Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Insidious Rex]

Hey cool more evidence that unsafe sex is unsafe. What a service you provide for us inked...

[Insidious Rex]

Why is it sometimes when you post a message that winds up on the top of the thread that you cant get to it until another message is posted?

[inked]

IR,

I don't know about the message thing, but I have noticed it myself.

And you are welcome for your thanks. I find that my patients need constant reminding and I suspect that the same is true for homosexuals - given the statistics for "unintended pregnancy" and "unintended transmission" of STDS.

I rather expected a diatribe though on the use of life and style together in the header of the Washington Blade articles but I guess that life and style in this fashion must be acceptable? or is it because it is a gay source?

And how about the lesbian chartacterization that Hollywood has apparently gotten right?

And how about the young gays vs the old gays conflict about marriage?

I'm detecting the fragmentation of the alleged solidarity of the gay movement and the revelation of the normality of non-stable relationships as the basis of most gay lifestyles from an apparently gay source, or is this merely the pre-postmodern construct of my limited views?:

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

gay movement? who are these so called gay movement-ists?
i gotta get me in there!!

btw, that were sarcasm
movement is obviously another of those terms that you can label a whole swathe of society with, like "lifestyle", and "worldview", whereas in actual fact gay men and women are not one homogenised splodge of society, as some people would realise if they weren't so generalistic

or is that just my postmodern-radical-socialist views coming out?

[inked]

LCoU,

The latter!!!

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

And how about the young gays vs the old gays conflict about marriage?

The young guy who wrote the article characterized it as a young gay vs older gays conflict, but I think this is the only part of the article that I disagree with. I this the article is totally right in pointing out that same-sex marriage is not the only important issue for LGBTS. Indeed I agree that protection against discrimination on the job should be pursued with vigor (and I agree with the rest of the issues too, although I don't remember them).
On the other hand, the whole issue would be moot if people like you would vote in favor both of same-sex marriage and of non discrimination laws.
Do we have a hope for your favourable vote on either?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

I'm detecting [...] the revelation of the normality of non-stable relationships as the basis of most gay lifestyles from an apparently gay source, or is this merely the pre-postmodern construct of my limited views?

Indeed it is; I wonder how you guessed that
LGBT people were among the first groups in the US to realize that society (read: right wing politicians and priests) use marriage as an instrument of oppression in which marriage is "compulsory" and unmarried are deviant; sex within marriage is tolerated, but outside marriage is deviant. LGBT people were the first ones to point out this situation (i.e. "compulsory" marriage) as morally squalid.
Said that, marriage which is pursued by people not because "they have to to be respectable", but because they want to is good and it is discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from it.

[inked]

O, TWFM, I think the Femi-Nazis would disagree about that. They surely want precedence for the erroneous notion of marriage as an oppressive state against........women. The LGBT is merely derivative politicizaton, I think! Just like the derivative use of "civil rights" by the same.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

O, TWFM, I think the Femi-Nazis would disagree about that. They surely want precedence for the erroneous notion of marriage as an oppressive state against........women.

I think I will agree with you on that. Feminists arrived first, but LGBT people argued it early on too, but who arrived first is not the key of my answer to your previous post

[inked]

But my contention is by irony (in case you missed it) that both arguers are falsely arguing it. Despite all the heat and emotional rhetoric, marriage is not an institution for the demolition of women. It is demonstrably a means of elevating women. A little browsing of the historical novel SARUM with its depictions os life in Britain from the Stone Age to 20th Century will demonstrate that in a unprejudiced manner (and provide a mighty good read from wich this factoid might be gleaned incidentally, not at all argumentatively).

[The Gaffer]

Interesting articles. All of the GLB I know would put workplace discrimination as a more important issue than marriage. For many of them, it restricted their career choices; some are "out" everywhere except work because of the organisational culture they work in.

The key thing that would unite all the various, lovely different kinds of GLB people would be a desire for equality.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

But my contention is by irony (in case you missed it) that both arguers are falsely arguing it. Despite all the heat and emotional rhetoric, marriage is not an institution for the demolition of women.

Different people think differently on this topic.
Personally, I think that there is no doubt that marriage has been used in past (in many cases) and is still used in the present (in many cases) to expoloit women and discriminate gays.
The "evil of marriage" is not in marriage per se it is in the usage that some people do of it.

[Lotesse]

I agree, Wizard -except I don't really think marriage exploits women; it's my understanding that marriage rewards women. You should check out the Marriage thread they have here, it's interesting what people have to say about marriage.
And about discrimination-I'd say definitely workplace discrimination is a bigger fish to fry than whether or not one's marriage might be sanctioned by the state - the same state that still discriminates horribly against GLB being a soldier or holding any kind of authoritative rank in the army, navy etc.

[HOBBIT]

ok rian, so answer in this topic.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

shame that it takes this much prompting to get an answer, though

though, please don't think i am trying to get at you, as that is CERTAINLY not my intention

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

on one of my many trips into cyber-space on my quest to further my knowledge of the enlightened east, i found this article on homosexuality in japan, which was an extremely interesting read. i have maintained for some time that oriental nations were far more enlightened than the west, and there we have some nice back up.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

shame that it takes this much prompting to get an answer, though

It's just that I get tired of being rebuked by admins

I'll see if I can get to it tonight - one heckuva week...

[inked]

From Canada, the "it won't make a difference society because we have the Charter".

Society must defend traditional wedlock
By MICHAEL COREN

From the Toroto Sun, 6/11/05

"I receive death threats and abuse on a regular basis. My address and phone number have been placed on the Internet by gay militants and people told to harass and assault me. Jokes were made when my father died, insults made about my family.

I have been told by editors and publishers that I will never work as a writer in various places because I defend marriage. But I will not react in kind and I will not surrender. I do, however, want people to know that there is hatred at work.

First, let us deal with the idea that gay marriage has no affect on people who are not gay. We hear the mantra of "why are you threatened?" and "it doesn't concern your marriage."

So very funny. At the fundamental level of basic logic, something does not have to affect me for it to be wrong. I campaign, for example, for the immediate forgiveness of Third World debt. The issue doesn't concern me personally but morally.

Gay marriage, however, does concern marriage itself and the greater society. It's legal in Holland and Belgium but virtually so in Scandinavia. And in Scandinavia marriage has become so shamed because of this that heterosexual people are abandoning the institution.

In Norway, 80% of first-born babies are born out of wedlock. Even those who campaigned for gay marriage in this region are rethinking their position.

Marriage also affects children and is, please, a child-centred institution. Every informed and intelligent expert, every good parent knows that children need the example of a male and female role model. Indeed, it is sexist to assume otherwise. Single-parent families do exist, of course, and are often admirable. But we do not aspire to them.

The statistics are overwhelming. Children from stable, two-parent families do better, are happier, than any other children.

Yet for the first time in human history we are purposefully affirming and creating families where there is no father or no mother, no man or woman as role model or example or parent. Yes, many mother-father families go wrong, but this is not the point. With same-sex marriage we are aggressively trying to limit the chance of children for the sake of a modernist fad.

This is not about equality. Homosexuals already have the rights of common-law spouses. They also have, and should have, equality in housing, employment, inheritance. Some would argue that in certain cases they have more rights than others -- the right, for example, for some to parade naked in the middle of Toronto on Gay Pride Day and not be arrested.

We are told that gay marriage will not affect those who oppose it. Untrue. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, who has stood firm against gay marriage, has already been contacted by revenue officials and warned.

A teacher in Vancouver, Chris Kempling, has been suspended from his job because he wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing homosexuality. Civil servants in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been advised to resign if they oppose gay marriage. The Knights of Columbus have been taken to a human rights tribunal because they refused to rent their hall to a lesbian wedding, even though they offered to pay for the invitations and renting of another hall. (The Knights of Columbus, by the way, use their money to feed the hungry and help the poor and mentally ill.)

Let us open the door on this debate and allow free expression. We who support genuine marriage and genuine family have a great deal to say -- and are tired of being silenced."
********************

Nothing like warm loving acceptance backed up by force since the hoi polloi cn't be trusted, eh?

[Falagar]

In Norway, 80% of first-born babies are born out of wedlock. Even those who campaigned for gay marriage in this region are rethinking their position.

I found this a bit funny, as gay marriage isn't allowed here (not that the article is saying that, but it is implying) and most children are born in partnership relationships (if I'm not much mistaken). This has more to do with the decline of the religion's position in life than gay marriage.

[The Wizard from Milan]

inked, had you read the article, you would have hopefully noticed the utter lack of internal coherence. The writer says he is against same-sex marriage but pro equality; he then quotes Norway as an example of were same-sex marriage has created "issues" although he states that there is no such a thing as same-sex marrige there. He would have been more honest, had he acknowledged that he is also against equality and had he pointed out what he claims are the negative consequences of equality.
The issue supposedly caused by the acceptance of LGBT people in Norway is that most babies (presumably most of them babies of heterosexuals) are born out of wedlock? Where is the causality?

I do not exclude a priori the possibility that on a very rare occasion the supporter of same-sex marrriage may rise the tone a bit too much and say their opponent to shut up; and if anything illegal is done I hope (and I am sure) they will be prosecuted; but so far I have only seen opponenets of same-sex marriage whining that they are told to shut up only because they find people willing to say that they arguments don't make any sense. Well, to say to somebody he or she is saying something stupid is not the same thing as telling he or she to shut up.