California courts finally get it right...

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
4Walls,



Well said. Perhaps I should rephrase it to say "Don't write discrimination into our Constitution".



In respect to those that don't agree with gay marriage, again....I ask....how would they feel if I had the ability to take their opportunity to get married away from them. Wouldn't they think I kind of suck? And wonder why I would do such a thing?



And I guarantee, the people that think they don't know someone gay, does. But too bad the gay person doesn't feel comfortable enough discussing the issue and/or sharing that very important part of their lives. We are partly to blame for this silence because we are afraid of your reaction and/or rejection. We've all had enough of it and sometimes just decide to clam up to prevent any more painful episodes. Personally, I was kicked out of my house by my parents when I was 17 and a senior in high school. All because I was gay and they didn't know how to deal with it, nor did they choose to try and educate themselves about it. It really sucked.... so I come at this whole topic hoping to change a few minds, educate a few people/parents, etc. .... because undoubtedly, some of your kids will be gay.



And think about that, as a parent, if you vote to exclude gays from marriage....and your child ends up being gay.....how will you feel?



It will take a long time to undo a Constitutional Amendment.
 
OK, I'm lost. If one is not "pro gay" and not a hater, then what is that person?



And Troop, I am so, so sorry. In spite of your parents' reaction you are one of the most mature, compassionate, and well adjusted people I know. Any kid would be lucky to have you as a mom.
 
Hate is a strong word, but when Googling here is the common definition :



"is a word that describes intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of vegetables to hatred of other people. Prejudice or bigotry against an entire class of people (e.g. racism) are examples of hatred". <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate">HATE</a>



Thank you Eva....
 
Yeah, Trooper discrimination is probably more fitting a word. But is discrimating between two things always inherently evil? We all know the dangers of "separate but equal," but I also see some benefit by potentially maintaining some distinction when it comes to things like children. At least for now. I also think certain protections for the specific situation of gay coupling could be built into civil unions that wouldn't apply for standard issue marriage. For example, if a gay marriage is not recognized someplace outside the US, couldn't civil unions be structured legally in such a way to protect the couple's rights overseas? I don't know.



I agree undoing this amendment will take a long time and that's why I think, in the long run, the ruling was a mistake. I think in the long term it would be better for gay rights if the voters simply came around to repealing 22, even if it took another 5-10years. Acceptance of gay rights is progressing (from what I understand) most places and I believe this ruling (should the amendment pass) will effectively set it back.



That is so sad about your parents. I'm really sorry that happened to you. Changing those attitudes is so much more important, from my viewpoint, than the ruling/amendment.
 
Eva, I'm with you in thinking homosexuality should be accepted and treated as normal, healthy human behavior for those who happen to be gay. BUT, if we go around labelling everyone who disagrees with our viewpoint a hater, aren't we then just as intolerant? Isn't there room to respectfully disagree? Can't a religious person "disapprove" but still accept, be nice to, and otherwise respect gay people? Why should "religious people" respect our viewpoint if we don't respect theirs by branding them all "haters." There are some extreme people who will actively do bad things and screw over people b/c of their sexuality. Those people are haters. There is huge middle ground.
 
Interesting working paper from NBER shows how gay marriage could be healthier for society.



<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w11327">Forsaking All Others? The Effects of "Gay Marriage" on Risky Sex</a>



I will see what I can do to get a free copy of the paper.
 
Ok, maybe one of you can ask the signature collectors just how this

is supposed to hurt my marriage? I still wanna know.



Tho she didn't kick me out of the house, (I was already married), my

mother reacted very negatively to my abandoing the Catholic

Church. 40 years on, she still asks me if I'm not afraid of going to

hell. Drives me nuts.



What do these so called religious people fear anyway?



I have a suspicion that they think gay sex is more fun than straight

sex and therefore gays can convert straights into being gay. And the

religious section that thinks that anything that's fun should be forbidden,

jumps right in here.



Of course, except for the cohort who is bi, nobody can be converted

to anything, this isn't a choice but a built in drive.



If the objection is I don't want to see gays smooching in public, why

don't they just come out and say that?
 
[quote author="4walls4me" date=1212586355]Eva, I'm with you in thinking homosexuality should be accepted and treated as normal, healthy human behavior for those who happen to be gay. BUT, if we go around labelling everyone who disagrees with our viewpoint a hater, aren't we then just as intolerant? Isn't there room to respectfully disagree? Can't a religious person "disapprove" but still accept, be nice to, and otherwise respect gay people? Why should "religious people" respect our viewpoint if we don't respect theirs by branding them all "haters." There are some extreme people who will actively do bad things and screw over people b/c of their sexuality. Those people are haters. There is huge middle ground.</blockquote>


I appreciate you clarifying the terms. I thought "hater" was being used in a slang sense (given that it is slang) to include people who hate, dislike, or disapprove. I can't say that I've thought that people who disagreed with me on something were haters, as you have defined them, unless they really did hate something, and I have to say that I don't particularly appreciate the implication that I have. Indeed, there is a lot of ground between "pro gay" (which I would define as someone out there actively working for gay equal rights and/or supporters of gays) and someone who truly hates another solely because of their sexual orientation.



I'm not really sure why your argument only seems to allow that "religious people" are the only people who can validly hold opinions disapproving of gays. That's a little odd to me, and I'm not sure it's an argument that I would be inclined to further because anyone with a passing glance at history is aware that religion has been used as a justification to persecute a number of groups who were different, or who were not liked by the majority and/or those in power. (If you would like a laundry list, just let me know.) So I find the religious argument unavailing, and even counterproductive.



That said, just because a governmental entity chooses to give its legal imprimatur to a relationship does not require churches to perform those unions. (Unless, <em>possibly</em>, they take government money that subjects to them to anti-discrimination rules. Then they can choose between what is Caesar's and their principles.) Religion is a very private, personal, and unique matter. So to keep religion separate from government makes a lot of sense. Of course, for Christians, it becomes an interesting question. I don't have my concordance next to me, but I'm 99.9999% sure that what Jesus said about homosexuality was . . . nothing.



Discriminating between two things is not always inherently evil, so long as you define "discriminating" as "choosing between one or more things." I discriminate between neighborhoods ("too far from work"), restaurants ("I'm not fond of Islands"), and people ("I'm not voting for that guy because he's against everything I'm in favor of"), among other things.



Discrimination on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic is a problem. ("Bob sure is a kick @ss lawyer. Bummer that he's also a Jew because we don't hire Jews here.") Discrimination also takes the form of ascribing a characteristic to a person based soley on another characteristic. ("She's a blonde with big boobs, so she must not be very bright.") Would you agree that under these definitions discrimination is wrong?



I hadn't paid much attention to this thread before, so I went back and read all the entries. While it may not be the case, from your posts, it sounds that you are not in favor of full and equal rights for gays, but that you are also very concerned about what people will think of you because of it. If I may offer a piece of advice: forget what other people think. You can't make everybody happy. If you have arrived at your opinion and believe deep in your heart it is the right thing, then what does it matter that other people disagree?



I may have read this wrong, but you don't believe that a gay couple should raise children because of the absence (for lack of a better term) of both yin and yang in the home, and that children should be deeply involved with both male and female parents. Fair enough. But because this is about children's learning and not about gay couples per se, am I correct to assume that you don't believe that single people should have or adopt children? That parents of children under the age of 18 not be allowed to divorce? That parents of children who are also widows / widowers should have their children removed from their home because they can't give them the proper balanced upbringing? I can see why the "its for the children" argument is appealing, but when applied equally, it provides some potentially ugly results. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 
<em>While it may not be the case, from your posts, it sounds that you are not in favor of full and equal rights for gays, but that you are also very concerned about what people will think of you because of it.</em>



Bingo Eva.



4Walls....I think you want to consider yourself "pro-gay", but are struggling. "Pro-gay, to a point". I understand though...but I have been able to read between the lines of all of your posts. You want to accept, but you have a problem with children being thrown into the equation. Fair enough...time will dispel all of your concerns. If you need real living proof, IM me. :) I have plenty of positive examples for you.



No way do I think this court ruling jumped the gun. NO WAY am I willing to wait 5-10 years until you all "get comfortable enough" with my sexual orientation.



Pete Knight was a homophobe. He authored Prop 22 KNOWING that he had a gay son. A gay son that he disowned and refused to speak to, even on his death bed. I know this because I actually lobbied Pete Knight in Sacramento many years ago on AB 205 . I sat with the man that authored Prop 22 and tried to understand him, and to make him understand me. The lobbying group I was connected with (Equality California or EQCA.org), sent me in solo with ole' Pete because I was a police officer....they thought that I would have the best chance reasoning with a Republican, because I was law enforcement. I have to tell you, the guy was 5'02" and about 95 lbs soaking wet. He was very ill at the time and died not too long after our meeting. He did not have to grant the lobby, but he did. In my heart, this told me that he WANTED to understand, but was just not able to do so...for his own reasons. After my plea, he shook my hand and looked me right in the eye thanking me for my visit. I know that I was unable to change things, but I do know that I made a difference....at least to his child, and to me. We were lobbying for AB 205, the pre-cursor to gay marriage.



<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbied">To lobby</a><a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/facts-backgrounds/page.jsp?itemID=31985620">Assembly Bill 205</a>
 
Hi Guys,



Eva, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your statement. I thought you were saying there is no middle ground b/c I took "hater" to imply malice.



I spoke of "religious people" b/c that is the most commonly cited example of groups who are less than tolerant of gays.



I chose my words carefully and tried hard to balance my thoughts on this thread b/c I don't wish to offend anyone, as this is a controversial and sensitive topic. I'm trying to state things as politely as possible b/c I want to be kind and respectful, especially as tone can't be conveyed on a blog. I can't say I deeply care what anyone thinks of me based on a blog, but I DO care if people are offended when I could have reasonably prevented it.



I never said gay couple should not raise children at all. They can and they will. I said I'm not sure if I consider a single gender household equivalent to a two gender household, in general. That's all. I don't consider single parent homes to be the baseline equivalent to two parent homes either. Single parents and gay parents can and do raise terrific kids, but in general I think kids stand a better chance with a father and a mother. Obviously I'm struggling with that particular issue and it's why I jumped at the chance to have a real discussion about it. I've also stated it's my ONLY beef with gay marriage/gay rights....if struggling with this one aspect of gay rights kicks me out of the "pro-gay" camp and makes me hater, so be it.



Trooper, thank you (truly) for the discussion. Now that I'm seeing personal judgements being made about me, I think it's time to jump off. But, I really do appreciate it. It'll help me be a more informed voter. You seem very nice and I certainly do wish you well :-)
 
4walls, don't worry. hopefully you didn't feel like the lone crazy person that no one understands. i shared most of your same sentiments but pretty much didn't have anything to add. my guess is there's a lot of people who fall in the "have some reservations but otherwise no strong opinion on the issue" camp and didn't bother to chirp in.
 
[quote author="lawyerliz" date=1212643652]Ok, maybe one of you can ask the signature collectors just how this

is supposed to hurt my marriage? I still wanna know.</blockquote>
Delurking to share my own suspicion:



I have long suspected that homophobia is due in large part to (some) straight men's fear of being sexually objectified in the same way that they themselves objectify women. I remember a remark by my ninth grade English teacher that he felt uncomfortable around gay men because he felt like they were "undressing (him) with their eyes." What I realize now (but was too young to realize then) is that being undressed by someone's eyes is something that happens to women on a regular basis.



Extrapolating from sex to marriage, I suspect that these "haters" view heterosexual marriage as a man's ownership of a woman. It's <em>that</em> view of marriage that is challenged by same-sex couples, which have no similarly obvious cue that they're anything other than a partnership between equals.
 
Hey Buzzard, glad I lured you out of your lurkitude.



That is very interesting comment.



My daughter who had a gay guy for a roommate in college or

grad school (and who tragically committed suicide by jumping

out of a tall bldg in New York City), tells me that gays (maybe

she just meant gay men?) still have gender issues in the sense

that they still fight over who's going to do the dishes. I assume

that the putative "women's" work is less highly rated.



You learn to ignore the obnoxious male behavior if you are female and

anywhere near attractive, and don't want to go crazy. I suppose

men have not trained themselves to ignore unwanted sexual overtures,

and so feel uncomfortable. I do know my (very handsome)

straight son, who doesn't hate anybody, even his ex, was approached

by gay men a couple of times and felt overwhelmingly

repulsed by the experience.



I don't think he should be accused of evilness, because he felt

repulsed. It was an automatic reaction and he got away fast.

If he were in a position to hire somebody, and the best person was

gay, I think he'd hire him/her.



I think if he had a child who was gay, he'd reconcile himself to it and

not reject the child.



A gay woman came on to me once, and my reaction was ick. It wasn't

anything I thought about, it was just an automatic ick. (Also, she was

very unattractive, which may have added to the ick factor.) She worked

on my floor and I used to peak out and make sure she wasn't waiting

for the elevator.



So gays have this visceral reaction to deal with. I don't know what, if

anything, can be done about it.



The few gay men who I know were gay (as opposed to the

ones that are firmly shut in the closet, so I don't know) are

very nice, and usually unusually attractive, and may be smart,

but are also rather flakey. Including the client I have now.

Who has a super interesting foreclosure case.
 
4Walls. Hopefully I didn't offend you either, I was merely stating that I though Eva had it right in a sense. I understand your reservations when children are involved, but just remember that probably only 25% (a big guess on my part) of gay marriages will ever consider kids. Even so, marriage is not necessary for gays to have kids....I'm sure you know that. I think that maybe you are assuming that we would walk the same path as heterosexuals....you know, get married, buy a house, have kids. Well, I'm not so sure that most of us align ourselves with this "normal course of action".



A vote for gay marriage is not a vote condoning gays to have children. It's for GAY MARRIAGE. Period. Let's leave the kids out of this for a minute.



So don't go away ! We were just getting started ! :)



Also, I'm not sure how you can base your opinion on lack of knowledge. I'm assuming you don't know any gay couples that have had kids.... Again, I'll say that if you had a positive example to base your thoughts on, I don't know if you would still feel the same way. Not sure though....you may know some and still not be o.k. with it. I'm not here to force anyone to change their opinion, I'm just hoping that with dialogue....I at least get you thinking.



LL, sorry the ugly woman hit on you....I get that same "ick" factor when guys hit me, but I always take it as a compliment. She obviously thought you were the cat's pajamas !
 
LL, you are absolutely right that it is not at all "evil" to react with disgust to being hit on by somebody you're not attracted to - and that's regardless of their gender or yours. (I'm a woman, and I like men, but I've been approached by more than a few men that have made me go "Ick.") What <em>is</em> wrong is to decide you're disgusted by an entire group of people because a few of them have approached you (or even if they haven't, but you're afraid they might) and the rest of them are minding their own business.



There are tactful and less tactful ways to approach someone, too, displaying greater or lesser degrees of respect for that person. My suspicion is that male homophobes have little respect for the women they're attracted to - they think about and treat women in ways that they do not want to be thought about and treated themselves. But I admit that I do not have much in the way of evidence to back this up.
 
troop, does that line actually work?



hello.

i noticed we work on the same floor.

actually, i've noticed more than that about you.

in fact... i think you're the cat's pajamas. *wink*
 
Well, what happened was more subtle than that.



A male atty friend and I were doing a real estate transaction (remember them?),

with her representing the other side.



She was really really mean to the male atty, who had done absolutely

nothing to earn her wrath.



After the closing, we were shaking hands and she held my hand just a little too

long, and gazed soulfully at me for a very short time, and left.



I pulled my hand away.



I looked at my colleague, and said did I imagine that? And he said no and

started laughing hysterically.



As an opening ploy, it wouldn't have been bad if:



She hadn't been mean to my friend for no reason.



I was gay, and



She didn't have this bird-like body, with these little stick legs and big heavy

torso.



She's been gone from my floor for a long time now.
 
acpme, I tried out the pajama line last night....didn't work. :-P



Buzzard, I had never thought of it that way. Interesting !



JW....thank you, but remember you will be actually voting AGAINST the ballot measure they are trying to pass. The ballot measure will attempt to codify marriage as being only between man and woman.



LL, if she had been attractive, would you have felt differently ?



Anyone else out there lurking have anything to add/ask ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top