How many of you are heterosexual and think gay people are your equals?

If your answer is similiar to the following, you are in denial about the truth that you consider gay peoeple to be less than you.

"Yes, but they should not be allowed to adopt children."

"Yes, but my Church is right by not permitting them to marry or be ordained."

"Yes, but they should not be permitted the same tax and insurance benefits as heterosexual couples."

"Yes, but we will lose votes if we openly advocate for equal civil rights for gays."

Now quit hitting on me!

Simple as that.

Me...me...me!

nope
nope
nope
nope

I pass the test! :)

.

but I agree.

When I was about 13, my mother told me it was ok if I turned out to be gay. The only thing that would bother her was that other people would give me a harder time. Wouldn't you know I turned out totally straight.

I never liked domestic partner legislation because I have always believed gays should be allowed to get married.

I'm a very heterosexual married male. I have NEVER understood, even back in high school in the 80s, why people get bent out of shape about what gay people do or want. Human sexuality is one of life's mysteries. If gay people want to get married, more power to them.

You would think that people who worry about gays, or anyone else, being too promiscuous, would SUPPORT gay marraige, not be against it.

n/t

adopt children: yes, better them than me (I'm happy child-free)

Church, well, I'm an atheist, so...

tax/insurance: yes, why the hell not?

lose votes: bullshit, we will win votes. from them and from all the other people in the country who actually believe in equal rights

But your last comment:

"Yes, but we will lose votes if we openly advocate for equal civil rights for gays."

If I agree with that it does not mean I am in denial. And to be more specific, this qualification should read:

"Yes, but we will lose votes if gay marriage is part of the Democratic platform in the 2004 election"

It is a wedge issue. I personally OPENLY advocate equal rights, AND marriage for gays, but it IS a wedge issue that will lose independent votes and/or help the opposition. I say keep the eye on the prize - a Dem in the White House in 2004, then pull this issue back up on the front burner.

Linda

Slavery was a "wedge issue", what does that matter?

I can't be your equal because you have lived your life with a level of interolerance I could never hope to understand (as a white, hetero mother and grandmother).

Frankly, I consider the gay/lesbian community better people than I because of this.

the idea that, because someonee has suffered, they are automaticly a better person is just a tad to 'religious' for me.

Sorta like asking if Latinos or women are your equals, isn't it?

I disagree with every one of those statements! A CHEER FOR GAY RIGHTS!

Were I the supreme ruler of the USA, all gay folks would be welcome to:

look after and teach my kids (and everyone elses)
marry
Adopt kids
Share health insurance

and any other societal norm we bestow on hetero couples.

The way I figure it, if you're lucky enough to find someone who loves you and who you love, and you're both willing to make a committment to stick by each other, to raising a family together, then you're doing better than most people or hetero orientation?"

What do I want my son to see when he sees two men or two women being affectionate? I hope he sees two people with an intimate bond unafraid to demonstrate it. I hope he's happy for them, same as I am.

I simply do not understand the fear and hatred of homosexual folks.

I am FOR:

Gay Marriage
Gay Adoption of children
Gays in the military


I don't believe in organized religion, so I can't advocate for their roles in a church. I don't think that anyone should be a part of organized religion. In my book, science should have replaced religion centuries ago.

Dennis was braver than I will ever be, more generous, more loving, way more up on physics and music.....

And his lover cared for him with such cherishing love...

Please don't anybody try to tell me they were not married. Any of us would be beyond fortunate to have such a relationship in our lives.

They were faithful and together for nine years. Only parted by death from the distant past.

Aspire to be equal to that.

but i PROMISE i won't go on an anti-religion rant tho i want to soooo badly....

"Yes, but they should not be allowed to adopt children."

Disagree.

"Yes, but my Church is right by not permitting them to marry or be ordained."

Putting aside the fact that I have no church, "right" is a subjective term in this case. I would not personally describe it as "right," but I believe any religion is within its own rights to establish its own moral codes without the interference of governmental edict.

I personally believe the State should allow homosexual couples to "marry" (or the secular equivalent), but not that the State should force any church to conduct the ceremony or "recognize" the "marriage," in terms of its own religious precepts. I really bristle at the thought of the State "prohibiting the free exercise thereof," whether this is a Quaker chapel or a blood-magick sex cult.

"Yes, but they should not be permitted the same tax and insurance benefits as heterosexual couples."

Thoroughly disagree, although I there's going to have to be some substantial legislation to make this happen - insurance companies are in the sole business of denying people's claims, and if there isn't a straight-up law establishing "Party X is the legal spouse (or gay equivalent of spouse; "life-partner" maybe) of Party Y," good luck collecting. So there's going to necessarily need to be some form of state-sanctioned and super-duper binding contract, just like hetero marriage, whereby he gets half of his stuff if he cheats on him, and she has to pay her alimony until she remarries, and so forth.

"Yes, but we will lose votes if we openly advocate for equal civil rights for gays."

Meh - we lose those votes already. The votes that people worry about in this case are the suburbanite still-pretty-liberal moms, and they'd be more threatened by a Jocelyn Elders proposing to teach their grade schoolers how to give each other oral, than the thought of their landscape architect having a commitment ceremony with his life-partner.

Truthfully, I think the other side stands to lose more votes, as their bona-fide knuckle-draggers come slithering out of the slimework to denounce "them goddamned fags." Let somebody ask Bush what he thinks about the "God Hates Fags" group picketing outside his stump speech. Bring that shit on, baby.

It's a no brainer. We are all human, worthy
of dignity, respect, safety, and freedom from
persecution. Equal rights should apply to all.

I know that's not a popular sentiment, but it's what I believe.

There's all kinds of ways to carve up people and create divisions where there are none. There's the gay/straight divide. There's the more $$$/less $$$ divide, the racial divide, the gender gap, etc. The developing world and the developed world. HIV+ and HIV-, and infinitum. What poppycock, the whole ridiculous lot of it.

It's not hard at all really to think of everyone as equal. Just take a look at any whole earth picture from one of the satellites. We're all fellow travelers on this "little blue marble," as Carl Sagan once called it. All we have is each other. And that we treat each other so badly is just appalling.

edit: Nope. I've never said any of those things. And never will.

I just think gay 'marriage' is devisive at this time and not necessary to provide legal protection under the law, if and only if gays are equally satisfied with civil unions. As far as I'm concerned gays can go get married today, there are churches that will officiate. I'd like to see huge gay weddings in every park in the U.S., cars parading through the streets all decorated and honking and having a celebration. I say park because it's outside for the world to see. Act as if. Claim your rights.

Gay rights is not about sin. There is no place in our Constitution to provide equal rights based on what one group of people thinks is a sin. My grandmother thought dancing and playing cards was a sin, and I'm talking Go Fish, Crazy 8's, Rummy, any cards. You want her in charge of Civil Rights???

We're smart enough to define harmful illegal behavior without blatant condemnation of people who have never harmed anyone.

I WOULD SAY NONE OF THOSE THINGS. :D

It has been rather depressing lately listening to people discuss what rights gay people should be given, or not. The fact that we have people in the Adminisrtation considering an actual amendment to the Constitution to road-block equality is startling to me.

Of course a religious organization can make up their own bigoted rules--but I as a member of that religion should, as a person of faith, work on changing them.

Also, when the head of a cCurch urges my US Representitives to vote against gay people--I must defend myself, as well as call for the removal of that Church's tax exempt status.

that the question is asked at all.

and agree with kmargret (above)
i am no less or more equal than the world and the space i occupy presently.
My world is but a reflection of myself.

dp

Gays should have ever single right and privilege that I have, without exception, including under the law, and that is just a no-brainer kind of question. No buts.

Duh!

(to borrow from Muhammad Ali's comment "No Vietcong ever called me nigger" as his objection to fighting in the Vietnam War)

It amuses me when the right-wing assholes frantically rant and rave about "the gay agenda" and how straight people such as myself are going to be brainwashed, indoctrinated, or otherwise have my rights somehow limited. It's great comedy to me to see them inform me that my marriage to a woman will somehow be endangered if we let homosexuals marry. They try to convince us gays are the enemy, just like they try to convince us that blacks, liberated women, Arabs, and other minorities are the enemy. I'm not fooled for a second.

Here's the perspective of this married straight white male: gays, women, blacks, and all the other minorities the Republicans want to demonize are my brothers and sisters. No gay person has ever so much as insulted me. I'm insulted on a daily basis by the tantrums and ranting of the white male Republicans who want me to believe that their enemies are my enemies. These right-wingers are the problem with society. Letting all races achieve equality is not the problem. Letting both genders be completely liberated is not the problem. Letting homosexuals marry, adopt, and be ordained in any religion is not the problem. Hateful, ignorant, intolerant right-wingers are the problem. Period. If they have the problem, then they ought to get the hell out of this country and go found their own little conservative utopia. The only problem is, they won't have anyone to pick on, so they'll eventually turn on one another and fight tooth and nail against "people who wear brown shoes!"

Gays are taxpayers and citizens, letting them marry and achieve the same objectives as straight people is only a logical step in a civilized society. In this crazy world, anyone who is lucky enough to find a significant other deserves to have that relationship officially recognized.

Solely because they used heterosexuality as an excuse to condemn homosexuality. As a hetereosexual male, I viewed associating with hetereosexuality with bigotry as offensive.

why ANYONE would consider homosexuals anything other than what they are; human beings, endowed with the exact same *unalienable rights* as the rest of us. I care not one whit if a person loves animal, vegetable or mineral, it has zero effect on my life in any way, and anyone who thinks differently is obviously an

Yeah, they're my equals and yeah, if my daughter wanted to marry one I'd have a daughter-in-law, wouldn't I?

Or was I supposed to say that I'm their inferior? All that "Straight guys can't dress" and all that?

is part of the stereotype problem. I have many gay friends who do not dress with what would be called "taste." And I know straigt men who dress so good that they are tired of being asked if they are gay by people who think in stereo-types.

As for your being "supposed" to say you as a straight person are inferior to a gay person, are you implying that the culture in America posits gays as "superior" to heterosexuals? If so, I have never lived in the country you are referring too.

And no you would not have a daughter-in-law. It is AGAINST the law.

Don't feel antagonized! That was NOT my intent.
I know damn well how this "culture" posits str8's v. Gays on the "superiority" scale, I was getting a (poorly thought-out)dig in at anyone who might say "Equal isn't GOOD enough!" and I'm sorry if I offended you.

And be patient! I'll let you in on something. Had a Psychic reading once. She told me that my wife would be married one more time, but this was the last one for me. I figured, well, I can see who's gonna outlive who...My now EX-wife is in a committed relationship with another woman. Doesn't look like I'm ever gonna get re-married, so be patient! It's coming!

I've read many of your other posts and thought I may have been a little touchy about your post. One time I was at a 12 step meeting and the guy beside me "shared" how he loved this program where all sorts of people accpeted each other. After the meeting he asked me to go for coffee. At the coffee shop he said "It's good to be with another straight guy, there are too many faggots at that meeting." He then was informed that I too was gay. With a life-time of things like that, it is a wonder that I am not completely insane. Peace.

and having the same equal rights Heteros have.

I simply can not understand why anyone would not feel the same.

I walked away from religion at the age of 6 and have never looked back. Many religions, though, have moral codes to which they must adhere as core tenets or they are at odds with their core tenets. Thus, Southern Baptists cannot accept women as equals to men without changing their basic premises, so to be true to their stated beliefs, they are "right" in being bigoted idiots. That's a minor point to me; I have a very dim view of most organized religon, and were I in one, I'd demand full rights as I would in society at large.

Here's where you're wrong, in my haughty opinion:

We WILL lose votes if we openly advocate equal civil rights for gays. Period. Cold hard real-live fact. Many? I don't think so. Enough to make a difference in '04? Hard to tell.

We will also GAIN some votes by doing it, because it will energize some to vote who generally don't. What's the net result? Probably a slight loss. Is it worth doing anyway? Yes!

The big question is: should this be pushed forward in a dangerous and very high-stakes crossroads in our political lives? I don't think so. I think medical marijuana and some other hot-button issues should be "polite" this cycle too.

Then again, if the will is there, then it's worth biting the bullet.

Just because I consider you wrong on one issue doesn't make me a closet bigot on the subject. It doesn't spring from squeamishness or prejudice; it's an assessment of the facts. I would counter and say that someone who doesn't accept that his/her ethnicity or lifestyle may be a liability to his/her allies is either being oblivious or deliberately deceptive.

Do you really believe that anyone who feels that this could be a political liability is doing it because of bigotry? Come on. Go back and look at what Clinton did to ruin himself with his plans for the military the moment he got in the presidency.

It would definitely hurt. Now is probably not the time. I'm not necessarily against it.

Good post, in general, and quibbling aside, it's an important theme to keep addressing; you just carried it too far and made a leap in logic that simply doesn't hold on one point.

Your thoughts?

In regards to religion, if mine was to through virgins into a volcano--I would be wrong to follow it, no matter what my "scriptures" say. I know the current mode is to say "how do you know you wouldn't be the one pushing her into the pit." I do not think I would. There are over 200 instances of the Bible being read into the congressional record to support slavery.

I do not think someone is a bigot for thinking that advocating for equal rights for gays will cost us the election. I do hope they are incorrect. But, the idea of not advocating the application of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for all Americans seems cowardly.

I may be wrong, and perhaps you are right; but I would rather go down fighting for freedom, than by placating bigots to get their votes.

People are People, Love is Love, and the rest is just details. :)

people who are gay should be allowed all the rights
of marriage and children as heterosexuals. I believe we
should all be treated equally, and if it loses votes, so
be it.

I can't imagine what courage it takes to be openly gay in some parts of this fucked up country.

have to ask this question, especially here in this forum is just so very, very sad.

i don't think any decision shuold be based on what someone's sexual preference is with the exception of whether or not to date them.

it seems to me that an awful lot of self-proclaimed straight males are obsessing over where other men stick their penises.

but I do take slight issue with point 2 and point 4. On point 2, churches have every right to follow whatever rules they may wish in regards to their faith. If they wish not to ordain or marry gays that is their God given right. That doesn't make it correct but it is their call. On point 4, one doesn't necessarily have to be anti gay rights to think that being pro gay rights could cost votes. In point of fact it surely will cost some votes but also gain some votes. It is an open question what the net is and that probably depends on a bunch of variables too numerous to name. But just because one thinks a political price may be paid to do something doesn't mean they won't advocate doing it anyhow.

I take issue with:
"Yes, but we will lose votes if we openly advocate for equal civil rights for gays."

The battle for equality in the law is a marathon not a sprint. And treating it as a marathon does not diminish anyone's belief in your equality. The U.S. is a democratic-republic and folks still must be convinced to get the political power to get the votes to get the law changed.

:evilgrin: The essential 'goodness' that is inherent in any person can not be defined by their sexual preference!

Just one example is the man who started a local theater group for hearing impaired children that my 14 y/o son attended. He is no less a hero to me just because of his sexual preference. There are good and bad people in any overall group. Those of us who know the good that this man has done, due to his selfless efforts and the gift of his time and his knowledge of the theater to our children, will always be grateful for having known him. He is only one in a large group of people I know to be gay, bi-sexual or transgendered and I feel no different about them than anyone else I know. In fact on average, they seem just a little more real than many of the straight people I know! :):thumbsup:

I was on a plane today, reading about the Pope's missive or whatever it was, and I found myself becoming so angry.

This issue just floors me. I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't where so many people are coming from on this. I was raised Catholic and I was taught that above all, Jesus preached tolerance.

Issue #4 is tricky; it does seem to be the ugly reality that votes are lost by openly advocating equal rights for gays...witness the front-runner Dems, who all support gay rights but not quite all the way. But I think it's a catch 22 as well; the party overall needs to make progress toward this.

First step: dump Bush.

If they are equal??

still scratching my head over that one.

To create a special gay school, implies inequality

compared with the national average. The phrase " to create a special gay school, implies inequality" doesn't gel with your use of the word "entitled".

Teenage years are miserable for many if not the majority of straight teens because of well, I'm sure many remember why. This is true to the nth power for gay teens who experience their sexuality for the first time in their teens, but for them it is totally different from everyone around them and branded immoral by most of this culture. I especially can't imagine growing up gay in this wave of hip-nouveau religiosity that seemed to spring from there finally being some decent Christian rock bands. I

some decent Christian rock bands.

BLAZARAGHALAARG?? WHAT? What are you talking about? "creed?"

Jesus bleeding Christ, somebody get this woman a copy of a My Bloody Valentine CD, STAT.

The living resurrected Christ would not associate itself with the likes of contemporary Xian cultural waste, especially the "rock bands."

should do her nicely; string up some color-changing christmas lights and let Mr. Shields and Co. show you the way, my child ;)

EP is what I always use as an intro to newcomers. I think "Off Your Face" is the best single they ever did.

Pleasure to make your acquaintanceship, dolo amber.

pregnant teens, problem teens? I think it protects a desperate city from 'failure to protect"lawsuits,in addition to saving young lives.

Even if being gay were considered a lifestyle choice, so is religion. So if there can be religious schools, then why not gay schools?

And I support gay rights, up to and including gay marriage. For me, it's an equality issue. I think back to the segregationist days where interracial marriages were still prohibited in some states and I think; this has to be a federal issue. We have to force states to give people their rights under the Constitution of equal protection under the law. There should be no skirting around this.

The assertion that one thinks gays to be inferior if one thinks they shouldn't be ordained priests is a little much. I could personally believe gays have all the same rights in secular society that heterosexuals do, but deny them the right to be a priest of my religion strictly because I adhere to religious dogma. That's only so long as I didn't have any ulterior motives for believing how I did.

and great strides have been made and are being made. But part of the brilliance of America is that even idiots, bigots and Ann Coulter are entitled to spew their bile and hold their opinions. If I want to be part of a church that is bigoted, I can go and feel safe. As a lapsed Presbyterian, I'll consider returning to worship when gays are ordained, either in split off, or the church as a whole.

Do You have a problem with that or are you still on some crusade that people who you 'want' to dictate to somehow are 'less' equal even though they conform to the same requirements of a 'moral' citizen

When gay couples adopt children should they feed them fast food?

Your Church is irrelevent to people who are sane and think for themselves

They pay into the system like any other 'deviant' and so why do you think that insurance companies and the Boss should get rich...hell as a straight single person I am paying for FAMILIES through my contributions, so why can't I give my dental coverage to anyone ONE person I choose...???

No if people don't like freedom and citizenship and the responsibilities that come with it, then they should declare themselves enemies of democracy and freedom...

Your points are not very democratic...its more...looking over your shoulder and wondering what the neighbours might think

assuming they are citizens. I know a gay couple that adopted a romanian child... and on that note I am hitting the sack. buona notte

All qualified Americans should be allowed to adopt children.

I don't ascribe to any exclusionary spirituality clubs so my thinking isn't tainted by their exclusionary charters.

All Americans should be permitted the same respective tax and insurance benefits.

I don't frankly care if we lose votes by openly advocating equal rights for all Americans. I would hazard to guess that the votes gained would far outweigh those lost. Even if they didn't it is no reason to be disingenuous in a campaign. Fear motivated failure to stand up for that which you know to be right, is tantamount to tacit approval of that which you know to be wrong. It's called complicity. Such complicity will inevitably bite the person guilty of it in the ass. This fact has become indelibly clear with the fear inspired Democratic acquiescence to Bushes marketing of the invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The Democrats guilty of this complicity now appear politically motivated and hypocritical in their outcry against the confidence scam Bush ran on the American public.

Peace and Inner Harmony,

Rapid Creek

Some are bigger, some are smaller.

that's why i'm a Democrat

if DU is a window into the the DEM party, homophobia is alive and well, justified by "religious" beliefs. :puke:

and pandering to people's intolerance for the sake of votes is a huge mistake.

I've had it with the Democratic politicians chasing after those so-called independent right-wing radio listeners. These people show all this hatred and intolerance and demonstrate with action after action that they don't even believe in democracy any more. We should shame them, not cater to them.

Yes, but they have better taste.

The Canadians have it right on this one...it's up to the people and not to the religious zealots. (Right on Canada!)


Recently a former colleague passed away after a long illness. Despite having drafted all his legal documents, wills, POA, etc. the parents went into his and his partner's home and just ransacked the place. But this was not the first time I've heard about that.

In any case, while people like Justice Michael Kirby (High Court Judge...like SCOTU) walk this Earth it's a rhetorical question.

(No, I'm straight).

I am straight but I don't care if someone is gay or straight they are the same as I am.

then I consider gays as my equals as well.

And of course the pig-republican-rightwing-Christian Coalition-Bush loving-flag waving-dirty bastards think otherwise. Please excuse my language. I'm fed up with those dirty bastards. Lets get busy with winning the election.

Every time I hear some freeper spout off the fundie-psycho lies about gays, it's *personal.* (The only way it could be more personal would be if I were gay myself.) Whenever I read or hear the right-wing anti-gay propaganda, I think, "this is my brother and his partner that they're talking about." Obviously, the issue is far broader than my family -- but that's how I take it -- and it makes me furious.

Gays should be able to have legal marriages (with all rights and benefits) and to adopt without a hitch.

Yes, but they should not be allowed to adopt children

No they should not, until they are allowed to marry. Non married couples should not be able to adopt.

Yes, but my Church is right by not permitting them to marry or be ordained

My church, Catholic, does ordain them. It does not however marry them and I would not see how it could ever do so. The church can not simply ignore the bible. Having said that I do also think the church should not interfere with this issue in politics, it is free to abide by it's rules but a goverment has a different set of responisibilities.

Goverment should be forced to treat it's citizens equally in all respects. That means marriage or civil unions (whichever floats your boat) and all other things. It should ont pick and choose who gets what right, that's bullshit.

Yes, but they should not be permitted the same tax and insurance benefits as heterosexual couples

anyone who says that must be a republican and damn close to one. It's absolutely obsurd to think their is a logical reason to deny homosexual couples equal benefits.

Yes, but we will lose votes if we openly advocate for equal civil rights for gays

We need to appeal to the majority of Americans with the issues we choose to press the hardest. By no means do I feel we should drop the issue but we shouldn't strive to place it on all the headlines either.

I mean no offense to the gay community as I know that if I were one of you I would feel that this issue SHOULD be on the front of all discussions. However I must urge patience in this case. Winning is the first step and if a dem wins I would expect him to press this issue in congress. I will not vote for a candidate would support a ban on gay marriages.

Yes, but they should not be permitted the same tax and insurance benefits as heterosexual couples

anyone who says that must be a republican and damn close to one. It's absolutely obsurd to think their is a logical reason to deny homosexual couples equal benefits.

Why? Why do you think anyone should think that gays don't deserve equal access to equal benefits? Any ideas?

It's absolutely obsurd to think their is a logical reason to deny homosexual couples equal benefits.

What I am saying in the above quote is that there is NO reason to deny homosexuals equal benefits.

because my thinking has nothing to do with it...gays have the same right to be as anyone else does

...as a Christian, in equal rights for all. Not everyone who is a believer is narrow-minded and hateful. I would suggest that anyone who claims to be a believer and displays hateful tendencies toward anyone has seriously missed the thrust of Christ's teachings and example.

affect anything at all about their humanity, or me?