Someone you love and admire is gay.
(I use the term gay to include gays and lesbians.)
If you preach hate or intolerance, you might not know who these people are. They are your father, your uncle, your aunt, your teacher, your co-worker, your neighbor, your pastor, your doctor, your police chief, your son or your daughter. Or maybe they're your grandchild, or grandmother, your husband or your sister--your very best friend in the world.
If gay people grew large blue dots on their foreheads it would be nice. Then you could "see" all these people and realize you have nothing to fear or hate.
I want everyone to know about the gay lifestyle.
It is your lifestyle - absolutely no different. Anti gays who use the words gay lifestyle are trying to imply something awful: dark smoky rooms with whips and chains and naked writhing bodies doing something different than the human body would allow.
Even I have trouble conjuring up just what horrors and perversions some people create in their minds when talking about the gay lifestyle. Bleck!
Gays work with you and live with you. They walk their dogs and feed their cats. You see them mowing their lawn and minding their nephews and nieces. They are next to you in the check-out line in the grocery store and kneeling beside you in church. They took your tonsils out and repaired the dent in your car. You've cheered them on the football field or bought their CDs.
They have as many lifestyles as heterosexuals - and blend into society so well you don't know who they are.
I do wish they had those blue dots.
Miss McKinley your most favorite grammar school teacher would have one as would that nice neighbor who jump-started your car and brought in your groceries. Your beloved grandson who calls you and says: "Grandma, I'm coming over to rake your leaves" would have one as would your four-year old curly-headed toddler who loves to climb up on your lap and give you sweet child kisses. Your favorite "maiden aunt" and "confirmed bachelor uncle" have them and so do your sports heroes and favorite authors. Blue dots are everywhere in every aspect of your life, neighborhood, church, workplace, and even in the bowling alley and nail salon.
Preference has nothing to do with being gay. It's just another anti gay buzz word.
Gay people don't prefer to be gay nor do they prefer to love the same sex. It implies choice. Do heterosexuals prefer to be heterosexual? Is this an active choice we straight people are making on a daily basis? No, of course not, and the same goes for gays.
You prefer vanilla over chocolate, but you don't prefer being gay over being straight.
Recently I heard someone comment: It might not be their choice to be born gay but it is their choice to live their lives as a gay person. I was astounded! Then we could say it's okay to be born female as long as you don't live as a female. It's okay to be black as long as you don't live like a black person, it's okay to be born disabled as long as you don't live as a disabled person, it's okay to be a redhead as long as we you don't live like a redhead.
The list would go on and on - telling us we can only be okay as long as we don't live our lives as we were meant to live them - again, not a choice -- just ask any disabled person.
"The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state," U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 ruling.
1967 wasn't that long ago when you think of it. It took our nation quite a while to understand that love isn't legislated nor will it go away, even with threats, violence or ignorance.
John, Garry, I can't wait for your legal marriage. I can't wait to toast you and rejoice in the fact that you finally have your rights --all of them for a change.
(I use the term gay to include gays and lesbians.)
If you preach hate or intolerance, you might not know who these people are. They are your father, your uncle, your aunt, your teacher, your co-worker, your neighbor, your pastor, your doctor, your police chief, your son or your daughter. Or maybe they're your grandchild, or grandmother, your husband or your sister--your very best friend in the world.
If gay people grew large blue dots on their foreheads it would be nice. Then you could "see" all these people and realize you have nothing to fear or hate.
I want everyone to know about the gay lifestyle.
It is your lifestyle - absolutely no different. Anti gays who use the words gay lifestyle are trying to imply something awful: dark smoky rooms with whips and chains and naked writhing bodies doing something different than the human body would allow.
Even I have trouble conjuring up just what horrors and perversions some people create in their minds when talking about the gay lifestyle. Bleck!
Gays work with you and live with you. They walk their dogs and feed their cats. You see them mowing their lawn and minding their nephews and nieces. They are next to you in the check-out line in the grocery store and kneeling beside you in church. They took your tonsils out and repaired the dent in your car. You've cheered them on the football field or bought their CDs.
They have as many lifestyles as heterosexuals - and blend into society so well you don't know who they are.
I do wish they had those blue dots.
Miss McKinley your most favorite grammar school teacher would have one as would that nice neighbor who jump-started your car and brought in your groceries. Your beloved grandson who calls you and says: "Grandma, I'm coming over to rake your leaves" would have one as would your four-year old curly-headed toddler who loves to climb up on your lap and give you sweet child kisses. Your favorite "maiden aunt" and "confirmed bachelor uncle" have them and so do your sports heroes and favorite authors. Blue dots are everywhere in every aspect of your life, neighborhood, church, workplace, and even in the bowling alley and nail salon.
Preference has nothing to do with being gay. It's just another anti gay buzz word.
Gay people don't prefer to be gay nor do they prefer to love the same sex. It implies choice. Do heterosexuals prefer to be heterosexual? Is this an active choice we straight people are making on a daily basis? No, of course not, and the same goes for gays.
You prefer vanilla over chocolate, but you don't prefer being gay over being straight.
Recently I heard someone comment: It might not be their choice to be born gay but it is their choice to live their lives as a gay person. I was astounded! Then we could say it's okay to be born female as long as you don't live as a female. It's okay to be black as long as you don't live like a black person, it's okay to be born disabled as long as you don't live as a disabled person, it's okay to be a redhead as long as we you don't live like a redhead.
The list would go on and on - telling us we can only be okay as long as we don't live our lives as we were meant to live them - again, not a choice -- just ask any disabled person.
"The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state," U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 ruling.
1967 wasn't that long ago when you think of it. It took our nation quite a while to understand that love isn't legislated nor will it go away, even with threats, violence or ignorance.
John, Garry, I can't wait for your legal marriage. I can't wait to toast you and rejoice in the fact that you finally have your rights --all of them for a change.
posted by mary bishop | 9:57 AM
22 Comments:
Indeed one doesn't have to live as a female. One could choose to live as a male. Or even have a sex change.
Irina, you take me so literally! You are an very good debater so I am very honored this is all you could come up with to challenge me on.
Seriously, homosexual relationships are different heterosexual relationships simply because they are between two people of the same sex. That's why I don't think it makes any sense to categorize them as something they are NOT. I'd find it pretty insulting, personally.
Irina, I originally asked you what threatened you about same-sex marriage (I think on your blog) and you said nothing...your opposition was due to tradition.
Now you say you would be insulted by same-sex marriage.
You say: homosexual relationships are different (from) heterosexual relationships simply because they are between two people of the same sex.
You cleared that up for me!joke
Marriage, pre 1967, was defined as the union of a man and a woman providing they were of the same race. This also was tradition!
Thank goodness we're beyond putting limits on love and commitment and who can marry whom.
Oh that's right, we still do it with same-sex marriage, but not for long.
We have a constitution that is on the side of all people and providing Bush doesn't rewrite the constitution, human rights for all people will prevail.
You should put aside the plumbing issues of same-sex marriage vs opposite sex marriage and realize there is nothing a same-sex couple does in bed that a heterosexual couple hasn't also done in bed!
Only so many parts and so many places to put these parts.
Look around at all the different families in this world. Not the hypothetically traditional ones, but the "real ones" that exist today:
the single mom raising her children and the single dad raising his; the grandparents raising their grandchildren full time; the gay men who adopted two unadoptable children of mixed race thought to be retarded when all they needed to flourish was a loving family which they got from their two dads.
The woman who married and had children with a man as she was "supposed to" but could not keep the charade up, so she divorced, got custody of her kids and is now living with her partner (who she wants to marry) and raising her children.
You may very well be the most heterosexual woman in the world, great! But not everyone is exactly like you.
When we start to abridge the rights of one group we threaten the rights of all groups. When we let ignorance or religious beliefs become the basis of making constitutional laws, we're in big trouble.
My favorite, most erudite and loving aunt was a lesbian. My very best friends are gay men with whom my husband and I have the most in common, over all the heterosexual couples we know.
I repeat, someone you love is gay. You just don't know who it is because they know how you feel about them.
Somewhere on another blog you said you wouldn't care if the president were gay, yet you care so deeply if he were in a same-sex marriage.
I still don't understand why same-sex marriage is so repugnant to you but you have to have more substance to your distaste than tradition or who has a hoo hoo and who has a hah hah and what someone does with their hoo hoos or their hah hahs.
If it is the imagery of two men or two women making love that is giving you the heebie jeebies?
Wait till you realize you love a blue dot and when that happens, you will want equal rights for that person.
What I meant was if I were a homosexual, I'd be insulted to be put in the same category as heterosexual marriage, because my nature would have been different.
So where do we draw the line?
Irina says: "What I meant was if I were a homosexual, I'd be insulted to be put in the same category as heterosexual marriage, because my nature would have been different. "
Sorry, I misunderstood you Irina.
Well, I think it is very hard for you to imagine yourself first as a homosexual and then to imagine what your views on marriage would be.
My bet is if you, Irina, were a lesbian and you fell in love with a wonderful woman who cherished you and wanted to commit to you for the rest of her life -- you too would want marriage.
People of the same sex fall in love and want to be married just like anyone else.
Anyone can shack up with anyone at any time.
Marriage means more than that, it is a commitment and a vow of monogamy to gays as it is to straights.
And let us not forget, there are approximately 1400 rights given to legally married people that are not available to people who are not married, even if they've been together for 50 years - even if they are in a "civil union" or "domestic partnership".
Gays and lesbians want the very simple rights and responsibilities that only a marriage brings. They don't want to be second class citizens nor should they be.
If two people want to get married, gay or straight, white or black, Jew or Christian, tall or short, abled or disabled, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, they should be able to get married in a legal, civil ceremony.
Religions can decide on their own what rules and regulations they want to put on church or temple marriages.
My friends have been together for 24 years. They have a great life with all the creature comforts including creatures, 2 cats and a dog. Their home is immaculate and filled with the flowers they grow in their yard. They are pillars in the community and loved and respected by all who meet them.
They are anonymous benefactors for many charitable organizations. They are superb neighbors caring for an elderly woman on their street. They are wonderful hosts and talented in numerous ways.
Their "marriage" is one to hold up as an example of marriage at its very best.
But, it isn't a marriage in the true sense until laws are changed to give them the basic civil rights they deserve as American citizens.
Well, to be honest, I don't think most of the country is ready to approve those kinds of laws. Perhaps they'll be approved eventually... but right now it's not a good idea to push these things through.
Irina Tsukerman!
You are way too intelligent to say:
"Perhaps they'll be approved eventually... but right now it's not a good idea to push these things through."
Oh such bias in your words "push these 'things' through? Or, "it's not a good idea'?
See hear smell feel touch taste your discrimination no longer hidden from your words..bubbling out and on to this blog?
You, who can site and back up everything you say --end up with nebulous nay-saying and weak warnings as in "not a good idea."
And we are talking about civil rights here, not changing hair color or mandatory tango lessons.
The point is, most people don't view it as civil rights. If gay marriage is legalized federally right now, there's going to be a lot more outrage and homophobic outbursts than if the reforms are introduced slowly. First, by adding marital-type advantages to the civil unions... all civil unions. I think it will prepare people mentally... You've got to understand that the idea of marriage is very symbolic; violating its sacrosanct meaning would offend quite a number of people. Even civil rights reforms weren't introduced all at once. We still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment... These things take a long time, and a lot of debate... and the transition from one type of thinking to another would be much smoother if it evolved than if it goes through a quick revolutionary process.
Irina says: The point is, most people don't view it as civil rights. If gay marriage is legalized federally right now, there's going to be a lot more outrage and homophobic outbursts than if the reforms are introduced slowly.
Gays have been living under threats for years. We have hate crime laws now to protect not just homosexuals but other minorities, that once were singled out for abuse and persecution.
If threats kept people from seeking freedom there would be no freedom.
Using the term "most people" doesn't fly with me. Most people would probably still be very happy to discriminate against you and me and anyone else they might find different.
You say: First, by adding marital-type advantages to the civil unions... all civil unions.
Now we are back to semantics. I am married by law, a civil ceremony, a civil union, if you'd like to call it that. Should we take all non-religious marriages and rename them civil unions? Should I tell people I got unioned in North Carolina when I eloped? Should I tell people I am in a very happy union?
We don't need separate but equal laws - We have way too many laws right now that we can't enforce nor should we. We don't need to promote second class citizenship in the US. We don't need to discriminate against any group of people because they are different from us.
Who would be the great arbiter of what it takes to be a perfect American? What if they didn't like you because you were female or Jewish, or me because I'm Irish and a rabble rouser, or my niece because she was adopted from India by a single parent? Or mixed racial marriage like I also have in my family.
You also say: You've got to understand that the idea of marriage is very symbolic; violating its sacrosanct meaning would offend quite a number of people.
You are now back to religious beliefs when you use the word sacrosanct. God clings to this word like static electicity.
We have separation (so far) of church and state (though our newly elected faith focused messiah is doing his best to cross that line) - marriage (civil) is not a religious rite but a human right!
I and many other people like me are terribly offended by the idea of federally sanctioned discrimination.
When you say "people think" or "people feel" please understand that all people do not feel or think like "they" do. Whomever these people might be.
Rosa Parks said to the bus driver, I'm not moving. It was traditional, customary and people wanted blacks in the back of the bus. She didn't move up a seat or two from the back to get people used to the fact they were abridging her civil rights - she went up to the front of the bus.
Am I to suppose that someone as intelligent as you are would have had Rosa Parks make her stand by moving up one row at a time from the back of the bus until "people" decided it was okay?
I lived in Alabama for two years, and racism is alive and well, trust me. So is homophobia and Christian crazies demanding all people be Christian.
Because of these "people" it is necessary that discrimination is eliminated and equality given to all Americans.
Wow, I feel like I just ran the mile. I always do after one of our exchanges!
Sacrosanct to others, not to me. I would personally prefer a civil ceremony.
Again, unless you want a very strong reaction, it's better to take ALL civil rights reforms, no matter what they are, one step at a time. Can you imagine sexual emancipation taking place in 1900? NO! Nobody was psychologically ready for it. It took many small reforms before the "revolution" happened. You had women starting to vote, smoke, work outside the house, help during the war... Freedom is a great thing... But the way it is used has to be very careful, otherwise it'll create all sorts of unnecessary problems. Would Roe vs. Wade have been passed in 1850? Of course not.
Nobody even thought in those terms, althought a civil rights activist would argue that a woman should have a right to a safe abortion AT LEAST to safe her life. Did many women die from unsafe abortion procedures before Roe vs. Wade? Unfortunately, yes. Was it hypocritical? In many ways, yes. Would it have worked out if it was passed 100 years before it's time? I don't think so. Even Rosa Parks wasn't the first step in the chain. She followed a long, LONG line of African American fighters for civil liberties. Don't forget the role of African Americans during World War II. I doubt Rosa Parks would have been successful if she did what she did a hundred years earlier. In 19th century, for example, even many abolitionists did not really care about desegregation.
They were against slavery, yes, but many of them still looked down on African Americans. By 1950s, the situation was beginning to change. Obviously, racism was still widespread; however, many people were beginning to understand that African Americans are people just like whites...
That's why the civil rights movement came to be in the first places. If enough whites wanted to cut it off, it would have been suppressed.
Right now, most people still do NOT think of gay relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones. That may be reinforced by pervasive stereotypes. That may be reinforced by some gay rights activists that are a little too in-your-face. The point is, it wasn't so long ago that it became acceptable for gays to be coming out of the closet, so you can't expect a sudden all encompassing revolutionary change. It would have been like trying to get an African American woman Secretary of State in 1920.
There you go again with using the word "people" to back up your argument. People watch Fear Factor for crissakes.
Pervasive stereotypes? you say? Since as I said before gays aren't born with blue dots on their foreheads you only see the very masculine woman or very effiminate male as being homosexual, and I'll bet you paint many people with the gay/lesbian brush who are quite heterosexual.
Obviously, you are not aware of the many gay people with whom you interact -- because they're not wearing tutus (male) or work boots and a buzz haircut (female) you don't know who they are.
In your face gays, you mean like Martin Luther King was to the African American struggle for equality?
You are oozing prejudice from your words.
Irina, the time is now for civil rights for all.
One sticking point in this whole debate for me is that many gays and lesbians who fear losing their job, being harrassed at their home, or despised by their church-going friends and relatives, do not come out.
I know, easy for me to say because I'm not gay, but if they all came out today, or all refused to spend a cent for just one single day, they would help their own cause, and help people like me who will continue to fight for equal rights for all people.
Coretta Scott King, who knows what it's like to fight for simple human rights has come out strongly in favor of same-sex marriage.
Other "people's" prejudices and misinformation cannot be the basis on which we create or enforce law.
We are either a country for the people and by the people where minorities have a valid place in society and covered by the constitution or we are not.
If this makes people uncomfortable then scroom.
That was precisely my point. In fact, I was subject to the very same stereotypes until I went to college and found that obviously the stereotype is not true. However, my college is in the middle of a large city, so the stereotypes dissolve here quite easily. However, with many others, it's not the case. I think that one of the mistakes of gay activists is that they don't educate people enough about those issues. In my college, for example there was a course on History of U.S. Sexuality (unfortunately I didn't have a chance to take it), which I think should be an option in every college across the country - but it isn't. The country gets its information from TV.
By in-your-face, I don't mean people who are like Martin Luther King, but those who are like the Black Panthers. Unfortunately, they are much more local than the reasonable kind, and that's what we see.
I meant to say "vocal".
Irina, in every important struggle mankind has faced, it is the "out there" people who bring the issue to the forefront.
As for stereotypes, good for a laugh as in what is a 7 course meal for an Irishman?
A potato and a six pack of beer....
so you laugh I laugh but --
we all know stereotypes are extreme exaggerations at best or plain old untruths at worse.
Are all Irish drunks?
All Polish dense?
All English prim?
All French stink?
All black men well endowed?
All Asians super smart?
All Scotts cheap?
All Latins high strung?
The country gets its information from TV. You are right...on their behalf, hard to get true information...Read the American Scholar if you want to get your panties in a bunch....low circulation high intelligence...
Yup, and ain't that a shame that information seems to be filtered through prisms with astigmatisms to the right or the left ...always skewed one way or the other.
Why don't people ever think a bird or an airplane for that matter, needs a right and left wing to fly?
Irina, you ask where the line should be drawn? I say with farm animals. Farm animals should not be allowed to be joined in any union civil or uncivil. Unless of course the farmer is one cow short.
I have never enjoyed myself as much as I have at "in your face" Gay parades.
Outrageous, scandalous, hilarious, supremely creative, but when the parade is over most of the participants go back to their quiet lives working hard at their daily jobs, contributing to society, and enjoying the simple pleasures that everyone else does. What they do in bed is their own business, period. So is what I do in my own bed. But my consciousness was certainly raised by the fact that Gays are human beings and if you prick them they will bleed, just like you and me. Their "in your face" light-hearted humor is a big plus.
What's the problem with giving Gays the same legal rights and benefits of hetero couples? Why must those rights be doled out in dribs? Why must they wait and for whom? For what purpose?
I agree Madam. Gays don't need to be tossed a bone, they need to have all the rights and privileges of any other American.
Hadley, your farm animal comment is priceless! hahahahha
Whose John & Gary?
Mine!
MESSAGE
Post a Comment
<< Home