1. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
I've always wanted to do this.
2. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 10:28 AM PT
Diva,
"...do this?"
I took you for a heterosexual. My apologies.
3. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT
hahaha!
Well, I am, but I've admitted, in the past, to a bit of experimentation.
4. IrvingSnodgrass - July 9, 1999 - 10:33 AM PT
Grumble grumble... I always like to get in the first post, but tech troubles have prevented it this time around.
At any rate, this is the place to discuss Gay Issues such as gay rights, gay marriage, etc. You may want to review the recent posts in the PlayPen to get some ideas...
5. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 10:35 AM PT
neener neener neener
don't be such a piggy, Irv.
6. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 10:36 AM PT
I thought last week's Book Club discussion between Urvashi Vaid and that guy from the Weekly Standard was pretty good. He wasn't too bad, for a Republican. But he still doesn't get it.
7. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 10:38 AM PT
elliot
"Do you wish to deny the adulterer or pot smoker the right to marry and the other basic civic rights that Charen wishes to deny gay people? If so, no, I don't think you could be called their friend."
Worse, especially for the pot smoker. I support laws that are much more consequential to them than the fact that you can't bound down the aisle - laws that contemplate imprisonment.
That said, I have some very close stoner friends.
"But neither comparison is apt. Adultery and pot-smoking are both widely held to be wrong because they victimize others, and thus justify some kind of sanction. If you wish to argue that deserve equivalent sanction because they victimize others, go right ahead. If not, it's apples and oranges."
They are perfectly apt, especially in light of the fact that "widely held" opinions are the arbiter. Reliance on popular support doesn't do much for your cause, in that "widely held" opinions believe that gay marriage is a no go.
8. TabouliJones - July 9, 1999 - 10:38 AM PT
This article may or may not provoke some discussion.
9. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 10:38 AM PT
Agreed, but neither does Urv.
10. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 10:38 AM PT
You are steamed, as well you should be, that the body politic treats you like a second-class citizen. In your fury, you demand a rigid code - "One cannot be friends with gays and support laws that deny them their rights." You want to be Jew, an Indian, a person 40 or over. But, given the present melding of law and religion (and various interpretations thereof), as well as the ambivalent mind of the nation in terms of homosexuality, you have not been afforded that status. So, again, rather naturally, you label all a bigot who refuse you that status in any manner.
Does collossus have "true" gay friends if he does not support gay marriage?
Do I have "true" stoner friends even though I support criminalization of pot smoking?
Do I have "true" friends 40 and over, even though I think the ADEA is a studpid law?
That you could make these determinations - of Charen or Rask or me or anyone else - given your vantage point is a testament to your strong feelings.
11. bloodnfire - July 9, 1999 - 10:39 AM PT
So have I, Diva. :-) From The Book....."Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults -- unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging'. (Matthew 7:1, the familiar 'Judge Not' passage, in 'The Message', a contemporary transliteration of the Scriptures by Eugene H. Peterson).
God bless all our gay friends, defend us all from our judgemental friends, and bring us all home to Him safely at the end, on His terms.
12. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
Post 10 was to elliot.
Unless Ronski is steamed as well.
13. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 10:41 AM PT
No. Fried.
14. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
(# 9 to # 6.)
15. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 10:44 AM PT
109109:
"Worse, especially for the pot smoker. I support laws that are much more consequential to them than the fact that you can't bound down the aisle - laws that contemplate imprisonment."
Even prisoners are allowed to marry. Do you support denying adulterers and potsmokers the right to marry?
"They are perfectly apt, especially in light of the fact that "widely held" opinions are the arbiter."
Why? Explain to me why being gay is more like being a pot smoker than it is like being a Jew or being black.
16. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
elliot
On prisoners and potsmokers, I support disallowance of their marriage.
As for your question, I'd be happy to answer it, but, since you have not answered any of mine, I'll hold off.
17. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 10:53 AM PT
109109:
"You are steamed, as well you should be, that the body politic treats you like a second-class citizen."
Yes.
"In your fury, you demand a rigid code - "One cannot be friends with gays and support laws that deny them their rights.""
No, I'm saying that someone who treats gay people and their relationships with the contempt that Mona Charen does is a hypocrite to claim that she has "treasured" gay "friends."
"You want to be Jew, an Indian, a person 40 or over. But, given the present melding of law and religion (and various interpretations thereof), as well as the ambivalent mind of the nation in terms of homosexuality, you have not been afforded that status. So, again, rather naturally, you label all a bigot who refuse you that status in any manner."
No, I don't want to be a Jew or an Indian or a person over 40 (shudder), and I don't know what "status" you mean. You're rambling again. What I want is social and legal equality.
"Does collossus have "true" gay friends if he does not support gay marriage?"
I don't know him, but I would imagine so.
"Do I have "true" stoner friends even though I support criminalization of pot smoking?"
I don't know. Homosexuality is not pot smoking. Could you reasonably claim to have true Jewish friends or true black friends if you advocated denying them the right to marry and discriminating against them in other basic social and legal ways? I don't see how.
18. bloodnfire - July 9, 1999 - 10:54 AM PT
TabouliJones. Thank you for your link. I particularly appreciated Gerald Hannon's closing comment quoting from Rick Bebout... "It is enough to call it life: all our interactions of mutual affection, desire and will. It's such a wonder to simply be liked by another person, to like in return, to relish each other's presence. I think that's erotic, and that such eroticism should be spread around."
19. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 10:58 AM PT
109109:
"elliot: On prisoners and potsmokers, I support disallowance of their marriage."
On what grounds? Will you allow prisoners to marry when they are released, or is the ban binding for life, as it is with gay people? And what would happen to prisoners who are already married when they go into the Big House? Forced divorce? Is a pot smoker's marriage to be dissolved for life on a first and only offense?
Does anyone agree with 109109 on this?
20. bloodnfire - July 9, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
I realize that some other 'Thumpers' might misinterpret my appreciation of that passage. It *is* a wonder 'to simply be liked by another person, to like in return, to relish each other's presence'.
It's very *convenient* for a 'Thumper' like myself to have never had nor felt a need for a homosexual relationship. However, because of my respectful, and tender interest for Elliot, Harper, Cllrdr and other 'Fraygrant' friends, I hope that I and others like me might be as welcome in this thread as in, for example, a Gay Bar. Not present to condemn or seek to change 'orientation', but to encourage and support as each of us tries to handle 'liking and being liked and relishing the presence' of other human beings as best we know how.
21. TabouliJones - July 9, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
Bloodnfire,
Re. Message #18
Hannon makes a compelling argument. I like the passage you quote, as well as the following: "So. Let us form the relationships we will. And let us honour them. But let us honour all of them."
Of, course, I was also moved by the following passage (and fully supprt Hannon's chosen lifestyle):
"Every few months, in my capacity as prostitute, I butt-fuck the bejeezus out of a short, fat, 74-year-old Italian grandfather whose rapture at pleasures so long denied prompts in me a reciprocal, delicate tenderness (without ever making me forget to ask for the money)."
So, I suspect we regard Hannon's article through different lenses.
22. TabouliJones - July 9, 1999 - 11:11 AM PT
Bloodnfire,
Sorry if my message 21 seems snarky. I posted it before reading your message 20.
23. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
elliot
I was joking on potsmokers. Not on prisoners.
Thank for answering my questions. Now to yours. The difference - for those who see one - is that race and gender and ethnicity are immutable. Homsexuality may be as well, the body politic is conflicted on this point.
Take that element, and then add a prevalent streak of religious ambivalence about homosexuality and sin.
I'd like to say that I'm completely above such concerns, but, my pragmatic side holds me back from supporting all gay rights initiatives. While I support inclusion of homosexuals in civil rights laws and repeal of sodomy laws, I defer to the military and concerns of unit cohesion with regards to homosexuals in the military. Moreover, with marriage, I believe the institution has become sufficienty Christianized that there is no need to have the battle. Hence, I support creation of a new legal right of same-sex marriage that is codified in law as separate and distinct from the present law, with all the same rights.
To the extent such concerns are deemed bigotry, I'll take the weight.
Are there any other gay rights issues I've missed?
24. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
And since this is a new thread, I'd ask two things. Of elliot, what are the gay issues (other than the 4 I've noted - marriage, coverage under civil rights laws, military, and sodomy)?
To others, where are you on these issues and why?
It does seem fair to delineate the issues and for people to commit themselves publicly.
25. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
Right of gays to adopt seems to be one as well. And someone posted a link to story a few weeks ago about a lesbian break up and the subsequent custody fight over the baby they had jointly raised, but which only one (of course) had given birth to, effectively shutting out the second mommy. But I suspect that one is a subset of gay marriage.
26. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
109109:
"Thank for answering my questions. Now to yours. The difference - for those who see one - is that race and gender and ethnicity are immutable. Homsexuality may be as well, the body politic is conflicted on this point."
Well, the "body politic" may be--although I really don't think there are many people left who seriously claim that homosexuality is a matter of choice--but virtually no reputable authority would make that claim. Do *you* believe it's a matter of choice? If not, how can you say homosexuality is more like pot-smoking than like race or gender or ethnicity?
"While I support inclusion of homosexuals in civil rights laws and repeal of sodomy laws, I defer to the military and concerns of unit cohesion with regards to homosexuals in the military."
Why should we just blindly accept the unsubstantiated claims of military leaders who are at least as vulnerable to social prejudices against homosexuals as the population in general? If military leaders announced they had decided that blacks should be segregated, or denied the right to serve entirely, in the interests of "unit cohesion" would you also just blindly "defer" on that, too, or would you treat their claims with skepticism and require substantiation before accepting them? Why do gay people not deserve the same consideration?
27. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
Rask,
That was me who posted that link. And I agree that gay divorce is a subset of gay marriage.
Niner:
Gays in the military: For. The unit will just have to cohere. It'll be tough, but too bad. I think women in the military--without equal standards--is much more problematic than gays, quite frankly.
Gay marriage: For. I don't think of marriage as Christianized and, in fact, many Christian churches provide gay "marriage" ceremonies anyway. But provided that the same rights are given to the couple, I don't really care how it's handled.
Gay adoption: For.
Civil rights: For, obviously.
28. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
109109:
"Moreover, with marriage, I believe the institution has become sufficienty Christianized that there is no need to have the battle. Hence, I support creation of a new legal right of same-sex marriage that is codified in law as separate and distinct from the present law, with all the same rights."
Incomprehensible. Why must same-sex marriage be separate and distinct from heterosexual marriage? The institution of secular, civic marriage has not "become Christianized," it is entirely separate from religious ceremonies. And many Christian churches, and non-Christian churches, conduct religious same-sex wedding ceremonies, anyway.
29. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
Heavens, Elliot and I crossposted.
30. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
Gays in the military: For.
Civil rights: For
Marriage: don't care as long as the legal and economic protections are equalized (but then, I'm not gay, or lesbian, so perhaps my don't care is irrelevant).
Adoptions: For.
31. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
sodomy laws: axe them with extreme prejudice
gay marriage: marriage is a legal contract, with many social benefits. There is no reason to prohibit gays from having the same legal rights in their relationships.
civil rights laws: extend them.
gays in the military: not sure why they would want to walk into a lion's den of homophobia, but if they really want to, the prejudice of the military is insufficient reason to deny them. The "unit cohesion" arguments were used against racially integrating the armed forces, and it was bogus then as well.
gay adoption: Not in favor of banning gays from adopting, but if adoption preferences are codified, I think that all else being equal, I would prefer that a kid went into a straight family.
32. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
For on all four counts.
33. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
elliot
"Do *you* believe it's a matter of choice? If not, how can you say homosexuality is more like pot-smoking than like race or gender or ethnicity?"
As a rule, no. As for your pot-smoking/protected status question, for purposes of the prior discussion (can you have true friendships with people with whom you have political differences and/or moral qualms), pot smokers and gay folk are supremelt analogous.
"Why should we just blindly accept the unsubstantiated claims of military leaders who are at least as vulnerable to social prejudices against homosexuals as the population in general? If military leaders announced they had decided that blacks should be segregated, or denied the right to serve entirely, in the interests of "unit cohesion" would you also just blindly "defer" on that, too, or would you treat their claims with skepticism and require substantiation before accepting them? Why do gay people not deserve the same consideration?"
Because, in matters of war and peace, I'm more inclined to rely upon the estimation of Colin Powell or David Hackworth, who have seen battle and know about unit cohesion, than you or I, who once had a really strong latte' and got very nervous during "Saving Private Ryan."
34. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
ooops, forgot the sodomy laws...strike 'em from the books.
35. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
supremelt=supremely
36. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
I kind of like sodomy laws. I like violating statutes.
37. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
scofflaw.
38. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
elliot
"Why must same-sex marriage be separate and distinct from heterosexual marriage?"
See above.
"The institution of secular, civic marriage has not "become Christianized," it is entirely separate from religious ceremonies."
I am talking about the majority view of the contract. To you, it has no Christian implications. To others, they are inextricably intertwined.
39. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Aren't sodomy laws covered under saying you're for civil rights? If not, sure, go ahead and strike them. I don't need a prison record just because I might get stuck with a nosy neighbor.
40. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
They just strike me as odd. It's absurd to think of.....the cops bursting in my bedroom and carting me away for the way in which I choose to make love to my husband. I don't see that it should be any different for any two consenting adults anywhere, straight or gay.
41. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
"Because, in matters of war and peace, I'm more inclined to rely upon the estimation of Colin Powell or David Hackworth, who have seen battle and know about unit cohesion, than you or I, who once had a really strong latte' and got very nervous during "Saving Private Ryan.""
Had Truman followed this chicken shit advice, the armed services might still be segregated.
42. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
Don't hold back, Ms, tell us what you really think.
43. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
Cal: Sodomy laws cover acts that both gays and straights engage in, so I don't think that you could use the hypothetical coverage of gays under civil rights laws to strike them down. I don't even think you could use unequal enforcement as an argument, since my understanding (at least in Minnesota) is that sodomy laws are primarily used against female prostitutes and their clients.
44. Amaxen - July 9, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT
I am less than convinced that the argument against Gay marriage has moralism at its core: It could just be societal.
For example: Currently, it is federal policy to redistribute income from renters to homeowners thru the morgage deduction. Why? Are homeowners inherently moral and renters immoral? I don't think that was the original reason behind giving homeowners that particular benefit. Rather, I believe homeowners are given a benefit because it was, rightly or wrongly (in my view wrongly) seen that it somehow benefited society to encourage homeownership. It seems to me that marriage laws may have somethiing of the same kind of rationale behind them: give benefits to those who concieve and raise children, and penalize those who do not. The point is, legal marriage benefits may be just that: Arbitrarily assigned because some number of people believe it would encourage social goals - in this case the encouragement to couple and have and raise children.
45. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT
Diva
That argument is so weak it doesn't even merit consideration.
We pay people to serve in the armed forces. We educate them, house them, give them low cost housing, health benefits, and even discounted goods. They can't handle standing side to side with gay men or lesbian women then they need to get their asses out of the US armed services.
46. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
Rask,
I wasn't trying to argue anything; just explaining why I thought my original answer had covered getting rid of them, too. Your reasoning makes sense, though.
47. harper - July 9, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
Let me throw in my two cents worth here.
Marriage is a legal contract. A *wedding* can be a religious ceremony or two people can jump a broom or get hitched in front of a Justice of the Peace. I think any laws that bar two people from making a legal contract are just plain wrong. I have attended a lesbian wedding. it was lovely. I have many gay friends, including one couple who have been together for some 15 years. I couldn't even imagine them apart. Not being able to marry doesn't seem to bother them, but it does bother some of my friends.
Adopting: With so many unwanted children around, it is a blessing when some one wants to adopt one. I don't care who that some one is.
Gays in the miltary: They should have the right & privilege to serve their country like everyone else. "Morale" is a bogus argument -- just some rednecked bigot's way of saying he doesn't want to deal with the issue. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect that one of those good ol' boys wouldn't object to being rescued by a homosexual if it came down to that. The Spartans used to encourage relationships between soldiers because they felt that if a soldier had a relationship with another soldier, he would be more incline to fight to save that soldier's life. The Spartans were some of the most feared fighting men in the ancient world.
It fries my shorts to see ignorance & bigotry masquerading as moral rectitude.
I'm off the soapbox now. That felt SO good.
48. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT
Amaxen: doesn't fly. If that were the case, the state would be better off just subsidizing the conception and raising of children, through things like deductions for dependents and education, like they currently do.
I think marriage is generally seen as an advantage in and of itself.
However, a comparative treatise on the reasons for the creation of marriage in thousands of different cultures would be interesting.
49. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
THERE IS ONE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ONE ISSUE ONLY -- ARTHUR FUCKING FINKELSTEIN.
WHY DOES HE HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS, AND I CAN'T GET ORDINARY EVERYDAY ONES?
50. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
109109:
"See above."
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You said, to paraphrase, "Hence, same-sex marriage must be separate and distinct," but I don't understand how that conclusion follows from your preceding premise. Perhaps you could try to explain it more fully.
"I am talking about the majority view of the contract. To you, it has no Christian implications. To others, they are inextricably intertwined."
So what? Jews are allowed to marry. Muslims are allowed to marry. Atheists are allowed to marry. Christianity is not a part of these marriages. But Christianity *is* a part of many gay religious marriages. So why must same-sex marriage be "separate and distinct" under law from all other marriages? Or are you advocating "separate but equal" categories of marriage law for all marriages that are not "inextricably intertwined' with Christianity?
51. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
who the fuck is Arthur Fucking Kinkelstein?
52. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
The Capo di Tutti Capi of Republican operatives. The man behind Jesse Helms, Tret Lott, et. al. He's gay (and "out" for the fastidious) and he and his lover have been allowed to legally adopt children. Yet this human slime has worked tirelessly to make my life, and that of other same-sex oriented individuals, as much of a living hell as he can. Jesse Helms has, needless to say, been silent about the "private life" of his number one water-carrier. As have other Republican biggies who have profited from his "counsel."
I cna hear it from the usual suspects in here already: 'Well I'm not really familiar with him."
LIARS !
LIARS !
LIARS !
LIARS !
LIARS !
LIARS !
LIARS !
FUCKING HYPOCRTICAL LIARS !
53. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
109109:
"As for your pot-smoking/protected status question, for purposes of the prior discussion (can you have true friendships with people with whom you have political differences and/or moral qualms), pot smokers and gay folk are supremelt analogous."
So you keep saying, but you seem incapable of providing a reason why gay people are more akin to pot smokers in that context than they are to religious minorities or racial minorities. If a Christian advocates denying Jews the rights to marry, to adopt children, to serve in the military, and so on, citing "religious morality" or anything else as a justification, do you really think that Christian could reasonably be said to be a friend to Jews?
"Because, in matters of war and peace, I'm more inclined to rely upon the estimation of Colin Powell or David Hackworth, who have seen battle and know about unit cohesion, than you or I,"
I'm not suggesting the issue be decided on the basis of my word or your word; I'm suggesting it be decided on the basis of reason and evidence and our principles of justice and equality. The government should not be able to deny some citizens rights or opportunities enjoyed by others without cause. The unsupported opinion of Colin Powell or Hackworth is not cause. If Powell decided towmorrow that Muslims should be excluded from the military because he thought they damaged unit cohesion, would you just blindly go along with that, too?
54. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
A Roy Cohn for the 90s, eh?
55. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Amaxen,
All the procreative arguments fail since we permit marriage to people who are beyond the age of conceiving children.
56. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
MsIt
"Had Truman followed this chicken shit advice, the armed services might still be segregated."
This truism is bland, too readily accepted and borderline infantile. Given that you are lumped in with me and elliot with regard to military expertise, it can be forgiven.
Simple question:
During wartime, your military leaders tell you that the make-up of your fighting force is ass-backward and they won't fight with blacks, and they certainly won't follow the orders of black officers.
What do you do?
The answer is you discriminate like a mutherfucker to enhance your ability to keep men alive and kill the enemy. When you think the discrimination is no longer necessary, or it becomes a diminishing return (i.e., your loss of black talent outweighs the benefits of keeping a bigoted fighting force happy), you move.
Clinton accepts the basic premise of unit cohesion. Hence, he has deemed it the law that you can be gay in the military, but because of it disruptive nature, you need to shut up about it.
57. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT
Niner,
I am more inclined to rely upon the leaders of small units who have had gay men under their command and not had the slightest problem with it than on career military brass and ex-brass who are politicians, first and foremost, which is why they got as far as they did.
58. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Rask,
A Cohn, yes, but one whose star has dimmed, having lost the NY and NC Senate races last time out.
59. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
And let's not forget B1 Bob Dornan's congressional staffer, who came out as gay after helping his boss trash gay people for year after year.
"Get away from me, fag!" --Mrs Dornan, confronting a gay protestor at a rally for her husband.
60. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 12:32 PM PT
Commercial
Don't forget to vote, people!
61. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 12:32 PM PT
Niner: If we were in a war, I would probably be unwilling to take the opportunity to integrate the armed forces. Why throw a morale wild card into an already dangerous situation, unless you have serious manpower problems.
But we aren't in a war. Clinton caved on the issue because he had a lot less power to do it than he (and the press) initially thought he did, and he didn't deem it worth the political capital, given the opposition.
62. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:32 PM PT
Cellar,
Just how kinky is Arthur, anyway?
63. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
"This truism is bland, too readily accepted and borderline infantile."
Only because it blows your rationale out of the water do you come back with this banal comment.
"Given that you are lumped in with me and elliot with regard to military expertise, it can be forgiven."
Thanks. I feel, well, blessed, as if by a priest or something.
Regarding yet another of your endlessly irrelevant hypotheticals:
1) This isn't wartime.
2) There is plenty of time to institute the full integration of gays into the military without compromising their ability to effectively operate.
3) At what point would it have been acceptable to racially integrate the armed services under your scenario had Truman not made it an executive order?
64. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
Rask,
Except that during war, when you would expect gays to be thrown out in record numbers, they are not.
They are thrown out in larger numbers during *peacetime,* which shows the hypocrisy of the military brass's position on this.
65. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
elliot
"So what? Jews are allowed to marry. Muslims are allowed to marry. Atheists are allowed to marry. Christianity is not a part of these marriages. But Christianity *is* a part of many gay religious marriages. So why must same-sex marriage be "separate and distinct" under law from all other marriages? Or are you advocating "separate but equal" categories of marriage law for all marriages that are not "inextricably intertwined' with Christianity?'
Do you want gay marriage? Or do you merely want it on your own terms?
You can howl at the wind as long as it makes you feel good, but the stubborn view is that the civil rite of marriage is for heterosexuals, that homosexual marriage would be a different animal, and these stubborn streaks have a strong root in Christianity and basic culture.
Can I justify it? No. But you need not worry about me. And given that I want you to have the rights and privileges of a married couple (though have fun with alimony, palimony and property redistribution), I think the best route is by creating a new rite, one least inclined to engender crushing opposition.
But maybe crushing opposition is your gig.
66. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
109109:
"This truism is bland, too readily accepted and borderline infantile."
I don't see why. The military leaders of the time opposed integration of the armed forces, citing exactly the same phony concerns about privacy and unit cohesion that today's leaders recite to justify the continued exclusion of homosexuals. Why shouldn't these claims be subjected to the strongest skepticism and scrutiny?
"During wartime, your military leaders tell you that the make-up of your fighting force is ass-backward and they won't fight with blacks, and they certainly won't follow the orders of black officers. What do you do?"
In a crunch, when you have no better information to go on than the word of the military leaders, and no time to investigate their claims or recommendations, you should probably defer. We're not in that situation.
67. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 12:43 PM PT
Ronski
"I am more inclined to rely upon the leaders of small units who have had gay men under their command and not had the slightest problem with it than on career military brass and ex-brass who are politicians, first and foremost, which is why they got as far as they did."
The reviews are mixed. Obviously, it is more complicated than the brass is bigoted and the front-line unit leaders cannot understand the fuss. Hackworth, having been the most decorated unit commander in history, attests to this fact.
Raslk
Clinton caved because he accepted the fact that gays were disruptive to unit cohesion, a fact delineated to him by his chosen military brass. I'll never understand why every decision of his that has consequences is sloughed off to his being put into a tough political corner.
MsIt
It isn't wartime? Count how many times we have mobilized forces, forces trained, since WWII. Times change. We don't have world wars anymore.
68. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
"Just how kinky is Arthur, anyway?"
He just tried (and happily failed) to get Bibi Netenyahu re-elected. *It doesn't get any kinkier.*
BTW, one of Powell's daughters is a lesbian. Nuff' said re his Presidential disinclinations.
69. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
109109:
"Do you want gay marriage? Or do you merely want it on your own terms?"
I want gay marriage. I don't know what "on my own terms" is supposed to mean. I will not accept a phony "separate but equal" deal. It was a charade to hide second-class status when applied to black people, and it would be a charade if applied to gay people.
What is your problem with just changing existing marriage laws to allow both partners to be of the same sex? What are you so afraid of? The end of civilization as we know it?
"You can howl at the wind as long as it makes you feel good, but the stubborn view is that the civil rite of marriage is for heterosexuals, that homosexual marriage would be a different animal, and these stubborn streaks have a strong root in Christianity and basic culture."
So what? Those streaks are *bad* streaks, so we must fight to eliminate them, just as previous generations fought against the racist streaks that prevented interracial couples from marrying for so long.
70. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Incidentally, once you strip the religious aspects away from marriage you have--the contract that the government calls marriage.
71. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
elliot
"I'm suggesting it be decided on the basis of reason and evidence and our principles of justice and equality."
The evidence was presented to the President. He deemed a policy that bars homosexuals from revealing their orientation in the military a reasonable one, based upon the evidence. Your suggestion that three very angry homophobes made up the decision on a frat joke is childish.
Oh, whoops. You mean reason your deem reasonable, and evidence you deem persuasive, from your civilian vantage point.
72. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
109
You're working hard to prop this argument up. I admire the effort.
1) We may be involved in skirmishes all over the world, but we fight a technological war these days, no soldiers hunkered down for days in a bunker, dirt on their faces, telling momma stories to one another (and driven to the edge with potential lust in their hearts).
2) We pay and train our servicemen and women well beyond what was the norm decades ago, this isn't a sacrifice anymore, it's a volunteer army (navy, air force) and we can pick who we want these days. Given that we can recruit a higher quality of soldier, we can also expect higher standards of behavior and conduct from them.
3) I see no barriers to integration of gays into the military in the present environment other than just plain ole discrimination by the top brass.
73. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Actually, Clinton caved on gays in the military because he underestimated the resistance and the political furor. He was a new president, and stupid with it.
74. colossus - July 9, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
Oh Jesus an issue thread where Cllrdr can finally seduce Elliot!
I have lived for 20+ years in the Gay Mecca. Yesterday on an SF Muni Bus I noticed an ad for a straight newspaper, The Guardian:
"Homosexuals Rule!"
It recalled a comment by a straight comic friend of mine "I can't wait until its no longer cool to be gay"
We have Will & Grace. We have huge sympathy for AIDS. In California, we have full rights (save "marriage")
The only issue left, outside the GOP where Fags do indeed "rule", is the bogus issue of gay marriage.
IMHO the only Gay issue worth talking about is
When will Paco (aka 109109) come out of the closet and give us true joy and pleasure?
75. harper - July 9, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
Let's see, I forgot about sodomy laws.
According to definition, anyone who's ever had a blow job has committed sodomy. There was a wonderful discussion many years ago on gays in the militray. I think Ted Koppel was the moderator (or interviewer) and various military types were spouting the Code of Military Justice or whatever it's called, concerning sodomy. Koppel reminded the guy (who was a colonel or general) just *what* constituted sodomy according to the Code. Shut him right up. How many thousands of people would we have to toss out of the military if we used *their* definition of sodomy and stuck to it strictly.
I firmly believe that what you do in the privacy of your own home, and who (or what) you do it with, is nobody's business but yours. As long as you don't do it in the street & frighten the horses, who cares?
76. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 12:54 PM PT
elliot
"I want gay marriage. I don't know what "on my own terms" is supposed to mean. I will not accept a phony "separate but equal" deal. It was a charade to hide second-class status when applied to black people, and it would be a charade if applied to gay people."
Why not? You accepted a phony deal on gays in the military. Don't ask, don't tell is Clinton's charade.
Regardless, if you are given every single contractual right, and the law is one chapter after the Marriage Law (which defines marriage as man and woman) and the new law is entitled Same Sex Marriage Law, and distributes the same rights you so covet, what's the problem? It has none of the baggage of separate but equal. No back of the bus. No lesser education funds. Just a different statute number in a book.
I think you just like the fight.
"What is your problem with just changing existing marriage laws to allow both partners to be of the same sex? What are you so afraid of? The end of civilization as we know it?"
I've said it a billion times. Enough that I won't repeat it. Go back and read.
77. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
109109:
". Obviously, it is more complicated than the brass is bigoted and the front-line unit leaders cannot understand the fuss."
Yes, it's more complicated than that, but that's the essence of it.
"It isn't wartime? Count how many times we have mobilized forces, forces trained, since WWII. Times change. We don't have world wars anymore."
The point is that we're not in the kind of wartime crunch where we have no real choice but to go with whatever the military brass recommends. Are you aware of the conclusions reached by independent studies of the effects of eliminating the ban on gays in the military? Both recommended that the ban be lifted. That was more than five years ago, and acceptance of gay people has certainly increased even more during that time.
78. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
Niner,
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the reviews are at least mixed. My experience in talking to people who've served is that if they were personally biased themselves, they saw a problem, but those who had no bias against gay people, saw none. It is complicated, of course.
If we had no experience other than our own to rely upon, more caution might be wise, but we can look at Europe's experience, too. And gays have served openly there without incident.
I suppose we'll see some Dutch-bashing now in this thread, as we saw in Congress from several yahoo senators and house members.
79. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
MsIt
"I see no barriers to integration of gays into the military in the present environment other than just plain ole discrimination by the top brass."
Well, I always did figure Clinton hated the homosexuals.
80. colossus - July 9, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
Once we get Paco out of the closet, we'll have no more idiotic statements like this:
"Clinton caved because he accepted the fact that gays were disruptive to unit cohesion"
The only reason Clinton caved was because he realized he was an idiot for raising health insurance and gays in the military (Marines get fucked daily + we've been there since Alexander the Great) instead of welfare reform and budgetary responsibility.
81. ACEofSPADES - July 9, 1999 - 12:57 PM PT
One thing I dislike about many Republicans is their insistance on a "flat tax." While I dislike Liberals for wishing to tax the rich to deah, I cannot abide by schemes to remove all (or almost all) progressivity from our tax codes.
82. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
"I firmly believe that what you do in the privacy of your own home, and who (or what) you do it with, is nobody's business but yours. As long as you don't do it in the street & frighten the horses, who cares?"
You areliving in a dream world my child. Where have you been for the past two years? Sex is *everybody's business* and *everybody cares*
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
83. ACEofSPADES - July 9, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
Ronski:
I want your vote.
84. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
Niner,
As for Clinton's decision on the evidence presented, you are not really suggesting the philanderer-in-chief was momentarily immune from politics, are you?
85. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
109109:
"The evidence was presented to the President. He deemed a policy that bars homosexuals from revealing their orientation in the military a reasonable one, based upon the evidence."
Clinton was most certainly not presented with "evidence," and his decision was political. If it had been entirely up to him, there would no kind of ban at all. I know you'd like to steer this conversation into another excuse to bash Clinton, but try to stay on topic.
"Your suggestion that three very angry homophobes made up the decision on a frat joke is childish."
I didn't say that.
86. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Ace,
But I already get all the sex I need.
87. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
109
You won't catch me defending that namby pamby action of Clinton's on this issue. He should have just made it an order and told the joint chiefs either do it or get the hell out.
There is no other way this will happen, and, IMO, Clinton displayed an appalling lack of leadership on this issue.
88. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
(Lest anyone forget how this high-minded campaign began.) (g)
89. ACEofSPADES - July 9, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
Ronksi:
Yes, but do you get "all the sex you need" from a squad of Elite Gay Secret Service Muscle Boys who will oil you down and bring you unspeakable pleasures?
ACE OF SPADES
You know where your bread is buttered.
90. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
Hmmmm. Let me think long and hard on that one.
91. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN? OR ARE YOU ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS?
92. ACEofSPADES - July 9, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
To Benear, Colossus, Ronski:
Over in the Fray 2000 thread, I have announced that I'm filling cabinet spots. And yes, godless perverted homosexuals are welcome, assuming their politics are quasi-conservative (like Ronski's, though he'll never admit it) or if they at least have a semblance of a sense of humor (like Benear and Colossus).
First State Dinner's special guest: Rupert Everett. And we've only got six seats left at his table... and they're going fast.
VOTE FOR ACE
He can pander with the worst of them.
93. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
109109:
"Why not? You accepted a phony deal on gays in the military."
I don't accept it. It's a bad policy and it should be changed. And your "separate but equal" charade on gay marriage would be even more phony.
"Regardless, if you are given every single contractual right, and the law is one chapter after the Marriage Law (which defines marriage as man and woman) and the new law is entitled Same Sex Marriage Law, and distributes the same rights you so covet, what's the problem?"
I just told you. "Separate but equal" in not equality, it's a charade to try and disguise second-class status.
"I've said it a billion times. Enough that I won't repeat it. Go back and read."
I don't see that you've addressed it a single time. You mumbled something about Christianity, I responded to your mumblings and asked you to clarify your argument about why we cannot simply change existing marriage laws to include same-sex couples. You can't come up with a good reason, so you just keep evading the question.
94. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
95. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!COWARDS!
96. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
elliot
I haven't evaded any question. I've answered it several times, and see no need to answer it again becasue of your failures of comprehension.
Ronski
Twenty, maybe twenty five years on open homosexuality in the military. The military culture is insulated and hard to crack and the culture in general has a way to go on the issue.
97. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Isn't Finkelstein a pollster?
98. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
"I haven't evaded any question."
LIAR! YOU'VE EVADED MINE!
99. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
He's more than a pollster. He designs and executes campaigns. TO THE VERY LAST DETAIL.
Roy Cohn was small change by comparasion.
100. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
WHY DOES HE HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS, AND I CAN'T GET ORDINARY EVERYDAY ONES?
This one?
Who is he?
Is he the pollster?
And did you see my question to you in Movies on Gregory Dunne?