I se that you're a Dan Savage fan too Sax.
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com
I se that you're a Dan Savage fan too Sax.
However, the language of the law states that it is between a man and a woman. The language of the "Romeo and Juliet" law states what should happen to rapists. (or whatever it was talking about, i'm to lazy to check the other page). The law isn't denying permission of Gays to marry, it's allowing straight couples to marry. Legally the 14th amendment still applies.
(btw, i think that any time a minor would try and bring up charges on anyone for rape they should go away for the maximium time...straight or otherwise, I disagree with the law...)
I pretty much have given up on Dan Savage because of the silly asinine Santorum thing. It's stup1d and immature and took up way too much space from the good perverted questions.
First we kill all the lawyers.
Benn: Um, that was kinda the point. :-|
That's it's stup1d and immature? I realize that. I'm not that stup1d, Brian. I mean, I may be dumb, but please. But it very quickly stopped being funny and got really annoying. Like a little kid just learning a cuss word. It's cute and amusing for a while. Then you wish they'd just shut up.
First we kill all the lawyers.
However, the language of the law states that it is between a man and a woman.
And the language of the Romeo and Juliet law states that is between partners of opposite sexes.
The language of the "Romeo and Juliet" law states what should happen to rapists. (or whatever it was talking about, i'm to lazy to check the other page).
(btw, i think that any time a minor would try and bring up charges on anyone for rape they should go away for the maximium time...straight or otherwise, I disagree with the law...)
No, the language of the Romeo and Juliet law makes a distinction between pedophilic rape and consensual sex between two teenagers, one of which happens to too young to legally give consent. And it specifically denies that distinction when the partners are the same sex.
The Romeo and Juliet law was passed because often it was a third party (such as a parent or teacher) who complained. It only applies to partners who are close in age, and only for sex they engaged in during a small window of opportunity. Before this window, when both were minors, or after, when both are above the age of consent, there is no crime.
But if there were no Romeo and Juliet law, and the statutory rape law applied, then there would be no discrimination question.
The law [I assume you mean to refer to the marriage amendment] isn't denying permission of Gays to marry, it's allowing straight couples to marry. Legally the 14th amendment still applies.
The point is that it treats gays and straights differently. It gives special benefits to one and denies them to the others. Under the 14th amendment, in order to discriminate -- whether positively or negatively -- the State must show a rational basis for a particular state interest in making the distinction.
In certain cases, especially those that involve a group that has been systematically discriminated against, which some claim includes GLBT, there is a second heightened level of scrutiny. But even at the lower rational basis level, I have not seen any argument offered that did not reduce to a religious argument.
Up until now, we have been keeping the discussion of same-sex marriage very general. We have written of the rights, responsibilities and privelages of marriage in a very general way. I'll admit that one reason that I did was that I did not really know just what they were, except in a general way. Other than joint filing of income tax, I doubt that I could have named any.
Well, I've done a little research. According to the General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,049 separate federal laws which are affected by a marriage. Each state has an average of 300 additional laws.
What are some of these laws? Well, in California 15 of these laws (15 out of 1300+) are granted to same-sex domestic partners. They are:
1)Hospital visitation
2)The right to make emergency medical decisions for one another
3)The right to file for disability benefits on each other's behalf
4)The right to be appointed conservator of an incapacitated partner
5)The right to adopt the partners children as a step-parent
6)The right to inherit from an intestate partner
7)The right to sue for wrongful death and/or infliction of emotional distress
8)The ability to use standard (form) wills and automatically designate the partner as the executor
9)The right to draft a will or trust with the partner
10)The right to use sick leave if partner or partner's child becomes seriously ill
11)The right to apply for unemployment benefit during a relocation due to partner's job promotion
12)The right of one partner and that partner's children to continue in the other partner's government employee health insurance plan after the employee's (or retiree's) death
13)Death benefits of county employees (but only in selected counies)
14)The right to share housing in senior developments
15)The insurance benefits above are no longer considered "special benefits" subject to state income tax (just as they have never been for married families)
If any of you support DOMA (Defense of Marriage act) and/or the Marriage Amendment, could you please explain to me how the following situations are fair?
"The adoption of our little girl, Janie, became legal just three months ago. But because we can't get married, only one of us could be the legal parent. We wish we could have the support system that marriage gives a couple, not only for the legal benefits, but for the respect, as well. The process overall has been positive, even though we were basically told because she is a "throw away", born with HIV, it was fine to let 2 gay guys have her. No matter, we love her so much and she has brought joy to our lives. It is frustrating, however, that our government does not recognize the needs of our family, even though we hear how much everyone wants to "help families." The clincher was that we were told by our lawyer that because we are 2 gay men, we never would have been able to adopt a boy. Well, Janie was and will always be the greatest thing that has ever happen to us."
Imagine what it's like for Dolores and Fran. They've been together for 45 years and own a home together. Together they've raised Dolores' children from a previous marriage and have taken care of each other through thick and thin.
Now Dolores' health is declining, and her medical needs and personal assistance are more than Fran can handle on her own.
Dolores and Fran began looking into retirement communities. Repeatedly, the two are given the message that two "single" ladies are not eligible to share a one-bedroom apartment, but they will have to maintain separate residences,or at least rent a two-bedroom, which they can't afford and don't need.
"When Juan Navarrete came home from the market in March 1989, he found his partner LeRoy Tranton lying on the concrete, his head covered with blood. He had fallen off a ladder. At the hospital, he slipped into a coma. His brother transferred him to a nursing home and prevented Navarrete from seeing him. Unable to legally prove his relationship with his partner of eight years, Navarrete ... lost him. The morning of the court hearing for visitation rights, the brother's lawyer called to say the session would not be necessary. Tranton died four days earlier, and his body had already been shipped out of state. ``I was so disappointed,'' Navarrete says. ``Where is the human part there? Where is the human part?""
"My life partner and I, who have spent many thousands of dollars on a variety of side-door legal documents in an attempt to protect our children, continue to spend thousands more annually buying additional health insurance because without a marriage license we do not qualify for one family policy. Our children could have used that money for their education."
On a legel level, most of these cases are fair. These people are not married and should not receive the benefits that go to married people.
On a moral level, yes, a lot of these cases are unfair and it is a major reason why I am very reluctant to vote for the marriage amendment at this time.
On a legal level, most of these cases are fair. These people are not married and should not receive the benefits that go to married people.
I would agree, if they had chosen not to marry. In most of these cases, the couples would have married if they had been able to, and not just for the "mercenary" purpose of obtaining these benefits.
But when the State holds forth these benefits and sets conditions on obtaining them that it refuses to let a particular class of citizens meet, it is arbitrarily and illegally discriminating against that class.
On a legel level, most of these cases are fair. These people are not married and should not receive the benefits that go to married people.
Which is why people want to give gays the right to have some type of civil union, to give them those benefits. Remember that at one time it was fine to own another person.
I think people just like reading the first part of my post. I have never denounced civil unions and I am sympathetic to homosexuals receiving secular, legal benefits. I am just saying that on a purely legal basis the courts' hands are tied--they can't give benefits to a couple not united with a civil union or marriage.
I think what Mike is saying is that he basically thinks that gay couples should have everything straight couples have, EXCEPT the word marriage. It's a semantic argument that I can understand, even if I don't agree with it.
Actually, it is only semantic until the issue is settled on the federal level. Right now, a (same-sex)civil marriage in Massachusetts and a civil union in Vermont are basically the same thing. Both give all of the state benefits of marriage, but because of the federal DOMA, none of the federal benefits, nor is either recognized in any other state.
But if SCOTUS should rule ever against DOMA, The federal benefits will automatically devolve on the Massachusetts marriages, and the other 49 states will have to recognize them, but not the civil unions.
In fact, if Vermont should institute (same-sex) civil marriages in the wake of such a ruling, and does not automatically upgrade all existing civil unions to marriage status, it is likely that a couple would have to dissolve their civil union and then (re)marry before obtaining the federal benefits and interstate recognition.
On the other hand, if the marriage amendment should get ratified, all bets are off
The text of the Marriage Amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
I am just saying that on a purely legal basis the courts' hands are tied--they can't give benefits to a couple not united with a civil union or marriage.
And we're saying that such a civil union shoudld be given "full faith and credit" by other states.
I agree. But how many of the cases Tom listed apply under that situation?
Note, I do oppose the National Marriage Amendment.
Saturday:...I am very reluctant to vote for the marriage amendment at this time. Mike
Sunday:I do oppose the National Marriage Amendment.
At least we got one convert
As much as I appreciate your responses, Mike, I was really hoping that Derrick or Zarm would reply....
Oh well
Actually, Tom, I have always been against the National Marriage Amendment. I was referring to Michigan's state amendment in my Saturday post; I will say that via the magic of absentee ballots, I did vote for it today, and let me just say, I had to vote with my conscience.
Liberals debate this issue with an extreme degree of dishonesty. They ignore all the social data and instead parrot the propaganda of gay activists. A similar situation happened with the Catholic Church. For reasons of political correctness, they choose not to critisise gays and looked the other way instead. The result was that thousands of children were molested. Now, liberals want to place thousands of more children at danger by being within the reach of married gays. Those of us concerned for children, reject the idea of legalised homoSEXual marriages.
Dan, on the off chance that you aren't really a Liberal teenager pulling an Ashton Kutcher on us (Punk'd), if what you say is true (it isn't) have you forgotten that the Catholic Church tried to BLAME homosexuals for their problems, which by my estimation is the OPPOSITE of "looking the other way?"
Unlike you Webber, my mind isn't preoccupied thinking about teenagers. Most teens support Bush anyway.
The Church tried to pretend that homosexuality really didn't pose a serious threat. They ignored it, and look what happened. Liberals also pretend that homosexuality doesn't pose any threat. The rest of us can see clearly though. Your idea of justice is allowing a couple of married Michael Jacksons to raise a gaggle of little boys. I see the dangers. You don't.
*LOL* Oh come on! Scott, Benn, guys, you don't honestly believe this guy is a genuine article do you? Hell, if I didn't know better, I'd think I was the one wriitng this stuff!
It would be really sad if you were...because i didn't think the board was getting boring enough for you to start convo's with yourself..
Sorry Tom, I decieded I would be a good student in school this week. Between actually going to my classes, doing my homework, hanging out with my girl, going to Cross Country Practice, and other fun college related activities, I haven't had the time to put together meaningfull responses to anything. And like i said on different boards, Gay rights really dont push my buttons. I personally dont like it, I beleive we shouldn't cheaped Marrage by allowing Gays to marry (or have divorce so accesable for that matter), I beleive that it will weaken our families, which in turn will weaken pretty much everything in america. As a future educator, I can tell you honestly that I believe that the weak family is the leading cause for children failing in schools, but thats another story...
Rene: For reasons of political correctness, they choose not to critisise gays and looked the other way instead. The result was that thousands of children were molested.
Luigi Novi: Where and when was this? During what time period? Which children? And how was it found to be directly related to liberals not criticizing gays?
Also, most molestation is perpetrated by heteroseuxals.
Rene: Now, liberals want to place thousands of more children at danger by being within the reach of married gays. Those of us concerned for children, reject the idea of legalised homoSEXual marriages.
Luigi Novi: Again, this statement makes no sense. What does "within reach" mean? What does marriage have to do with children? If one believes that gays are inherently dangerous to children, that would be one thing, but here you seem to be saying that allowing them to marry would somehow make them more dangerous. How is this, Rene?
Note, have you done an IP to actually connect this to Rene or are you just guessing?
It would be really sad if you were...because i didn't think the board was getting boring enough for you to start convo's with yourself..
I don't need to be bored to talk to myself.
Note, have you done an IP to actually connect this to Rene or are you just guessing?
I'm with Mike on that one. Don't guess on soemthing like this Luigi. Just ask yourself, WWGGD*?
* What Would Gil Grissom Do?
He'd let Paul Gilfoyle do all the work?
He uses the same turns of phrase/wording as Rene. It's obvious it's him. This wouldn't be the first time Rene tried to parade himself off as someone else when discussing a controversial topic, and put less than a large amount of care and thought into it.
People dont seem to realize that The Government, God, or Religion do not make a marriage special, only the people involved in the marriage (or civil union, or domestic partnership, as they all MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!!!) make it special and meaningful. You cannot ordain or mandate a loving and special relationship otherwise there wouldnt be any divorce. R, on the Election 2004 board
I fully agree with most of what you say. My main disagreement is with the phrase you placed in all caps. Domestic partnership and civil unions are not the same as civil marriage because they are, and need not be, not recognized outside the state in which they were instituted. Currently, under DOMA civil marriage would also go unrecognized, but it is very likely (though unfortunately not certain) that SCOTUS will eventually overturn DOMA.
Ben Sargent's take on the election.
In three weeks, on Dec 7, The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, will hear oral argumnts in Lewis (et al.) v Harris (et al.). This will be the first appellate-level same-sex marriage case since Goodridge (et al.) v Dept of Health in Massachusetts. New Jersey might well become the second state to allow full same-sex marriage.
When the case was presented in the (lower) Law Division, the State decided to limit its position to defending two rationales for denying same-sex marriage:
The Court held argument on the State’s motion to dismiss on June 27, 2003. The State advanced only two purported public needs to justify the discrimination at issue: 1) preserving the "traditional" limitation on marriage to a man and a woman, and 2) maintaining "uniformity" among the States with respect to the definition of marriage. At the conclusion of argument, with the court’s concurrence, the State confirmed that it would not advance any further public needs to justify the discrimination, and that the justifications put forward by amici in support of the State would not be considered as government interests in this case.
--from Plaintiff's brief to Appellate Division
Under this balancing test, the court considers (1) the nature of the affected right, (2) the extent to which the governmental restriction intrudes upon it, and (3) the public need for the restriction.
The right to choose whom to marry is inextricably linked to marriage itself, and the bar to marriage for committed same-sex couples is thus a wholesale intrusion on the right. The trial court erred in finding that the ban on marriage has, "at most, a minimal effect on the ability of these couples to maintain their relationships." The right to choose marriage cannot be diminished to the right to choose to maintain an unmarried relationship, any more than a woman’s right to control her body cannot be diminished to the right to avoid some physical discomforts.
...
The trial court erred in finding that the public need for the wholesale denial of plaintiffs’ right to marry is "substantial" because it preserves "the long-accepted definition of marriage." The conclusory reasoning by the trial court is similar to its approach at the threshold of the analysis, discussed above, which blindly accepted the definition of marriage as limited to people of a different sex and thus cut off the constitutional analysis. That approach merely begged the overall constitutional question. Here the question is again assumed away with regard to the weight of the public need for intruding on constitutionally protected rights. Saying that a statutory definition is an adequate justification for an infringement simply because it is long-standing is saying that the statute should remain the law because it has been the law. Whatever the legislated definition of marriage, and however long the definition has held fast, the "central question" remains whether that definition, as a legislative choice, complies with the mandates of higher law – the
Constitution.
Today is the first aniversary of the Goodridge decision.
In this post I want to be less strident and more introspective. Most of my politcal beliefs tend to be closer to those espoused by either consrvatives and/or libertarians. Nor do I take most of them to heart. If the opposite opinion prevails I can generally live with it.
So why am I on the "left" on this issue? And not just left-of-center, but radically left? And why am I so passionate about it? Especially since it does not affect me? A year ago I knew almost nothing about it. I didn't learn about Goodridge until I read a news article in February about the second decision, after the legislature petitioned the court to allow Vermont-style civil unions.
Well on certain civil rights issues, I have always been more "liberal" than in my other views. I don't particularly like the phrase "gay rights." The rights are human rights, they just are applied to GLBT persons in this case. The phrase "gay rights" makes the lie of them being "special rights" easier to propogate.
But I'm not as passionate about rights in general as I am about marriage rights. Why?
I think it is the stories of just how cruel the denial of the opportunity for marriage can be.
A couple of years ago, one of my co-workers was devistated because her Friend had just died. (You could hear the capital F every time she said the word Friend.) But beyond the devistation of her Friend's death she was upset. She was angry. Her Friend should not have died. The hospital refused to honor the documents authorizing my co-worker to make decisions and there was a delay in reaching the next-of-kin. The specialist that could have saved her was never called, the intern made a major mistake, etc. And my co-worker was not even allowed to be at her Friend's bedside when she died, because she was not family.
Reading the stories brought it home to me again. I don't know if my co-worker and her Friend were lovers, or just very close friends. And it no longer matters, if it ever did.
That is so sad and disgusting of the persons who denied her that basic right. When hearing about that kind of mistreatment is it any wonder people get so worked up over this.
Oh Tom I just saw your reply to me above. (Sorry I missed it) and have to explain that they all mean te same thing on a moral and ethical and meaningful way to the people involved (more or less) And I realize that legally they are unfortunately all three different things. But hopefully someday after the religious wars are over they will be the same legally as well as morally.
This is absolutely outrageous! Do they really a little good-natured costume party is really going to turn kids gay? I think not.
My high school had this briefly as one of its Homecoming activities. It was dropped not because of the gay influence paranoia, but because it was more fun for guys than girls (most girls today typically wear jeans anyway).
My high school had a switch day every year; it started getting out of hand, though. I think that tradition is on its way out. (And I looked like a middle-aged Greek woman when I dressed up, anyway.)
Boy, if this kind of thing bugs them the Righties must really hate Monty Python, Milton Berle, and Benny Hill.
Ok. We never had this during my school. But then again I went to a rather rural school where my class of 105 was the largest ever graduating class. As for camos and all that was usual wear during hunting seasons if students ever showed up. Teachers usually knew better than to schedule anything during deer hunting gun week because of the higher than usual illness rate. But yeah that is going a bit too far.
I find it outragous as well, As I dressed up as a woman for my schools "Gender-Exchange day", if your looking to make an arguemnt here, You wont be able to get me to weigh in on it.
Keep in mind i consider myself to be mainstream a republican
Well I'm somewhere left of conservative and although we didn't have this at my school It wouldn't have bothered me. We probably would have had the usual jerks and idiots but I doubt there would ahve been any major problems. And I know it wouldn't have caused any sexuality confusion among most of the people I went to school with (at least those who weren't already confused about thigns)
As for cross dressing making a person gay. I've dressed as a woman for halloween before and it never affected my sexuality.
they all mean te same thing on a moral and ethical and meaningful way to the people involved
Yes, granted, on a personal level, the commitment, especially a commitment in front of friends and family is more important than a government document. And further granted, any official recognition is better than none.
Still, that is no justification for allowing narrow-minded bigots to limit (and in most cases deny outright) access to the legal recognition (and the benefits that go with them).
Accepting "Domestic Partnership Registration" or "civil union" as a temporary "first step" is one thing. Saying that they are the "same thing" as marriage (no matter how you meant it) is quite another. It allows the bigots to convince the masses that it is an acceptable final solution.
Not only are 18% (last I heard) of crossdressers straight, I know some guys who like to wear women's clothing while they have sex with their wives/girlfriends.
Me? Only if she asks. :-D
Okaaaay. Whatever floats your boat. And the only thign I have to say is to quote gil grissom the only unatural sex is a lack of sex.
So saving yourself for the right person is unnatural? Why didn't anyone tell me this sooner?
So you are saying that as long as you don't call it a marriage its ok? So why not just call it a marriage if thats the case. I mean if its yellow quacks and floats on water then it must be a duck, right?
No, I'm saying just the opposite. Pretending that it is not a "real" marriage so that you can deny them the benefits of marriage is evil, cruel, and unconstitutional.
If we accept half-way measures, even temporarily, it should be clear that we believe them to be less than what the couples are owed, and that we will not go away until equal justice is acheived.
Ok I see now. We are in the same book just off different pages. I think. I feel that you might as well call it a marriage becuase the "lesser" civil unions and all are looked down upon as not as real and valid to a lot of people. Cool.
Exactly!
To the people involved it is a marriage. It is the politicians that came up with "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions." If we agree these bastardized institutions are "as good as" marriage, they will dig in and never budge on granting the couples all that they are entitled to.
Yes, call the relationship a marriage because that's what it is. And it is important for the world to see that. But don't call the states programs marriages because they, by design, are not!
Right and if you are going to give everythign that a marriage is why not just go on ahead and bite the bullet and go all the way and call it and consider it a marriage.
But that's the point. The politicians want to call it something different because they do not want to give everything that a marriage is. I call the programs by the names the politicians use to point out that the programs do not aknowledge same-sex marriage as equal to other-sex marriage.
I see that you are still consolidating and re-arranging. Board 3 of Same-Sex Marriage from LM is suddenly Board 4 of "Gay Rights" (ugh!*) on PM!
There is a lot of overlap between LM and PM, even more than between RM and PM, and Sax moved a lot of discussions from one board to the other shortly after he became RM moderator too. There is a lot of politics involved in human rights issues, but many of the issues are also in the courts, where they will be decided on by the constitutions and laws already in place, so I guess that it could go in either.
* The rights are not special to gays. There are no "gay rights," "black rights," "womens rights," etc. That is a lie propogated by the bigots. The rights are human rights. The same rights that apply to persons in the mainstream should apply to marginalized persons, whether they are marginalized by their race, creed, sex, ethnic background, etc ... or even their sexual orientaion.
MODERATOR'S NOTE: I have merged the Same-sex Marriage board from Legal Musings into the Gay Rights boards here on PM to avoid redundancy of debate topics.
I have also taken the Profiling board from LM and moved it as a subtopic under the 9/11 and Related Topics boards here on PM.
Tom, the reason I believe the Musings discussion boards should be generalized in topic is because that is the direction in which threads invariably go. It doesn't matter, for example, if a visitor makes a post called "Tips for President Bush." The thread will only stay on that narrow focus for the first few posts at best, assuming people even visiting that board regularly enough to justify that board's existence. If they do visit regularly, the thread will always move in the direction of "George W. Bush" period, with the narrow concept of "tips" lost. Hence, I merged such boards onto the George W. Bush and His Presidency boards. The same thing applies to your mention of specificity of courts and the Constitution with respect to laws concerning gays. Discussion of Gays in the Military, or Gays in the Boy Scouts or Gay Marriage or Sodomy Laws will always become a discussion of homosexuals and their perceived rights period.
TomM: The rights are not special to gays. There are no "gay rights," "black rights," "womens rights," etc. That is a lie propogated by the bigots. The rights are human rights. The same rights that apply to persons in the mainstream should apply to marginalized persons, whether they are marginalized by their race, creed, sex, ethnic background, etc ... or even their sexual orientaion.
Luigi Novi: No argument there. But the board title "Gay rights" is appropriate, because the entire debate centers upon whether those rights you and I consider human are to be recognized for gays, with you and I arguing that they should be, and others on the opposite side of the debate table disagreeing. Calling the board "Human Rights" may lead visitors to think that those boards are about torture, or war crimes, or human rights, or suppression of civil liberties in totalitarian countries, etc. Board titles should make it clear to visitors (whether new ones or veterans looking for the right board to post on) what that board is about. (This is also why I eliminated secondary and tertiary board subtitles.) Such a title does not, in itself, imply a position on the issue itself other than the one you yourself espouse.
I welcome input on these points.
Thank goodness a switch-dressing day wasn't around when I was in school. I most definitely would not have gone along with it. I am a male, and that is that.
Saving yourself for the right person is the right thing to do. You cannot be more intimately connected with someone than through sex, and if you use sex like a handshake, it won't be special anymore. Used properly, it is the glue that powerfully binds a man and woman together. Try this: take a piece of duct tape and pat it onto your arm.
Now, rip it off. Probably was very painful, huh?
Pat it back onto your arm. Pull it off. Put it back, pull it off.
Eventually, it won't hurt anymore. But then, eventually, it won't stick at all.
The analogy: keep attaching and unattaching, one person after another, the powerful glue that is a sexual union, and eventually, it won't allow you more than a thrill, but not a binding.
The discredited Kinsey studies tried to tell us the lie that promiscuity is normal. Kinsey fudged the statistics and picked a biased survey group in order to obtain the results he wanted. And yet, the discredited Kinsey studies are treated as if they were good science and are the basis of the "sexual revolution" and the basis of teaching sexual psychology to hundreds of thousands of psychology students.
In fact, faithful monogamous unions are the majority norm.
Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals: a homoesexual man has the right to marry a woman if he and she agree, and to procreate children from their union. Since two men are incapable of procreating together, the only justification they can have for marriage is to make a case for adopting children. All the justifications usually given for having same-sex marriage (inheritance, living together, loving together) can be done without marriage, since we have ample legal provisions to cover those needs, and heterosexual couples have been cohabiting without marriage for centuries, and there are even so-called churches (the United in Canada, for example) that sanction living together without marriage.
Homosexuals like R have their opinion, opinions which I tolerate, even though I don't agree with them. And so, those of you who disagree with my opinion, do you tolerate it, even though you don't agree with it?
a homoesexual man has the right to marry a woman if he and she agree
Anatole France: "The law, in its infinite majesty, prohibits rich and poor alike from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges."
Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals: a homoesexual man has the right to marry a woman if he and she agree, and to procreate children from their union. Since two men are incapable of procreating together, the only justification they can have for marriage is to make a case for adopting children.
Let's modify this just a touch, shall we?
People past childbearing age have the same rights as people of childbearing age: a man past childbearing age has the right to marry a woman past childbearing age if he and she agree, and to procreate children from their union. Since two people past childbearing age are incapable of procreating together, the only justification they can have for marriage is to make a case for adopting children.
See my point? Obviously we should ban marriages between straight seniors, since children can never come from them, and the only point of the marriage is so they can adopt.
Clearly this is wrong. There is a heck of a lot more than adoption/children involved in marriage. Marriage, in the US is a legal contract which involves issues such as taxes, inheritance, next-of-kin status, and other matters.
Homosexuals like R have their opinion,
Has R actually said that he is gay?
In fact, faithful monogamous unions are the majority norm.
Your point being? What homosexuals want is to join said norm... WITH THE PERSON THAT THEY LOVE.
Well I'm certainly glad I checked this before going to bed with my wife who is quite female. I am not now nor have I hever been in my entire 31 years of life homosexual. I have had several different HUMAN FEMALE partners over the years and find females to be quite a wonderful and umm stimulating part of my life. I have produced with my wife's help two wonderful and terrific children.
I support same-gender marriage because I do NOT support hate, discrimination or unfairness in society, culture or legal standing of any sort. I am a very vocal liberal activist on many issues. Some of which I do reign in here because I do not wish to get kicked or have to be edited or warned to cool it. I am a large proponent of environmental issues too but as there is not much discusion of them here I don't really bring them up unless needed. (Go Biodeisel!)
But as for the sex is a glue that binds a relationship. I have to disagree with you. I have been involved in several sexual relationships and if the feelings are there for the woman I am involved with then sex is special and is the icing on the cake. With my wife each and every time w make love is special and just as loving and fun as the first time and we have been together for 8 years now. But sex is not the end all and be all of the relationship. I know several other people like that. And ScottN is right in pointing out that should sterile men and women be denied the ability to amrry if they cannot procreate through their own action? By your statements the answer would be yes. I am sure that the hundreds of people who are unable to have their own children would be quite happy to turn in their marriage liscence and stop loving their husband or wife.
And as for a homosexual man being able to marry a woman. Yes he has that legal right , but here is the thing why would he want to do so? That would be living a false and most likely unfeeling life. I am sure that a person who marries another person becuase they love that person would be much happier, healthier environment for whatever children there are in that relationship, however the children got there.
Ok I am going to have to go meditate for a bit to relax and I am going to give GCapp the benefit of the doubt in that he has misunderstood or otherwise mis-spoke(typed) when he called me a homosexual and was not just being insulting.
Oh and let me clarify my last paragraph. I should have meant by his standards(or otherwise that of the Christian Taliban) insulting me, since calling me that in and of itself does nothign other than make me upset that the person is trying to use one stereotype/slur to insult me. Sort of like calling a white guy the N word because he listens to rap (Actually happened to me) I myself do not find the word itself insulting more the way it was used and if it was a simple misunderstanding of thigns on GCapp's part then I apologize for going off on him like that. Otherwise I would like an apology.
And to officially introduce myself I am a 31yr old college educated white male who lives in a rural part of Southern Ohio and works at a car dealership. I am happily married (though we went before a judge and not a church or preacher we do have the piece of paper) to my wife of 8 years (6 of them with the liscence) and have 2 great kids.
I don't know about anybody else here, but I remember R's first posts on this site. He talked about how depressed he was, how bad things were going in his life. About being without a job. And having troubles with his wife, IIRC. So to me, the question of his sexual orientation is moot. Oh, and R, I hope things are still better for you. Sounds like it to me.
"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
GCapp: Homosexuals like R have their opinion, opinions which I tolerate, even though I don't agree with them.
Luigi Novi: Hasn't R stated that he has both a wife and girlfriend, and that they even go shopping together?
If you'd've read R's most recent post, Luigi, you'd've had the answer to your question.
"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
Yeah things are going ok. I had a girlfriend, she was the one that got infected by religion because of her hubby who was my best friend and that kinda hurt when they decided that they was better than me and my wife. But I got a promotion at work and am kinda in charge of some things and responsible. My supervisor is a cool lady who I have fun working with. I've been knocked around and down a few times but I keep getting back up. Thats all that matters, if you get knocked down 7 times stand up 8. Thanks for the well wishes.
But about last night I am slightly stressed from the upcoming holidays so I took GCapp's comment to be meant as him questioning my sexual orientation as an insult. Meant to go oh well he's one of them so his ideas are abnormal. It sounds like something my sister in law would have said (She's the one who would make just being homosexual illegal if she could) as anything a homosexual does in her opinion is not as good as that done by a normal (read straight in her definitions)person. I have seen and heard this attack method used before and may have gone on the defensive a bit quickly but *shrug*
As for tolerating you POV GCapp as long as you do not saermonize, use your religion to hide behind and fling insults or lies about the discussion and stick with reasonable, rational, factual comments then I will tolerate your POV even if I do not agree with it.
And as for monogamous unions being the majority normal. I don't know anythign about the majority but I do know that there are several people at work who have non-monogamous relationships as well as several who do. And as for normal whatever goes on between two consenting adults is normal as long as they are happy, and doing so of their free-will.
Benn, what in his last post indicated this?
And R, I'm glad that things are better for you now.
I will not be subject to the switch-dressing day until it includes the text of the Bill of Rights.
Quote:Thank goodness a switch-dressing day wasn't around when I was in school. I most definitely would not have gone along with it. I am a male, and that is that.
I was wondering when this one would come up again. So the purpose of marriage is procreation? MJ and I don't have kids. Are we not married?
Quote:Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals: a homoesexual man has the right to marry a woman if he and she agree, and to procreate children from their union.
How is that different?
Quote:
HomosexualsBlack people have the same rights asheterosexualswhite people: ahomoesexualblack man has the right to marry a woman of his own race if he and she agree, and to procreate children from their union.
Actually, that is "different" if you use the standards that GCapp was using. And you also added the words "of his own race."
And Benn, Luigi is right. While R did mention his wife in the post, I did not see any mention of a girlfriend.
Mark Morgan,
"Homosexuals/black" - a useless analogy, because blacks are a race, homosexuals are a behaviour. If homosexuals were a race, they would be extinct through inability to reproduce... unless they mated outside their "race".
There are only three races: caucasoids, mongoloids and negroids. And in Christ, there's only one third that number of races.
I apologize, R, for assuming you are homosexual. Your strong advocacy was suggestive (though not conclusive), and having not had the opportunity to read, in detail, the first few messages, I did not pick up on your personal details.
I apologize, R, for assuming you are homosexual. Your strong advocacy was suggestive (though not conclusive), and having not had the opportunity to read, in detail, the first few messages, I did not pick up on your personal details.
It's rather patronizing, you know, to assume that simply because someone supports any kind of gay rights, they must be gay. But for the record, *I* am gay, just so you can get things straightened out in your head.
"Homosexuals/black" - a useless analogy, because blacks are a race, homosexuals are a behaviour. If homosexuals were a race, they would be extinct through inability to reproduce... unless they mated outside their "race".
Believe me when I tell you that I am not just a behaviour. Also, I'm not *sterile*, either. I can reproduce just as easily as you can. Maybe easier, considering how disturbingly fertile the rest of my family is. (I don't mean that there's anything wrong with having children, mind. I simply mean that the prevalence of naturally conceived [no fertility drugs involved] multiple births among my extended family gives me pause every once in a while.)
Yes, but I think GCapp's point was that your child, Matthew, would not necessarily be homosexual. A black person's child would at least be partially black. Homosexuality, as least as far as I can tell, is not transmitted like race.
There are only three races: caucasoids, mongoloids and negroids.
First of, there's only one race, Human. (By biological definition: since all humans can interbreed with each other, they are the same race.)
And in Christ, there's only one third that number of races.
What's that supposed to mean, exactly? I hope I misunderstand you if you mean with that that only one race can come to Christ????
But the board title "Gay rights" is appropriate, because the entire debate centers upon whether those rights you and I consider human are to be recognized for gays, with you and I arguing that they should be, and others on the opposite side of the debate table disagreeing.
I understand the convenience of saying "gay rights," "Women's rights," etc. instead of "Human rights and GLBT issues" or Human rights and policies about women" etc. And I accept the shorter titles NitCentral Musings discussion boards. I just wanted to go on record that, in general, it is easy to slip from "Gay Rights" as human rights to "Gay Rights" as "special rights."
Tom, the reason I believe the Musings discussion boards should be generalized in topic is because that is the direction in which threads invariably go.
Oh, I agree with that, and (to some extent) with your decision to consolidate. I was just musing (it is a musings board after all) that this is an issue that could have been consolidated onto either PM or LM. (Sorry. It's the nitpicker in me.) In the end, though, I agreed that the case for PM was a little stronger.
Yes, but I think GCapp's point was that your child, Matthew, would not necessarily be homosexual. A black person's child would at least be partially black. Homosexuality, as least as far as I can tell, is not transmitted like race.
The converse is also true; my parents are heterosexual, and they had me. And I still don't see what this has to do with the issue of legal protection for anyone.
Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals: a homoesexual man has the right to marry a woman if he and she agree, and to procreate children from their union.
On another board I quoted extensively from the decision in Perez v Sharp, one of the landmark cases that struck down the laws banning interracial marriages. The justices in that case were presented with exactly the same argument.[That is , the state argued that the white woman, Perez was free to marry any eligible white man, and the black man, Davis, was free to marry any eligible black woman.] They said:
It has been said that a statute such as section 60 does not discriminate against any racial group, since it applies alike to all persons whether Caucasian, Negro, or members of any other race. The decisive question, however, is not whether different races, each considered as a group, are equally treated. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution does not refer to rights of the Negro race, the Caucasian race, or any other race, but to the rights of individuals. In construing the equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has declared that the constitutionality of state action must be tested according to whether the rights of an individual are restricted because of his race. Thus, in holding invalid state enforcement of covenants restricting the occupation of real property on grounds of race, the Supreme Court of the United States declared: "The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. It is, therefore, no answer to these petitioners to say that the courts may also be induced to deny white persons rights of ownership and occupancy on grounds of race or color. Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities." In an earlier case, where a Negro contended that the state's failure to give him equal facilities with others to study law within the state impaired his constitutional rights under the equal protection clause, the court rejected any consideration of the difference of the demand for legal education among white persons and Negroes, stating: "Petitioner's right was a personal one. It was as an individual that he was entitled to the equal protection of the laws, and the State was bound to furnish him within its borders facilities for legal education substantially equal to those which the State there afforded for persons of the white race, whether or not other negroes sought the same opportunity." Similarly, with regard to the furnishing of sleeping, dining, and chair car facilities on trains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that even though there was less demand for such facilities among Negroes than among whites, the right of a member of the Negro race to substantially equal facilities was a right of the individual and not of the racial group: "It is the individual who is entitled to equal protection of the laws, and if he is denied by a common carrier, acting in the matter under the authority of a state law, a facility or convenience in the course of his journey which, under substantially the same circumstances, is furnished to another traveler, he may properly complain that his constitutional privilege has been invaded." In these cases the United States Supreme Court determined that the right of an individual to be treated without discrimination because of his race can be met by separate facilities affording substantially equal treatment to the members of the different races. A holding that such segregation does not impair the right of an individual to ride on trains or to enjoy a legal education is clearly inapplicable to the right of an individual to marry. Since the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice, a segregation statute for marriage necessarily impairs the right to marry.
(emphasis mine)
Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.
Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose.
...
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."
...
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis mine
I agree with Tom. Maybe GLBT Issues would be a better title.
TomM: I just wanted to go on record that, in general, it is easy to slip from "Gay Rights" as human rights to "Gay Rights" as "special rights."
Luigi Novi: That seems to be a position held only by those against recognizing those rights for gays, and is a matter of the debate, not a matter of the title, IMO.
Brian Webber: Maybe GLBT Issues would be a better title.
Luigi Novi: Again, I want visitors to instantly understand what a board is about from the title. I myself don't know what "GLBT" means (I think I asked some time ago but forgot--does it mean GayLesbianBisexualTransexual? And have we even debated issues of transexuals here?) Many, if not most people, don't know what that means. Hell, they may see it and think it's some type of sandwich.
I prefer inclusiveness and clarity to narrowness and esotericity (is that a word?).
All the justifications usually given for having same-sex marriage (inheritance, living together, loving together) can be done without marriage, since we have ample legal provisions to cover those needs, and heterosexual couples have been cohabiting without marriage for centuries, and there are even so-called churches (the United in Canada, for example) that sanction living together without marriage.
So-called churches??? I may not go to the United Church (formed through a merger of much of the Presbyterian Church and some other Protestant denominations), but my grandmother does. Save your insulting remarks for somewhere else.
All the justifications usually given for having same-sex marriage (inheritance, living together, loving together) can be done without marriage, since we have ample legal provisions to cover those needs...
No!! Most of the 1300+ legal benefits of marriage cannot be duplicated by other legal instruments. Even of the ones that can be duplicated in most states, there are states where it is not allowed. (For example, in many states it is not possible to cross-adopt a partner's child unless you are the partner's legal spouse. In Florida a non-closeted GLBT person cannot adopt at all.)
Even when there are alternative legal instruments to secure these rights, they are incomplete, require the involvement of the courts, and are often ignored anyway. Many hospitals, for example, ignore "living wills" (documents authorizing a person to make medical decisions for a person when she is not able to express those wishes herself) when they are presented by a same-sex life-partner, and waste precious time tracking down a "next-of-kin" who may not know the patient's wishes or care to provide all her needs.
OK no I hadn't mentioned the girlfriend in many posts anymore as they (her and her husband) are the ones I have been haivng such trouble. And to avoid sounding like I am coming off as having sour grapes about them let me tell you what went on (Or at least the cliff notes version).
We where goign along all nice and swell and they said they where going to start going to church and had relgion. Now if they had just said that and said that the sexual relations was over but we was still going to be hanging out and thigns would be cool then I would have been slightly disapointed but dealt with it as it's their life and I know how hard it can be to escape from religion. (It took me about 10 years to totally escape, from my late teens to mid twenties.) But no they had to come to me with the attitude of being saved so they where better than me and if I wanted to remain in their lives I would have to change my behavior to meet their standards. They had a WRITTEN list of behaviors and rules that I would have to obey to be their friends. (ranging from me and her not being alone to what we could and could not joke or talk about.) That was going to far. Now changing their lives is one thing. That is them. Coming into my house and telling me that i would have to change and feel appropriately ashamed of what I did wrong and the way I live is going too far. I do not see anythign wrong with the way I am living my life. Unfortunately since they became saved there is only one way of life that is valid and it is theirs and anyone who does not meet those standards is wrong and to be thrown away as they do not have valid thoughts or feelings. (Which I can tell you is not true I certainly do have feelings and feel as hurt as if the people I loved had died, which in a way they did.) And thanks Luigi yeah things are going relatively well. Could be better, could be worse but live goes on.
But anyhow to put the scabs back on my heart and get back on topic.
GCapp spoke thusly: "There are only three races: caucasoids, mongoloids and negroids. And in Christ, there's only one third that number of races."
That was one of the most insulting, degrading and inflammatory remarks I have read since I read Mein Kampf in College. So by your "christian" value system only White Anglo Saxon Protestents are human and worthy of going to heaven? I just have no response to that. *shaking head in disbelief"
As for mistaking my advocacy for being homosexual I am an advocate for many issues. Apology accepted but please refrain from jumping to conclusions based on minimal data in the future. Like Mr Patterson said it is a bit patronizing to assume that just because one is an advocate that one is a member (not that I have a problem just not my cup of tea). What if I had been advocating women's rights or Native-american rights? Would that make me a woman or an indian?
Ok now for a race according to webster's dictionary this is the definition of race:
Main Entry: (3)race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
As far as I can tell and read from this being able to potentially breed is all that is required and not having actually done so. Why? Because by the standards of breeding must be done to be a part of the race a sterile person would not be a human. Also it seems to me by this definition that homosexuality can be classified as a race(ie in that african american, native ammerican etc... are raes) Also I cannot find the reference but I remember reading somehwere (in an actual news source) that there was some indications that sexuality was more of a genetic thign than many people had thought. And one more thing considering the interbreeding of blacks and whites throughout the history of america there is that slight possibility of a white person having a black child or vice versa if the genetics are in there. Slight but still non-zero probability.
As for insulting certain so called churches please don't. This debate is already flirting rather closely with degrading into namecalling and flame wars. I mean I could begin insulting churches and be more insulting about "christians" and "christianity" in general as well.
JESUS WASN'T WHITE! There were no pasty skinned crackers in that region of the world during that time period. He was probably more Arab looking (evem though he was Jewish).
does it mean GayLesbianBisexualTransexual?
Yes it does as a matter of fact.
Okay, everyone is *way* misinterpreting GCapp's statement about race. While in biological particulars he's stuck back in the 19th century (I don't actually think anyone's said "Negroid" and meant it for quite a long time, anyway), his statement about there being only one race in Christ has *nothing* to do with the superiority of one "race" over another. Rather it means that all humans are equal before him. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28, King James version, just for the heck of it. This one doesn't vary much with translation.)
That was my interpretation as well.
Quote:[H]is statement about there being only one race in Christ has *nothing* to do with the superiority of one "race" over another. Rather it means that all humans are equal before him.
>And have we even debated issues of transexuals here?>
I don't think so, but why don't we open a transsexual board, and see what happens?
Actually I am not so certain that is what he meant. Lets look at the main part of that comment:
"And in Christ, there's only one third that number of races."
Ok he has just listed that there are only three races in the world. Using slightly archaic language (that is still used by some oldtimers in my part of the world when they are trying to be polite) at that. Then by making the above highlighted statement it sounds like he is singling one particular race out above any others. If he had possibly said but in christ there is only one race I would agree with your interpretation of it. I am willing to give benefit of the doubt that GCapp merely was not as clear as he should have been on that statement.
And yes I find it very funny that the most common rendition of jesus has him appearing very european in appearance when he most likely looked quite a bit arabic.
I think he was singling out one particular race, too. I don't think it was any of the three he mentioned (and since I'm not clear on the 'gloid' races, where do Native American/American Indians fit into that?), because I think he was singling out the human race.
Brian Webber: There were no pasty skinned [people] in that region of the world during that time period.
Luigi Novi: Weren't the Roman overseers?
Brian Webber: He was probably more Arab looking (evem though he was Jewish).
Luigi Novi: In other words, he was Semitic in appearance.
As far as the idea that there are three races, there is no consensus for this. According to Luca Caalli-Sforza and his colleagues, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, in The History and Geography of Human Genes, which presents evidence from fifty years of research in population genetics, geography, ecology, archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics:
“From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence.” “The major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection.”
Prof. Michael Shermer, in Why People Believe Weird Things, points out that in his time, Darwin noted that naturalists in his time cited anywhere from two to 63 races of homo sapiens. Today, there are anywhere from three to sixty, depending on the taxonomist. Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues conclude that
"Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting."
A proponent of the Three Races idea may assume, for example, that Australian Aborigines are more closely related to African blacks than Southeast Asians based on superficial appearance, when in fact, Australians are most distant from Africans and closest to Asians.
I think the comment, while somewhat awkwardly written, was not meant to be anything more than "There's only one race in Christ."
Even if it wasn't meant for that, it was kinda leaping to conclusions to get the assumption that he meant that only WASPs would go to Heaven--I mean, he didn't indicate what race, if any, he was talking about in his comment.
Maybe. Don't know. There are white supremecist groups who have used similar rhetoric before. Like I said I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about his meaning but do feel the interpretation I saw to be the one intended.
You know, if you give gays and lesbians rights, then everybody's going to want them.
No!! Most of the 1300+ legal benefits of marriage cannot be duplicated by other legal instruments. Even of the ones that can be duplicated in most states, there are states where it is not allowed. (For example, in many states it is not possible to cross-adopt a partner's child unless you are the partner's legal spouse. In Florida a non-closeted GLBT person cannot adopt at all.)
Just to clarify, I was not claiming that "All the justifications usually given for having same-sex marriage (inheritance, living together, loving together) can be done without marriage, since we have ample legal provisions to cover those needs..."
That was part of a quotation I was responding to... which wasn't formatted correctly.
Perhaps because my philosophy concerning the creation of boards differs from others in that I don't think boards should be created until there's a demand for them. What issue regarding transsexuals is it that you want to discuss (assuming you even want to, and are not asking extemporaneously)? The science behind sexuality? Rights for transsexuals? If it's the latter, can it not be addressed on the Gay Rights boards, by which point I can just modify those boards' titles?
Specificity of topic tends to be inherent. The inherent difference between the 2002 Midterm Election and the 2004 Presidential Election, for example, or the difference between Christopher Reeve and Yasser Arafat, in terms of the discussions thereof, is so naturally ingrained, that one can create separate boards for them, safe in the knowledge that discussion on each will not veer into discussion of the other, except for easily quantifiable exceptions. I'm not convinced that the same holds true for a discussion of issues relating to gays and a discussion relating to transsexuals.
I realized even at the time that the original statement was from a post by GCapp, and should have indicated as much. I'd previously missed the implications of that part of his statement until you quoted it though since it was buried in a larger pointless rant. Sorry if I made it seem like you were endorsing his irrational viewpoint.
Although the GLBT community recognizes that there are major differences among the four "sub-communities," the legal problems are the same, and are all counted simply as "gay" issues by the "straight" community, which has traditionally focussed mainly on Gay men and the "threat" that they supposedly pose of homosexual rape and child molestation (conveniently ignoring the fact that most child molestors, even those guilty of molesting young boys, self-identify as straight, and if they have normal sexual relations they are, indeed, with women). For the purposes of this discussion board, the umbrella term "Gay" is sufficient. There should be no reason for separate lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered boards.
Particulary since "lebsian" is redundant, as "gay" includes females, and since the only half of bisexuals' preferences is the gay half.
Luigi, I think that if you said that to most lesbians, you'd get quite an earful.
Thanks Tom.
On the front board of PM I stated "...the legal problems [of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered] are the same, and are all counted simply as "gay" issues by the "straight" community..."
I should have said "... are mostly the same..."
The transgendered have some unique issues, mostly related to the fundamental right to marry, and the one-man/one-woman "definition" of marriage.
All states treat pre-operative transsexuals as legally being the gender into which their body was born. But some treat post-operative transsexuals as their birth gender, and others as the gender that their bodies have become. Therefore (to take one of the four possibilities as an example) if a post-operative male-to-female transsexual wishes to marry a man, some states have no problem. Others consider this an illegal same-sex union, notwithstanding the fact that the man is straight, and the couple engage in normal male/female relations. If the couple are legally married in one state, and move to another, it is possible that their marriage would not be recognized. The only "safe" spouses for post-operative transsexuals are other post-operative transsexuals of the opposite "polarity."
And the situation is worse for other kinds of trans-gendered-ness.
When a child is born, the first thing checked is whether it is a boy or a girl. The physical differences that are remarked at this time, are the result of a release of the correct type of sex hormone at a critical stage of the fetus' development. If the mother's hormones are out of balance at this time, the child can be born with genital structures that resemble the "wrong" sex. When puberty hits the "little girl" can find herself starting to become a young man, or the "little boy" a young woman. Reconstructive ("cosmetic") surgery is often used to ease the most extreme effects of such a transition, and the final result may or may not agree with the patient's genetic gender. Under one-man/one-woman laws should they be men or women?
Finally, there are some people whose gender is indeterminate even on a genetic level. While most men have an X and a Y chromosome, and most women have two X chromosomes, Some people have only a single X, or have two X's and a Y, or even more rarely, some exotic combination of chromosomes. How do you even begin to classify them?
So lesbians aren't gay? That makes no sense. "Gay" means homosexual. It doesn't mean "homosexual male."
Luigi, I'm sorry, but that that is a "straight" definition.
Neither Gays nor lesbians have much of anything in common (as groups) other than their persecuted status.
Blacks and asians have as much in common as "people of color," but their cultures and histories are totally different. However, the English, in times past, have referred to Asian-Indians as blacks. The principle is the same.
As I said, since most of the legal issues are the the same, "gay" as an adjective applied to the issues is usually accepted as an umbrella term, but it is not, strictly speaking, accurate.
But lesbians are gay, aren't they? Isn't a lesbian a gay woman? Or are The American Heritage Dictionary adn Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary just "straight books"? Unlike blacks and Asians, homosexuals are grouped by the fact that they prefer people of the same gender.
Unlike blacks and Asians, homosexuals are grouped by the fact that they prefer people of the same gender.
And as I said, Blacks and Asians are grouped as "people of color." The grouping makes more sense to the (predominantly White) mainstream than it does to Blacks or Asians. Similarly grouping Gay men and lesbians makes more sense to the (predominantly straight) mainstream than it does to those so grouped.
Or are The American Heritage Dictionary adn Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary just "straight books"?
Dictionaries are descriptive rather than proscriptive. The describe how words are used by the mainstream of American society (unless they are marked by terms such as "regional, technical, etc. to indicate that they are not widespread outside a certain provenance).
When a dictionary includes a definition that means "homosexual in general" (as opposed to [or in addition to] a definition that means a "homosexual man") does not mean it is proposing that thw word must mean that. It just means that it has found enough examples in mainstream literature to remark on its general usage.
I'm sure that if you look them up in an unabridged dictionary, you can find the CS word and the F word as synonyms for homosexual male. That does not mean that you should use them indiscriminately.
And as I said, Blacks and Asians are grouped as "people of color."
Luigi Novi: But unlike gays men and women being correctly referred to as "gay," Blacks and Asians are not "black." Hell, even most Africans are not technically black, as most of them are brown, and indeed, actor Avery Brooks prefers that term.
Again, are lesbians not gay? Do lesbians not consider the word "lesbian" to be defined as a gay female?
Yes, dictionaries are descriptive in that they reflect usage patterns, rather than prescriptive in that they promote an idea. Isn't that the point? Isn't that all the board titles should be? Ideas can be promoted or criticized in the posts. The boards titles should remain neutral. It is for this reason, to name another example, that I renamed the 2002 Midterm Election to remove the word "debacle" from it, since not everyone considers it a debacle.
The word "gay" can be used to describe female homosexuals. But vulgarisms are noted as such, so they should not. Similarly, the n-word is described as an offensive epithet or vulgarism. The word "gay" to describe lesbians is not.
Luigi, I think that if you were to ask an actual lesbian, they would say that it *is* offensive to merely refer to them as "gay," because using the same term for them as for men relegates lesbians to a second-class status, a subset of the overarching male category. These days, if I mean to include everyone who is not exclusively heterosexual, I tend to say "queer," which I don't think is the best term (I don't like this business of "reclaiming" words), but it's what we've got. If I mean just gay men, I say that. If I mean just lesbians, I say that. If I mean gay men and lesbians, I say gay men and lesbians. Specificity always helps, and it's usually not a bad thing to refer to a group by the terms they use to identify themselves.
Yes, dictionaries are descriptive in that they reflect usage patterns, rather than prescriptive in that they promote an idea. Isn't that the point? Isn't that all the board titles should be? ... The boards titles should remain neutral.
This point was already conceded days ago! "Gay Rights," while technically imprecise, is a reasonable title for the discussion board. [Although, without the whole phrase or its acronym the inclusion of "Transgendered" in the new title seems a little out of place and unnecessary]
The whole point of the current discussion was not about the board title. It was based on your remark that the word "lesbian" was redundant, because the women involved are "covered" by the term "gay". That is like saying that the term Asian-American is redundant because the persons involved are "covered" by the phrase "people of color" even though that latter phrase is used primarily to refer to Blacks. [A less understanding critic might also have pounced on the apparent slur to bisexuals, seeming to hint that their legal problems should only be half as serious because only half their nature is involved. I assume that in both cases you only meant that you did not see a need to single out all four sub-communities every time the subject is mentioned, but in the case of "lesbians are gay" you were stating as fact something that isn't quite accurate.]
Blacks and Asians are not "black."
??? The phrase I said is used to refer to both groups is "people of color."
[OK. Once I did mention the English once calling Asian-Indians "black," in the context of pointing out that it was the white majority that dictated the terms. (which was also Avery Brooks' point).]
------
PS it's a little disorienting when you keep moving posts. I can understand and sympathize with your desire to keep the boards orderly and to reduce topic drift, but some topic drift is unavoidable on the Musings boards. To much moving and merging only confuses things, rather than clarifying them.
A couple of suggestions might be:
1)Add moderator's notes: Let us know that a post has been moved from another board. Sometimes the first couple of moved posts refer back to posts still on the original board. You might even want to include a link to the previous discussion.
2)Try not to merge too many "live" threads. Wait, if possible for a lull in the postings. Merging while several threads are "hot" usually winds up killing most or even all of them as it becomes too confusing to follow which posts belong to which conversation.
When a thread splits into two conversations naturally, there are usually two separate groups of posters responding to one another and ignoring the other group. A reader can skim through the thread twice, once for each group. With merged threads, that strategy does not work, since often the same people are involved in more than one conversation.
Moderator's notes will help here as well, but even they can't always quite save the threads. A little patience can go a long way.
Last night, ABC's 20/20 had a very disturbing report about the death of Mathew Sheppard. Elizabeth Vargas' report strongly tried to convey the message that Sheppard's death had nothing to do with homophobia. It presented the death as a robbery gone too far, and Mathew was an individual caught up in the drug scene of Laramie. It tried to make it appear that the whole issue of homophobia was injected by Mathew's friends as a political tactic (and a legal tactic to win support for Mathew's murderers among conservatives).
Many conservatives will probably try to use this whole mess as an excuse to discredit gay activists. They will claim that homophobia is a grossly exaggerated phenomenon, and that materials used to promote tolerance, such as The Laramie Project play, are based on lies. Unfortunatly, the right-wing, aready arrogant from their victories on the same-sex marriage issue, will become even more extreme in their opposition to gays.
Vargas' piece is based mainly on interviews with Matthew's killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, and McKinney's girlfriend Kristen Price, who had been charged s an accessory, but pled down to interfering with police. Many of the others Vargas interviewed claim that she edited their statements and distorted their meaning.
In the trial, McKinney swore that the murder was a panic reaction to learning Shepard was gay. That he had been molested as a child and "lost it" when he thought Shepard might "come on" to him.
Now he claims that he knew Shepard previously, knew that he was gay, and he (McKinney) is himself bisexual. That the attack was a drug robbery gone bad because he was in withdrawal from methamphetamine.
Former Laramie police Cmdr. Dave O'Malley is not convinced by McKinney's new story:
"I really don't think he was in a methamphetamine-induced rage when this happened. I don't buy it at all," O'Malley said. "I feel comfortable in my own heart that they did what they did to Matt because they [had] hatred toward him for being gay."
The truth, most likely, is somewhere in the middle. I don't doubt for a second that homophobia played a role in the murder (maybe not the traditional sense of homophobia if McKinney truly is bisexual, but still homophobia) and I don't doubt that drugs mess you up and cause you to do sick ••••. An innocent man is dead: that's the bottom line, not the killer's motives.
Matthew Patterson: Luigi, I think that if you were to ask an actual lesbian, they would say that it *is* offensive to merely refer to them as "gay," because using the same term for them as for men relegates lesbians to a second-class status, a subset of the overarching male category.
Luigi Novi: Including two sets of people together because they share a common trait constitutes treating one of them as a second-class? Sorry, but I don’t buy that at all. The use of the word is one of inclusiveness. Second-class status is connoted if you use a different work, not the same one, and only if that word is inaccurate. The word “gay” does not refer solely to males, and thus, it is correct to say that lesbians are gay women.
TomM: This point was already conceded days ago! "Gay Rights," while technically imprecise, is a reasonable title for the discussion board. The whole point of the current discussion was not about the board title. It was based on your remark that the word "lesbian" was redundant, because the women involved are "covered" by the term "gay".
Luigi Novi: Which I made when seconding your comment that There should be no reason for separate lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered boards.
TomM: That is like saying that the term Asian-American is redundant because the persons involved are "covered" by the phrase "people of color" even though that latter phrase is used primarily to refer to Blacks.
Luigi Novi: I already mentioned why I think the two are distinct. Whether the specificity of being Asian is necessary depends on the topic of discussion. If you’re talking about the stereotype by which Asians are thought to be good at math, the term is necessary. If you’re talking about issues of race in a very generalized way, it may be unnecessary. If you’re talking about the civil rights movement, racial profiling, racism, etc., sometimes mentioning specific groups may be in order. But in any discussion of discrimination towards people of differing sexuality, the specificity of bisexuality is not really relevant. Perhaps when discussing the bigotry some homosexuals feel towards bisexuals, it may be apt, but even then, those points can be brought up in the posts, rather than the boards (which of course, you already noted, Tom, so I’m mentioning this to others).
TomM: A less understanding critic might also have pounced on the apparent slur to bisexuals, seeming to hint that their legal problems should only be half as serious because only half their nature is involved. I assume that in both cases you only meant that you did not see a need to single out all four sub-communities every time the subject is mentioned, but in the case of "lesbians are gay" you were stating as fact something that isn't quite accurate.
Luigi Novi: Correct.
TomM: PS it's a little disorienting when you keep moving posts. I can understand and sympathize with your desire to keep the boards orderly and to reduce topic drift, but some topic drift is unavoidable on the Musings boards. To much moving and merging only confuses things, rather than clarifying them.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think it’s unavoidable, as many points at which drift occurs (though not all) provide opportunity for deliberation on the part of the poster, and I’ve noticed that many times the drift does not happen in an unavoidable manner. I would suggest that if someone mentions something that seems to lend itself to a topic divergent from the main one, to respond to it on the board for that other topic, as people already do. Allowing miscategorization to continue would render all the cleanup I recently did moot. I also don’t find it confusing, as I use the Last Day board to scan for ongoing threads, so the thread will be found even if it’s under a different subtopic. I don’t know if everyone else uses the Last Day board, but I would suggest it. And yes, I do use moderator notes, and perhaps I will use them more often when moving posts. But again, I ask that everyone confine discussions to the appropriate topic. If a thread looks like it’s beginning to drift to a topic other than the one for which the board is designated, please take it to that other topic’s board.
TomM: Now he claims that he knew Shepard previously, knew that he was gay, and he (McKinney) is himself bisexual.
Luigi Novi: No, one of McKinney’s friends claimed they knew one another. McKinney continues to insist that they had never met before that night in the bar.
Including two sets of people together because they share a common trait constitutes treating one of them as a second-class? Sorry, but I don’t buy that at all.
Sorry, but I don't buy that you get to decide who gets to be offended by what word. Whether you like it or not, this is how many lesbians of my acquaintance feel about the subject, and not being a lesbian myself, I have chosen to honor their viewpoint, because it saves me having to argue this with them every time.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass
When I said, "In Christ, there's only one third that many", I did indeed mean that the three are reduced to a single race.
There are people of all three distinctive regional variants who have become Christians.
And there are these variants, not that they should be legal differences... they shouldn't be legal differences. But they are biological, as interesting as other traits of human beings such as eye colours (brown seems to be becoming predominant - I humourously bemoan that my wife and all our children are brown-eyed, and I alone am blue-eyed!!!).
For whatever reason, probably to protect against solar rays, people in the equatorial regions have enormous amounts of a substance (melatonin? I'm not sure) that has the incidental result of making their skin dark. "White" people living in those regions seem to develop a darker skin, though by biology, they aren't born with the same abundance. Perhaps the consistency of their hair is another adaptive variation to their climate... perhaps it is better at radiating excess heat whereas typical "caucasian" hair is better at holding the heat in.
The "mongoloid" race is distinctive with their narrower eyes, apparently with more tissue in the eyelids. Genetically, we are all human, but there are interesting variations that run as a theme in our historic homeland regions. Even among the races, there are variations. Among caucasoids, the Nordic people tend to have lighter-coloured hair, the Slavic people tend to have their own traits - broad-shouldered Russians, for example, who might make fine golfers or football players.
I have no problem with "inter-racial" marriage, and would have been quite willing to marry a person not of my own apparent race. I just happened to have met, come to love and gotten married to a woman of the same apparent race as myself, though who knows what wonderful ethnic mixes we have in the dimness of our families' pasts. Since I am now married, I can no longer consider marrying any other person, whether my own race or another.
I never use the terms "gay" or "lesbian", or "queer", or "straight" for my own speech. I use the term "homosexual" for those who prefer a person of the same sex for sexual purposes, and the term "heterosexual" for those who prefer a person of the opposite sex.
When I am reading a news article out loud to my wife, I substitute the word "homosexual" for whatever is actually written in the story, unless I am convinced that use of the terms "gay" or "lesbian" is _absolutely necessary_ to understand the context of the story. Usually, it is not absolutely necessary, and I make the substitution.
I myself might possibly be termed a "monosexual", although I would prefer the description "monogamous heterosexual".
Since I have written a novel, and since a writer sometimes has to "play the parts", therefore characters in the story who are homosexuals (or who advocate for homosexuals) use the terms preferred by homosexuals, although I don't write them as using any terms that are the more extreme or profane. The characters advocating for traditional norms use the term "homosexual".
In fact, since my story is set a few years into the future, I have even extrapolated a term for those people who might eventually come up with a label for themselves - those adults who prefer sexual interaction with children, and incorporated it into the dialogue used by characters of the story who approve of such activities, but, again, use of this new term is studiously avoided by the characters who advocate for the traditional norms of society.
Me? More often than not, I'd describe myself as a manosexual. (It's an old joke of mine that requires you know a bit of Spanish.)
"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
So, lesbians think they're straight? Is that what you're saying? WTF?!?!?
Matthew Patterson: Sorry, but I don't buy that you get to decide who gets to be offended by what word.
Luigi Novi: Neither do I, as I never said that I should. I simply formed a conclusion regarding your reasoning, which I felt was flawed. Words and their definitions can referenced by reference sources, which I correctly did. Whether many lesbians of your acquaintance share your conclusion doesn’t change my conclusion that it’s poor reasoning, as it is they who seem to want to “get to decide” definitions of words.
The proper term for a person's orientation is "it's none of any right-wingers' business". To encourage abstinence, the religious right should just say "Picture Jerry Falwell nude". That would be enough to turn anyone off. For that matter, Falwell is enough to turn any woman lesbian.
How mature.
Benn- hey, me too! Er, I mean... nevermind.
But they are biological, as interesting as other traits of human beings such as eye colours (brown seems to be becoming predominant - I humourously bemoan that my wife and all our children are brown-eyed, and I alone am blue-eyed!!!).
No, there is no biological basis for "race." Eye colour is a recessive characteristic, I think.
For whatever reason, probably to protect against solar rays, people in the equatorial regions have enormous amounts of a substance (melatonin? I'm not sure) that has the incidental result of making their skin dark. "White" people living in those regions seem to develop a darker skin, though by biology, they aren't born with the same abundance. Perhaps the consistency of their hair is another adaptive variation to their climate... perhaps it is better at radiating excess heat whereas typical "caucasian" hair is better at holding the heat in.
Except there are no clear links between sun exposure or climate and skin tone.
The "mongoloid" race is distinctive with their narrower eyes, apparently with more tissue in the eyelids. Genetically, we are all human, but there are interesting variations that run as a theme in our historic homeland regions. Even among the races, there are variations. Among caucasoids, the Nordic people tend to have lighter-coloured hair, the Slavic people tend to have their own traits - broad-shouldered Russians, for example, who might make fine golfers or football players.
Problem is, you're arguing from stereotype rather than anything else. The sort of "heavy eyelids" you're talking about are not unique to "mongoloid" people, nor are they are characteristic of all people indigenous to East Asia.
Moreover, where do aboriginals in the Americas, not to mention West or South Asians, fit into these three racial categories? The problem with conceptions of "race" is that it gives arbitrary preference to some physical characteristics than others. Instead of skin tone, why not look at height or any number of characteristics?
GCapp, in regards to your mentions on race and biology, I refer you to my November 21, 2:37 pm post.
Neither do I, as I never said that I should. I simply formed a conclusion regarding your reasoning, which I felt was flawed. Words and their definitions can referenced by reference sources, which I correctly did. Whether many lesbians of your acquaintance share your conclusion doesn’t change my conclusion that it’s poor reasoning, as it is they who seem to want to “get to decide” definitions of words.
Okay, now I'm utterly confused, Luigi. Are you saying that you're not going to refer to homosexual females as "lesbian" despite their preferences? Are you saying that they're wrong to want to be called "lesbian"? What, precisely, are you saying?
That I disagree with the argument that the board title's use of the word "gay" only to refer to both homosexual men and women is inaccurate on the grounds that the word supposedly only refers to men, when reference sources do not indicate this.
I wouldn't mind being called an Englishman if I were given the full rights of
an Englishman, without those rights its like calling an ox a bull, he's thankful for the honor but he would much rather have restored whats rightfully his!
-Benjamin Franklin
Y'know, if memory serves, Luigi once engaged in an argument in which he pointed out that language tended to be fluid, with the meaning of words constantly changing. Interesting that he's taking the stance he is now.
"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
Well, what's wrong with changing the title to say something like "GLBT Rights"? It covers everything, and if you'd get confused over GLBT, why not change it to Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered?
I mean, I can see the stance that Matt's taking. I self identify as Japanese, and I'd be annoyed to no end if someone insisted that "Oriental woman" was more accurate, based on reference sources.
Besides, I picked this up at Dictionary.com:
Quote:
Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used...but there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed.
Benn: Y'know, if memory serves, Luigi once engaged in an argument in which he pointed out that language tended to be fluid, with the meaning of words constantly changing. Interesting that he's taking the stance he is now.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see what’s so interesting about it. A given principle or insight pointed out in one conversation is not necessarily applicable in all such discussions or situations. I don’t remember which argument this was that you’re referring to, but I generally argue the appropriateness of words primarily via reference sources, and secondarily via usage patterns. The question here is how widespread is this notion that Matthew is mentioning that the word “gay” does not apply to women. Reference does not support it, so is its usage pattern widespread enough to regard that word as such? Using this reason, can we refer to blacks using the n-word because so many of them casually refer to themselves as such (not to mention many whites?. At what point does an obscure treatment of a word that is not widely used become recognized for purposes as the ones we’re talking about?
MJ: Well, what's wrong with changing the title to say something like "GLBT Rights"? It covers everything….
Luigi Novi: See my November 20, 3:55 pm post.
MJ: …and if you'd get confused over GLBT, why not change it to Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered?
Luigi Novi: See the third quote-and-answer in my November 27, 10:34 pm post.
MJ: I mean, I can see the stance that Matt's taking. I self identify as Japanese, and I'd be annoyed to no end if someone insisted that "Oriental woman" was more accurate, based on reference sources.
Luigi Novi: The use of the word “Asian” to describe people from Asia, is, in my observation, widespread enough to be recognized. And in addition, my American Heritage dictionary defines this word the way it is used to refer to people, and also notes that the word “Oriental” is offensive when used thus. It does not say that the word “gay” refers to men only, or that it is offensive to lesbian. The word has meant “homosexual” for some time now. What exactly is the problem with that? By what reasoning do we now decide that it only refers to men?
MJ: Besides, I picked this up at Dictionary.com:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used...but there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Novi: I do not see why the meaning of the phrase “Gay and Transgendered Rights” is not clear when seeing the board title.
I also do not see why the notion of the word “gay” meaning all homosexuals is not clear, but the word “GLBT” somehow is.
I also do not see why the notion of the word “gay” meaning all homosexuals is not clear, but the word “GLBT” somehow is.
Because the acronym GLBT explicitly includes both gay men and lesbians, as well as bisexuals and transgendered people, who are by definition marginalized when talking about "homosexual" issues. Just saying "gay" isn't clear enough when there's a possibility that someone could read it as "only those men who sleep exclusively with other men."
Except that not everyone knows what GLBT is, Matt, which is what I meant by the above quote. Again, someone's going to see the board title, see the word gay, and assume it means only men? Why would they think this? By contrast, they're going to see "GLBT", and know what it means? Isn't it the other way around? Which word and its meaning is more common?
Again, someone's going to see the board title, see the word gay, and assume it means only men? Why would they think this?
Why would you think, if you self-identified as lesbian, that the board didn't mean only men?
It's a bit like calling a board, I don't know, "Asian Issues," and expecting people to automatically realize that you're talking about India. Because, yeah, India's in Asia, but it's not generally referred to as generically "Asian."
By contrast, they're going to see "GLBT", and know what it means? Isn't it the other way around? Which word and its meaning is more common?
So we should pander to popular stereotypes and thereby increase their power? We shouldn't attempt to educate and be a little more inclusive every now and then? (We could simply call the board "Queer Issues," thereby eliminating both your problem and mine, except then I'd have to spend three pages explaining what "queer" means in an academic and sociopolitical context, and still nobody would get it.)
I think the board might be better off labeled as GLBT because as the board stands now, bisexuality is also left off the title.
And if GLBT is confusing, how about just writing Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Trasngendered Issues?
Well, not THAT. You would spell Transgendered correctly.