Gay unions

[idle hands]

I kind of feel a little jealous abut this talk, while you guys talk about gay marriage, our congress here is debating about a Divorce Law. Yes, there's no such thing as a divorce here in Chile, once you get married, all you can do is get an anullment, usually giving strange and ridiculous reasons like "I lied about my address "...

The right wing proposal is something like this: when you get married you can choose, "do you want to get married with or without divorce"? So, if you said "with divorce", then you can get one...
Whenever me and my cuban buddy watch the news about this, first I feel a little ashamed, then is laughter whenever a right wing senator appears (usually Opus Dei)... but finally is horror.... I just can´t belive this.

Soo... do I believe in gay marriage? sure!!! but not here in Chile, if I can't get a divorce.

[HungupStrungup]

Jon Stewart said last week that he'd be for the gay marriage idea, only he wants to be assured he won't be required to marry another man. "It's not so much me. I'm just concerned my wife won't like the idea."

My brother-in-law's sister (no, she's not my wife - he got to be my brother-in-law the other way, by marrying my sister) was a lesbian. She had an awful time with the religious nuts in her family, her parents and another brother, for many years during and after the "coming out" process. Eventually things settled into an uneasy truce, but her significant other was never made to feel like a part of the family. The drunken and half-witted wives and ex-wives, and the illegitimate kids were all welcome, but not a life partner who happened to be the wrong gender for their only daughter.

Eventually, when the daughter was dying, it was these same intolerant parents who had the legal right to visit her and make life or death decisions for her if it came to that. As luck would have it, they lived too far away to take real control wihout disrupting their own lives too much, so they came to rely on the s.o., a lovely person, and they all collaborated to make the dying process as easy on their shared loved one as they could manage. She kept them informed on a daily basis, and they allowed her to have the kind of access and other rights that a wife or husband would. It wasn't always comfortable, but they managed.

I know some families can't learn to accommodate at all, and they make life hell for the person they see as having come between them and their loved one and ruined their lives. In the process they can cause a great deal of suffering for those they claim to love. That should never be the case, and whether we call it marriage or civil union or Arthur, there needs to be a way to declare commitment and have it legally recognised.

I wonder if the gay school in New York is a good idea. Why are they separating them from the rest of society? For their own protection?

Yep, it's to protect those who might otherwise be in physical danger, and it's just for one hundred students. I'm not for separation as the first or only choice, and not for those who might want to opt out of a regular high school because they get teased (what else is high school for, after all?). Those gay kids who get beat up or hazed should have a recourse.

[A rope leash]

My counterpart down in Tennessee says he doesn't mind anyone being gay, he just doesn't want anyone teaching his son that homosexuality is okay. It think that means he doesn't mind anyone being gay, so long as it's not his son.

I'm pretty sure it's mostly natural, though the environment would determine how the preference is displayed.

Do you think this school will turn out raging examples? It's not in Queens, is it?

[Gillibeanz]

I have no problem with gays getting married. Neither would I have a problem if any of my offspring turned out to be gay. I would welcome their partners just the same as if it were a heterosexual partnership.

If everyone in the world were more tolerant it would be a better place for us all....

[selfmademug]

Amen, Gilli.

As the sister and friend of loads of gay folk (okay sister only to one) the whole thing seems ridiculous to me. Of course gay people should be able to marry. As for the legal issues, I would think that a partnership agreement (what many gay couples get regarding shared property and other legal matters) would cover whatever gaps the marriage didn't. In any case, flawed legislation is better than none, this will all get done in stages, as does almost anything worthwhile in culture or politics.

Something you have to remember about the NYC high school is that students that age already have a good inkling of their sexuality, if it hasn't been suppressed or repressed. How many sexual urges did you have in high school? Would you have had fewer if you were gay? Maybe, if people kept telling you you were a freak. Very confusing. Gay teens have a hugely high suicide rate, and so it's not a question of fencing them in from the harms of gay-bashers-- it will do the opposite, if anything-- but pf giving them a place where that piece of their identity does not have to be a huge source of alienation. It's about kids being able to get an education 'in peace', not about teaching students how or whether to be gay. And in a place like NYC where the kids are super worldly, there are tons of self-identified gay and bi teens. Will they all end up being 100% certifiable gay adults? Does it matter?

[firebetty]

cheers to ha'penny

copie, did you enjoy the fair? my friend took my when i was in my early twenties. i love that in sf there are street fairs just for getting off.

ideal hands, understand your national astonishment/embarrassment. it is so hard to look at your country and see what you think is remedial common sense is taken on as indulgent backwards thinking by political officials. when i am down and thinking about how looong the US has to go, i never forget how much we have. do you have COSTCO in Argentina?

DD, am i not the queerest member on this board?

Rope, it is my understanding that the gay kids aren't seperated out and forced to go the the gay HS. they do choose to go. ditto SMM. right on sister and gilli. plus having a crush on a straight girl sucks.

I want to know who voted against gay marraige and why? my ass is getting sore from all of you open minded straight people :
no really, i want to know.

hey ltz, good joke, and if you haven't heard of surrogate mothers, sperm donors, or adotion, i might be able to help you out. i have six month old twins.

now down to business, gay marriage? f*#$'n YES. if you would have asked my 10 years ago, i might have said no way. no one should get married (see my autobiography). now i have a house and two kids. i have seen friends who's boy/girlfriends were not let back in the country, forgien gay men marrying lezzies so they could be with their boyfriends (and vice versa), being treated like 2nd class citizens by police and in hospitals, partners not getting their due pensions, being afraid to run into situations like Hungup's sister in law, and of hitches in adopting my kids... having 2nd parent adoption overturned.... etc.
from once being a kid who wanted to overturn the system, i now see how change and progress (however delayed) has to come from within the system. marriage rules.

[double dutchess]

DD, am i not the queerest member on this board?

No, you are. I'm only halfway there .

[Gillibeanz]

Reminds me of some bad old jokes:-

Heterosexual - "I can honestly say that ive never come over a little queer"

Did you hear about the 2 scottish homosexuals? Ben Doon and Phillip Mcavity

Or the 2 Irish homosexuals Patrick Fitzmurphy and Murphy Fitzpatrick

No offense to any gay members of the board!!

[bobster]

Since the "nos" have been quiet, I'll try to explain the position of the (somewhat) more enlightened ones.

I've discussed the issue with some fairly liberal friends of mine a couple of years back (though one is quite religious in a quasi-evangelical and/or sort of fundamentalist-lite group). They said that they felt matrimony was a special state and allowing same-sex people to participate somehow lessened the institution.

This is view makes absolutely no sense to me -- or it only makes sense in a mystical or religious sort of way, which has absolutely no place in a country which is supposed to have a wall between church and state.

The whole idea of the "defense of marriage" is absurd, as if one person's marriage somehow magically affects other peoples' marriages. Yet, this is still the prevailing view. It's also insane to believe that marriage is under attack or in decline, when more people are getting married than ever -- and half of them manage to stay that way! (A miracle considering how much longer people now live than for most of human history.)

If you believe that the only true marriage -- in the eyes of God or whoever -- is between a man and a woman, that's fine. You can believe that, but as far as the government is concerned, I believe they should make no judgement at all. None. Zip. Zero. Personally, I believe marriage is basically where you find it. Men loving each other and wanting to formalize the arrangement is no more or less legitimate than men and women doing so.

Still, my view, one way or the other, shouldn't matter, nor should, Pat Robertson's.

In the eyes of the law (which has nothing to do with the eyes of God, which need to keep remindind some of these idiots) it should be okay for for ANY group of consenting adult humans, of ANY size to legally marry.

Even groups good liberals may find offensive should be allowed to marry from a purely legal standpoint. I may not consider, say, harems a good or equitable arrangement -- or I may find the people who participate in some of these newfangled group marriages a bit creepy -- but if everyone's consenting, is that anyone's problem but mine?

The key here is consent. If you have a traditional marriage of a man and woman, but if anyone is in some way being coerced, that's not marriage, it's ritualized rape.

In fact, as per Rick Santorum, if sheep or goats or dogs became sentient and could consent to being married by humans, I might not consider it healthy, but I'd be all for it's legality. Heck, while I wouldn't exactly approve, if invited, I'd come to the wedding bearing place settings and Milk Bones!

[so lacklustre]

4 people have voted 'No' but none of them have identified themselves. Do they realise that their opinions are unacceptable in todays society, and have therefore kept schtum. Are they scared of ostracisation? Do they have no argument?

Maybe they just clicked the the 'No' button by mistake.

[stormwarning]

Or maybe they're just homophobic shithead bigots.

[Copenhagen Fan]

HEEEEEEEEY Fire (crotch) Betty.......yes it was a blast, although I felt myself overmatched as a man by many of the dudes at the street fair! These guys were hard core!

I must admit that I was flattered when one of them grabbed the waistband of my pants and tried to pry his way in, but was relieved that he was not one of the Bone Crusher dudes...otherwise I might have gotten freaked out!

Betty...you're still my favorite one this site....keep truckin' honey!

*gigantic hug*

[firebetty]

idle, i am sorry. i don't know why i wrote ideal or argentina! i am embarrassed. i guess it is the way i idealize hands and having argentina on my mind....

nice try bobster.

copie, that sounds hot! good to hear from you! xx!

i was thinking about my last post and while i do believe the US is growing more conservitative, my complaints of injustice are nothing compared to the good old days of bashings and slayings left legally unaccountable.

hey rope, the connection on npr was on the harvey milk school yesterday. an intresting debate. a brief synopsis: they anti-gay hs/pro- integration believe it was reinforcing homophobia and going to cause more problems. the money should be spent on teaching teachers how to support their gay students when they see them cowering in the hall (doesn't that seem obvious). the rep from the school stressed that gay teen suicide rate and that these kids drop out of school 3x more than anyone else. that while this is only helping a small number of kids, the kids that are calling are the ones who have dropped out or considering dropping out. basically it is a safe place for glbt/or assumedly glbt kids to go who are abused at home and or school. a place where kids can go now and get an education when the system has otherwise failed them.
what do you think?

[HungupStrungup]

The school already exists. With only 50 kids, it's not really a school so much as it is a program, a place for the most abused kids, gay or presumed to be, who have either dropped out or are considering doing so, to be safe and supported while getting some semblance of an education. As fb mentioned, mostly these are kids who don't have a supportive family situation, and some have even been tossed out of their homes.

The current debate is simply about doubling the size of the student body - with 100 students, there's a certain economy of scale. It can actually call itself a school and justify having a principal, a library, a prom, a mascot, cheerleaders (no sports teams, just cheerleaders), a wretched cafeteria to call its own etc.

The students don't actually have to be gay to enroll, although that's the designated population. They just have to apply to attend and establish somehow that a traditional school isn't a suitable place for them.

[El Vez]

I really like what Bobster had to say. Bobster, can you throw your hat in the political arena for us?

[idle hands]

idle, i am sorry. i don't know why i wrote ideal or argentina! i am embarrassed. i guess it is the way i idealize hands and having argentina on my mind....

oh.. its fine, no offense...
actually I believe gay unions are legal in Argentina. But then again, it's not as catholic as Chile. This must be the second most Catholic country in the world (right after the Vatican I mean).
The 'caught between the andes and the op..' part of my profile has a serious meaning, it sometimes feels like we're trapped in here...

[bobster]

Thanks El Vez --

Just wrote that to get it off my chest. I've actually been irritated about this since Clinton signed the absurdly named "Defense of Marriage Act."

Well, won't be running for office because even I have to admit that anyone who comes out for interspecies marriage is going to have a hard time in the electoral rackets.

(Though half the population of my home state is about to run for governor, but I'm sure you know about that --- though you don't know that one of them is my brother-in-law's brother-in-law, a real #$#@#$@ -- he won't be getting any votes from anyone in my family!)

Actually, though, after I wrote it, I realized it was the perfect basis for this radio commentary series thing I'm doing. So, a rewritten version of it is having another life. (Though good luck hearing it -- I don't know when it airs on the Internet or off of it myself. It's a long story kind of a rip-off thing that I'm knowingly participate in to accumulate air checks.)

[LessThanZero]

I definitely think the holy institution of marriage should be kept sacred, just like kobe bryant and his wife are doing.

[BlueChair]

What's so holy about marriage? It's practiced by nearly every religion and by people who are religious as well as atheist.

[LessThanZero]

I'm practicing marriage right now, but when I DO get married, I'm goin balls to the walls baby.

[A rope leash]

<0, I thought getting married meant you didn't have to do that anymore.

Hey Blue, I can tell you what's unholy about marriage...!

[Copenhagen Fan]

too bad people are so closet anti gay, even though they say the politically correct things when asked....every straight man should at least try a tranny BJ before they judge.

nice closing to a good thread..ha ha.

[bobster]

Hate, er, to, er marr CF's closing to this thread but, perhaps, cartoonist Ruben Bolling deserves the last word.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article ... EN=3222102

[noiseradio]

This is only posted to offer some interesting statistics and not to draw any specific conclusions. It's a recent poll of US citizens from various demographics and how they feel about the issue of gay marriages. As with all polls, you can skew the numbers a couple of points in any direction. For each category, there are three sets of numbers. First, the percentage that favor gay unions, second, the number that oppose gay unions, and third, the percentage that are not sure.

As of 12-13 Aug 03:

Favor / Oppose / (Not sure)

(All) -- 26% / 62% / 12%
Female -- 28% / 60% / 12%
Male -- 23% / 65% / 12%
Age 18-34 -- 48% / 42% / 10%
Age 35-50 -- 25% / 62% / 13%
Age 51-59 -- 26% / 63% / 12%
Age 60-70 -- 15% / 76% / 10%
Over 70 -- 14% / 71% / 15%
Democrat -- 36% / 51% / 13%
Republican -- 15% / 76% / 10%
Independent -- 29% / 58% / 13%
Have gay
friend/family -- 39% / 49% / 12%

No gay
friend/family -- 15% / 74% / 11%

As of:26-27 Jun 96: -- 22% / 65% / 13%

[firebetty]

i hate to see cope's beautiful ending to a thread ruined, but i can't resist.

the "no gay friend/family" catagory are all liars.
EVERYONE has at least a gay cousin!
or they are deep deep denial.