i wanted to get off my chest to see what everyone thought.

That would be all well and good, if those whose "thought" differently than us left it at that. But when those people enact laws depriving us of our rights as humans or relegating us to persons who deserve lesser rights (i.e., lack of the privileges and rights of a union, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, shared child custody, etc.) attack, harm and/or kill us just for existing, I'll be quiet.

If you're okay with that, fine; I'm not.

Translation: I'll grovel and bow down before my masters in the hopes that every now and then they'll throw me a little crust of bread.

I would question your use of the term "gay agenda", if it exists no one has ever sent me a copy.

Yes by all means, being passive will eventually get you what you want.

Perhaps you need to read some history. These "flamboyant" types that you talk about are the brave ones who made the first real impact in our fight for equal rights at the Stonewall Inn. It wasn't the straight-passing closet cases that you would like us all to be, it was a bunch of uppity, in-your-face drag queens. These same flamboyants were the first to demand that the government recognize and do something about AIDS.

The blacks who led the civil rights movement were the ones who refused to accept the status quo. The women who got all women the right to vote and equal pay for eqaul work were the ones who stood up to men and said "enough".

So please don't tell those of us who are trying to make it better for all gays and lesbians that we should keep quiet. You just sit back and reap the rewards.

Why do gays need to get married? Domestic Partnerships are just the same. If you are committed to one person you should make it work. I don't understand why the term "marriage" has to be used ? Maybe it's to poke and prod? The american people voted and as it is accustomed in Democracy, the majority won .

You don't have to demonstrate in order to make a lasting impression.

And don't tell me i haven't fought for equality.

I have went through hardships for being who I am just as much as anyone else.
I am openly accepted as a senior advisor for an all male youth organization , that shuns homosexuality. I lost all but one of my friends when i was outted publicly . I have lived in a small town in KY my whole life , where the redneck agenda is the way we live. But because i conducted myself based on who I am as an individual and not "in your face , i'm queer and i'm here" i have gained the respect trust and support from those whom otherwise shun my sexual choices.

Being gay is not what you are , it is only a part of who you are.

If being gay defines who you are than i would have to assume you are pretty shallow. It is only a sexual preference and does not give a guideline on how you live your life outside of your bedroom. Sterotypes are made for a reason . Think about it.

If you are persecuted for being gay there are laws in place to protect you , i suggest you go to the local authorities.

Marriage is a religous rite and ritual . Not a government ritual . The name should never be used outside of church and if you change that one word that fight would still rage on, yes , but it would be a much easier battle to win. Like i said they have every right to hate us as we do them . But there are other ways to get what you want other than protesting and causing chaos.

Fighting does not always result in victory.

Ditto! Well said Georgie.

You are here with an obvious agenda rather than being a general posting/poster. This makes you suspicious of being what is considered a "troll"- or someone here to simply instigate an argument. Other than that- why come in with guns blazing- to get your viewpoint across, one does not simply need to pound it in- usually getting one's attention is as simple as making a concise, accurate statement.

Domestic partnerships are simply not equal- as the majority of the time laws permitting "civil unions" are not providing the same or equivalent rights as marriage- usually there are limits. Also, most states that have chosen to eliminate "gay marriage" have worded the laws such that (i.e. in Michigan- "or any other union as such.") even common law marriage legality and rights (between hetero couples) are questionable as well.

This is very much an issue of "Equal Protection" and "Separate but not equal." The reason we need this to mean "marriage" is because it is an equal means of providing legality to all who choose to be in a legal partnership. Otherwise- rights provided to various couples will never be the same. BTW, marriage is not simply a religious ceremony- the definition covers legal and general relationships between two parties in several senses.

My advice- chill out, observe more on the board before getting the guns out.

No, they are NOT! There are all kinds of rights, on the local, state, and federal level, that are DENIED to domestic partners but ALLOWED to married couples. Tax advantages. Social Security. The right to be with a loved one in a hospital in an emergency situation!

As for the rest of your post, are you truly naive, a troll, or just a complete moron? It's hard to tell.

Why do you think it was so hard for you and every gay man in America to come out of the closet? Could it be because there is an enormous amount of hostility towards gay men from religions that preach hate and a government that is greatly controlled by these religious groups? If people are going to hate gay people, why should we just give into their oppression by "being more like them"?

To me it sounds like your argument is the following: If we can just suppress our differences and try to fit in more with what is accepted and "normal" then we won't experience so much hostility. There are several aspects of being gay (i.e. sex purely for pleasure and not for reproduction) that fundamentally cast us outside of heterosexual, christian society. It is hard to make space for one's homosexual lifestyle (especially in Kentucky) in a world dominated where nearly everything is geared towards heterosexuality. Sure, it is a struggle to keep one's gay identity in such a hostile environment. But everyone has the choice of how they want to express that identity. To condemn "flamboyant" homosexuals for hurting the cause is just ignorant. If it weren't for them, the low-key oppressed lifestyle that you are living would be the new extreme/stereotype and think of how much more hostility you would experience.

Move to California!

OK, well separate but equal seems to be your argument in the marriage debate. Didn't your courts, on another issue, determine long ago that separate but equal was in fact not equal. There are a lot of issues around taxation and inheritance and health care that hightlight the differences.
As for having laws to protect gays from descrimination, wasn't it only in the last couple of weeks that Congress was debating laws on equality and whether or not it is ok to fire people because they were gay and didnt Bush promise to veto this bill if it reached his desk?
I'm all for people living life the way they choose, and if you choose to "blend" into your Ky town, then more power to you, just don't presume that your way is the right way or the only way when others are still fighting for their full rights as citizens.

You hit the nail on the head swiminbuff!

Although I don't agree with everything you state, we do have a friend who is very intolerant of anyone's whose views are different (slightly more to the right) than hers are, which are very far to the left...to the point where she gets very uptight when I wear a cross around her. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, it just keeps me grounded to my roots....
I agree that everyone should be more tolerant of other people's beliefs, it just seems like usually, the right is less tolerant in general than the left....I float somewhere in between....

Well finally an accuarte statement. You're right, fighting doesn't always result in victory. But NOT fighting NEVER does. And if marriage is merely a religious rite then why are so many legal rights tied into it? And why can people get married in a non-religious ceremony, like at city hall by a justice of the peace or on a beach by a minister ordained online?

As I said in another thread, I don't care if they call it marriage, civil union or dust bunny so long as we have each and every right that straight people do. Women never would have gotten the right to vote by just sitting back waiting for the establishment to just give it to them. And blacks never would have gotten the right to sit anywhere they want on a bus or in a restaurant if they'd just waited for the whites to allow them. And even though the law says women and blacks have all the same rights as everyone else there are still very obvious inequities. So don't assume that just because the law says things are equal that things are indeed equal. Minorities will always be discriminated against, whether blatantly or not. And the way to rid ourselves of these inequities is to make your voice heard loud and often. Assimilation is most assuredly not the answer.

Something else to consider PG14.

I'm a masculine non-assuming gay guy so unless I tell people that I'm gay, they don't usually know. However if I hear something in conversation that offends me or am asked about a hot chick that walked by, believe me, I tell them my point of view regardless of what I think they might say. I'm a proud gay man. I just don't wear the stickers.

Many times when people are surprised to find out that I'm gay, the relationship usually continues on in a positive manner and maybe it's because I didn't shove my sexuality down their throat. But it could be that without the Act Up! people who make such a big stink, the casual tolerance I've experienced and you've experienced wouldn't exist. If the flamboyant and extremely demonstrative people were to keep it to themselves and there was nothing to compare your quiet gay revelations to, how do you think people would react when you casually told them you were a homosexual? My guess is it wouldn't be near as positive.

There is a place for every type of gay person and every person, gay or otherwise, has a right to do what they feel like they need to do to secure their rights as human beings. It's great that your approach has worked for you, but keep in mind it's taken much time and many lives to get the general tolerance we've reached today. We still have a long way to go though. Even in Kentucky.

progolfer - your posting is neither original nor very well thought out.

If heterosexual marriage is so damn sacred, why does it always come down to money and property when it falls apart (see: 50% divorce rate) and it falls apart alot.

If you believe in freedom of religion, why aren't you tolerant of gay people getting married under whatever religious banner they want to? Or are you just tolerant of your religion?

If you're so okay with your own orientation, why is your self-definition seemingly completely based on how you fit in with heterosexual society and whether or not they 'approve' of you?

I'm happy for you that you've found a safe little haven, or at least what you think is one...but in so many ways, your posting just says that you're not quite there yet with regards to having integrity about who you are...it's a process and I hope the best for you...maybe one day you can actually support those who live their own way, who've had to be incredibly brave in the face of much more difficult circumstances than you've encountered in your safe little Kentucky backroad...

You guys have done a good job smacking down that bizarre post...

That's not an aspect of being gay. Straight people have sex for pleasure too.

This made me laugh...as if I wanted to even try to act like I'm ANYTHING like the "other side".

Oh god...when I become no different than THEM, please kill me. I relish my differences as a gay man from this other side. I'd rather be as different as is possible, than anything close to these hate-filled people in his KY town.

I don't have any desire to be like them...if they (or the original poster, for that matter) have a problem with it...FCUK OFF!!!

I actually agree with this, but it makes anti-gay marriage legislation doubly wrong. Not only is the government claiming the authority to marry people, but it denies religious freedom to churches that *do* wish to offer marriage to same-sex partners.

Here in Canada, religious groups have the freedom to allow same-sex marriages (as the United Chruch of Canada) or not (like the Catholic church). And that's as it should be.

And you know what? Thousands of gay couples have been married in Canada and the sky has not fallen. And most people have no interest in reopening the debate.

Is that actually 'as it should be'?

If a church were to refuse a mixed race marriage it would be all over the 5:00 news. The church would be denounced as a bastion of hatred, racism and intolerance and some sanction or legal action would likely be perused against it. People no more choose their sexuality than they choose their skin color, so presumably refusal of service on the basis of sexuality should equally as unacceptable.

The major apparent flaw in this argument is that freedom of religion is guaranteed under the constitution, from which follows the argument that churches, therefore, should be allowed to conduct their affairs in accordance to their beliefs. In many religions there is (arguably) textual precedent for intolerance of homosexuality that continues to be perpetuated in practice to this day. On the other hand, there is generally no such precedent for racial intolerence. This amounts to a situation wherein many consider gays wanting to marry in a church which is intolerant akin to a black man wanting to join the kkk or some skinhead movement -insert link to Chappell show here - rather than a black person wanting to be married in the church of their choosing. These 'many' may actually be correct, but they have failed to follow their argument to its logical extension. What distinguishes religious intolerance of homosexuality, from societal intolerance of racial and ethnic minorities? Well, obviously the answer is religion, but the question that must inevitably come next is whether or not religion is a valid reason for discrimination? Clearly religion should be no justification for a secular government to withhold rights from gays and lesbians, but is religion reason to permit one group to discriminate against another?

What it comes down to is a question of rights versus freedoms. Basically freedoms of an individual or freedoms of a group may only extend so far as they to not impede or infringe upon the basic human rights of another group or individual. There is also the question of freedom of speech to be thrown in and what the whole thing amounts to is a very big constitutional mess that is best sorted out by lawyers and constitution experts. But on a basic level, does a church's refusal to conduct same sex marriages infringe upon gay rights? I would say that it does, despite the fact that the government (in Canada) offers same sex couples all the rights of marriage that a given church may (or may not). By continuing to uphold marriages conducted by the church and by also allowing churches to discriminate on the basis of sexuality in regards to whom may be married, the government condones discriminatory behavior and they implicitly support refusal of service to government institutions. Allowing marriage and civil union to be made equal before the government, as has been done in Canada, the church essentially becomes like a registry or government services branch. A situation, then, in which a church refuses to conduct a marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, is tantamount to a government branch office refusing a government service on the basis of sexual orientation. The latter has been deemed to be illegal under the constitution. So as it stands now, one of two things needs to happen. First religious marriages need to have no standing whatsoever in the eyes of the government or second, all churches must be legally bound to conduct same-sex marriages.

So are things as they should be? I would say no. What I will say, though, is that at this point and time my inability to get married in the Catholic Church in Canada is well down the list of things I am willing to worry about.


Edit- I apollogise for the long post, when baisically we are agreeing. The key distinction, though, is that I believe that the marriage can not be recognized at all by the government as anything other than a religious symbol. For tax purposes, hospital visitation etc. all couples should need to register for a civil union regardless of whether they have been married in a church.

And that as they say takes care of that.

That may be true if government ONLY allowed churches to perform legal marriages, but there are secular alternatives (at least if you're straight). I see no reason, for instance, for any church to be forced to marry non-members or non-believers and if that includes inter-racial couples, I see no problem. I don't doubt there would be a backlash against the church if it were publicized, but the First Amendment in the US does not guarantee the right to Freedom of Religion or Speech without any consequences. People have a right to judge you based on your religious beliefs, actions and/or speech.

In this instance, the government is using religious groups as proxies, but only for the convenience of the married couple. We could have a European-style system, requiring both civil and religious ceremonies, but that seems like a waste of time to me.

People have very short memories when it comes to the history of marriage, especially people with a specific religious agenda or who're simply too ignorant to listen.

I suggest checking out this op-ed piece about the history of marriage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/...&ei=5087%0A

Jack Nicholson says at the beginning of the film, The Departed, "No one's going to give it to you, you've got to take it."

That said, my own personal gay agenda is to be happy and marry a hot dude who's sensitive and fun.

By that token I would argue that people have a very short memory when it comes to the understanding of sexual identity as a binary (gay or straight) concept. Our current understanding of both gender and sexuality is very much a cultural hangover of the Victorian era. Prior there to, there was no real concept of homosexuality as a totalizing concept of an individual, rather it simply referred to an act a person may commit, or at most a vague inclination towards one's own sex. That is not to say that such acts were always acceptable, just that they were not understood in the 'light' (maybe a bad choice of word) that they are today. Essentially what I am getting at is that prior to the Victorian era, even people inclined towards their own sex would not have understood a same sex marriage in the light that it is understood today because their was no cultural understanding of a concept of a firm sexual identity at all.

Nor was there the same understanding of marriage. The 20th century emergence of the welfare state, and resultant extension of new government benefits to 'families' further structuralized the institution of marriage and makes it an important concept to this day. At present there exists both rigid concepts of sexual identity and a very structuralized concept of marriage. Becuase of this current environment it is important for gays to be able to access the institutions of marriage or civil union. Whereas the article you posted claims that "the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical", I would argue that protection of relationship misses the point. The key reason why marriages or unions remain important is because they are linked to access to government service and benefits while a couple is in a marriage or union. For example, the fact that the institution may be weakening or becoming less permanent does not change ones need (I hesitate to use the term 'right' here) to have someone whom they love by their side if they are sick or wounded and in hospital. Due to the increasingly complex legal system and the need for security of individuals who are in the care of a hospital, there needs to be some mechanism whereby a hospital can determine who may or may not visit.

What reading that article does suggest is a possible need for strengthening common law benefits, or a need for easier access to civil unions and easier termination of civil unions, but not a reversion to a historical system of private contract. Baisically that article fails to recognize that history and culture are inseparably linked and dynamic. Therefore using history as a justification for future change is pretty problematic.


Ok, that's my take. if this makes no sense, I apologize. I just got back from a bar with some friends.

I think the main point of the article was simply to point out that marriage has been an ever evolving 'situation' and any argument about the so-called sanctity of marriage rings hollow and uninformed. The need to have marriage be between a man and a woman only is either a religious point of view or simply a traditional one - all well and good unless you're gay.

If the only reason men and women got married was to have children then the anti-gay marriage argument would make sense- after all its impossible for two men to biologically conceive a child. But we all know that people get married for other reasons, money, convenience, status, business-some married couples never have children- and if its just for tradition sake then why not bring back those other fun traditions like slavery and stoning sinners.

Tolerance definitely cuts both ways. I can't say that I agree with the points the author makes in his statements, however looking at tolerance another way...I often find myself torn between aligning myself with some of the same gay people who are not tolerant of and ignore gay people of color. There is a reason why black/latino pride events/weekends exist. Of course no one wants to ever talk about that, nor seem to want to admit that it exists. So before I go wagging my finger at the "evil heteros", I think we have some work in our own back yard we need to clean up as well. Mainstream gay organizations ignore gays of color the same way the larger mainstream organizations ignore people of color as far as I'm concerned.

So true.

There's racism, ethnocentricity and white supremacy by white gays against LGBT people of color (POCs).

There's homophobia from straights against all gays, including the wannabe-straight ones.

There's homophobia from straight POC folks (and closet gays) against LGBT white folks and LGBT POCs.

There's misogyny among gay and bi men towards straight women, and towards gay and bi women/lesbians.

There's transphobia by all sorts of people against transpeople.

There are class, ethnic, religious, skin-color, etc. issues.'

All of these have been on display on this very site at various times.

But we're all human. We need to learn to live with our differences, respect them, not condemn others, and also not buy into the idea that if we just keep our mouths shut and try to be something we're not we'll be accepted. It doesn't work. And also the idea that anyone is going to give us anything is total BS. You have to fight for that respect if it's not forthcoming. People's minds do change. Not always and not easily, but they do.

And if not, as Marjorie Dawes on Little Britain says, "Scuh-rewwwwww youuuuuu!"

People are people and we've got to be free.

For every example stated the reverse is true as well. Many gay people are barely tolerant of straight people...many people of color scoff at white people before they even know anything about them. So I agree fully with mdterp that before we throw mud at anyone claiming they're not respectful or tolerant, we'd better be sure we're not doing the same thing to them...first.

And while I believe every human being deserves respect on one level, on another level we all need to earn it. Walking into a room with your nose up in the air and a big fat attitude demanding respect doesn't mean you deserve it or should get it..