I must admit to being curious what 'special rights' homosexuals have, could you possibly enumerate them?

The right to have sex with other people and it not constitute adultery. There is a link somewhere on this forum about the wife of a man cheating on him with another lady and the court did not consider it adultery. Give me sometime and I'll find it. Then their is gay marriage which I know we will disagree about as we have done before.

How is that a special right? Your example makes no sense. The example you are alluding to does not demonstrate special rights because the decision was not reached on the basis of the 'adulterers' sexual orientation.

No, I wasn't suggesting they try to sneak anything past anybody. I'm suggesting they be content with what they've already won and not push for more until the public comfort level is ready to handle more. It is patience I'm counseling, not sneakiness.

Perhaps moving more slowly would help the public adjust better, but it's already taken decades to ease the stigma of homosexuality to the point where homosexuals can even ask for such rights. Everyone else is moving vastly too slow.


It may seem a bit melodramatic to apply this quote to gay rights movement when considering the current position of homosexuals as compared to that of ethnic minorities in 1963. Still, I think the gist is valid.

If the movement is too fast for some people, what's the underlying cause? Why are people uncomfortable? I'm pretty sure it's not overcoming a cornucopia of rational, unprejudiced arguments that have only become invalid in the past four years. It's the same reasons that have taken so long to get to this point in the first place. "Hate" is not the right word, but otherwise, I see no difference in the first and second poll options. Of course the movement will seem too fast to those who are prejudiced against it.

If the gay rights movement takes a rest before they achieve their goals, they'll only be giving the impression that equality has been reached. Even at this point people are claiming that GLBTs are more than equal, that they have special privileges; and not just in this forum, and not just recently. When the movement renews its agenda, it will have to start again at breaking these perceptions. They should redouble their efforts now while they have the momentum.

Here goes a great exaample: NYTimes


It doesn't award heterosexual couples the same rights unless they are over 62, or two straight people of the same sex that are living together.

You are comparing people who don't want to marry with those who are not allowed to marry. That is a big difference.
Let's look at some rights that are still denied to homosexuals in New Jersey:

I am getting pretty damn sick of being given the crumbs of what straight society gets and having people like you call it 'special rights'.

Izdaari, I really wish I could remember the black author that said something to the effect of ' weve been told that we have to be patient for change, yet we have waited and waited for a century and waiting is no longer logically an option. '

Content, you said. Content with being less than? Really? Are you content with being less than in your life?..let me elaborate, less than human, less than viable, less than equal? Less than able to raise a child, less than able to inherit, less than able to have mutual health insurance? Content with being less than is a concession in your mind because the concessions given are 'good enough' for now? What exaclty has been achieved?

'I personally' as a female, born with the insanely bizarre idea that women should have equal rights in the late 60's was told, even by my friends,( infuriating!) that things do not change overnight (?) and I should wait to turn the tide of public acceptance. Ludicrous. I fought for equal rights, now its almost a given, yet young women say, oh Im not interested, in those things...Lucky ,they have that luxury. Women had been on the cause for equal rights for 200 years or more before my time in the 1970's, actually from the wives of the forefathers, but they/we were told..patience! ? Wait....Its always a patience that never comes, until you make it happen.
How much 'time' do you consider a waiting period before one is good enough? Who is less than, not good enough.? Was your personal emancipation as a woman, the life YOU ( anyone) take for granted a waiting issue, or do you think you were born to it? Because in my life Izdaari, it was a waiting and a fighting issue, and there was no public acceptance, but there is now. Some of us fought hard for that, we didnt have it. If you have equal pay and a right to vote and a right to any kind of reasonable life the way you see it today as a female, it was on the backs of those who fought for it before you, dont kid yourself that it was a given. Waiting, and caution, until the public is 'ready' is not an option. The public is Never ready, until pushed by the tide.

Its all too obvious the time has come for the States to adress this issue front and center, no patience or caution in the works, its gone too far, comfort levels are going to be adressed and reconsidered, for all citizens, as understood by the Constitution of the United States, in that all people are created equal in this nation, hopefully, however...
Not to be undermined by certain groups of individuals who would have the Federal Government sanction marriage and morality by religion or otherwise, not even reasonably part or parcel of the Federal Governments tasks or responsability, and certainly not by edict or Ammedment by the Executive Branch, an issue which is completely and totally out of its jurisdiction, besides violatating separation of church and state.

Artemise, you brought up some good points.

When I was in junior high school ('round about the time that the wheel was invented, my 44-year-old "little" brother likes to say ), girls played half-court basketball, which meant we had to pass the ball after we took three steps. It was so pointless to me when I saw boys' basketball games where they ran the full court and had two baskets to use. How could girls play such a constricting game in comparison?

As long as religious leaders repeat that God hates homosexuality (notice I didn't say homosexuals), there will be organized opposition to granting full rights to gay couples.

I personally do not know if homosexuality is immoral; if it is true that it is a matter of genetic predisposition, then I really don't think it can be construed as wrong. So I am not against gay marriages, nor can I be resoundingly for them. It is a matter for the couple, and not for the government.

But I can certainly understand the disparity and the frustration that gays must feel because of it, somewhat like being restricted to playing half-court basketball because of not being male (I am so thankful that changed for women--it was ridiculous!). And in any case, whether the majority of the country feels that marital rights are not for gays, their legal rights should be accorded them regardless of sexual orientation.

Whether or not the rest of the country likes it, gays do have every right to press for equality. This should not have been an issue with this government, but it is, especially with this particular President in office. A particular sexual orientation in marriage was not even countenanced by the Founders to be mandated by the government, and Americans need to face up to this.

As far as individual prejudice against gays goes, it is likely to disappear about as soon as snickering at fat people disappears. There will always be jerks.

The fact that gay marriage and equality is still a debate in this country is evidence of our moral bankruptcy. Gays deserve just as many rights as anyone else.

Gays have been waiting a longtime. I would think the rational thing, if they are Democrats, would be to wait 8.5 more months. With Nader in the race and claiming that he supports gay marriage John Kerry is now in a position where he loses votes on this issue both from social conservatives who may support Democratic economic policiesand liberals who find Kerry's, most probably purely political, opposition to gay marriage troubling. I think this issue is coming to a head a few months too soon for the Democratic party, who I believe normally get the majority of gay votes.

While some polls have indicated a backlash, in some ways the opposite seems true. Most Americans currently do not favor same-sex marriage, but there is less opposition to civil unions, which were considered quite radical just 5 years ago. Civil unions have become the moderate position. Even most FMA supporters claim that they would leave the door open for them.

From a purely personal perspective, if I were part of a minority of individuals being denied a "right" or "privilege" that other people no better than myself were enjoying, I too would feel discriminated against.

BUT what if by exercising said right, I undermine the very fabric of society in which I enjoy so many other privileges? At some point, I would, or should, from an altruistic position, do the responsible thing and not exercise my rights.



I believe that the resistance to embracing homosexual marriage is both based on the moral upbringing of the baby-boomers, and a sense that this represents just one more bit of social foundation being knocked from under an already unstable house called America.

The very "fabric", huh? You mean it's just dandy that half of all heterosexuals marriages end in divorce? How about all that adultery, huh? The very fabric you refer to has been soiled by heterosexuals.

And the quote you posted has been effectively debunked in at least one other thread here (don't have it handy, but use the search feature to find it).

And polls are showing that the bulk of younger folks are just fine with gay marriage. Just like they're fine with rap music and wearing their pants so that their underwear shows. The younger generation is always a step ahead of their elders... and the elders are always resisting change. That's why Elvis was such a scandal in the '50's. It's natural. But doesn't mean that the change is bad.

Y'know, I keep hearing this. The idea that The "moral fabric of the nation" will be undermined by same sex marriage strikes me as odd- this idea is placing discrimination at the very heart of the country, saying that is what America is built on. I can hardly think of a more un-American idea.

The moral fabric of this nation, what we were built on, is the idea that we are all created equal and have inalienable rights. The history of America is a history of ever expanding freedom.

[QUOTE] You mean it's just dandy that half of all heterosexuals marriages end in divorce? How about all that adultery, huh? The very fabric you refer to has been soiled by heterosexuals.[/QUOTE]
amf - Why do you think that I meant the above from what I posted? That's quite presumptuous. I believe that the divorce rate is a travesty, but that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bath water. Nor does it mean since the water is already dirty, why not just toss in a few more loads of dirt for good measure.

[QUOTE]polls are showing that the bulk of younger folks are just fine with gay marriage. Just like they're fine with rap music and wearing their pants so that their underwear shows. The younger generation is always a step ahead of their elders... and the elders are always resisting change.[/QUOTE]
amf - you are right, a good portion of the younger generation is OK with gay marriage. Stating that they are a "step ahead" of their elders assumes that gay marriage is an advance, rather than a decline.
I could not find the post that debunks the study that I quoted.

Grendel72 said:[/QUOTE]this idea is placing discrimination at the very heart of the country, saying that is what America is built on. I can hardly think of a more un-American idea.

The moral fabric of this nation, what we were built on, is the idea that we are all created equal and have inalienable rights. The history of America is a history of ever expanding freedom.[QUOTE]

The word "discriminaton" has been elevated to the apogee of liberal thought, as if making judgements between what's right and wrong, good or bad, is somehow unfair and repressive. Here's what John Adams, one of the founders of our society had to say:

[/QUOTE][W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made o­nly for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[QUOTE]

Until now. For the first time in US history, we have a president advocating the Constitutional exclusion of rights from a certain class of citizens. (At least prohibition affected all citizens equally.) The US Constitution and Bill of Rights was all about securing rights, not eliminating them. Until, as I mentioned, now. Using a Constitutional Amendment to pander to a certain constituency is despicable - if entirely predictable - and should be condemned by every patriot in the country.

Welcome to Neo-America.


As to the "moral fabric" argument, amf is quite right. It is heterosexuality which is destroying the institution of marriage in this country. Gay people (or some of them, at least) want to get married, for God's sake. Face it, Bradster, alternative families have been with us for a generation and are on the increase- single parents, multiple parents, children from several different marriages, cohabitation, illegitimacy, even *gasp* miscegenation - and nothing is going to reverse this trend. Gay people (or some of them, at least) yearn for more stable relationships, for a semblance of what once was the heterosexual paradigm.

Most of the gay men and lesbians that I know who are interested in marriage are also interested in adoption. They want to create stable households in which children can be nurtured and raised - rather the opposite of what your Scandinavian study is implying. Maybe heterosexuals will start saying "Whoa - if the gay community can get it together to maintain a stable family, what's wrong with us?" Who knows? Gay marriage could be the salvation of "the American family".

Moderator, please forgive me for straying from to topic to address previous posts. I will attempt to bring this back to the topic under discussion.

Using the argument that "heterosexuality is destroying the institution of marriage" assumes that marriage is defined by sexual orientation, and the failure of a minority to fulfill their vows proof that it's failed for the heteros.

Both of these assumptions fly straight in the face of the other arguments stated in posts above: that marriage should be defined by love and commitment between two consenting parties. You don't get to have it both ways.

What makes you think that homosexuals will have any better results in marital relationships than heteros? Are they more virtuous? Less promiscuous? More honest? Oh, the intention to be so may be there - but like the rest of humanity they are subject to the same shortcomings.

Just because I am a Conservative Republican does not make me ignorant. As far as Alternative Families: I was born and raised by a single mother "out-of-wedlock", we co-habited with several men (I say we, because the mom doesn't do it alone) and had a step father (who was abusive). I have lived the results of what you call Alternative. I call them failed.

I, and the majority of Americans who resist the redefinition of marriage, do so because many of us have witnessed first hand what the degradation of the institution has done to society so far. Nothing may be able to reverse this trend, but I wouldn't boast about that fact. I would weep about it.

Who's boasting? I'm merely citing it as a fact. And I'm certain that there would be failed gay marriages should they ever be legalized. I have made the point, though, on one or two of the dozen or so gay marriage threads that we seem to have going, that I suspect that a much higher percentage of such marriages would be based on a genuine commitment: they certainly wouldn't be happening because of societal or parental pressure - and there would obviously be no "shotgun weddings" whatsoever. The fact that many heterosexuals are pressured into getting married for a variety of reasons may be a large contributing factor to the dissolution of many heterosexual marriages. Most of these factors are absent in gay relationships - with or without marriage.

As you mention that your experience with a single-parent household - and a seeming lack of domestic stability - was not the ideal upbringing, I would think that the notion of a nurturing two-parent environment would have its appeal, regardless of the gender of the parents.

While this should probably be pursued in one of the myriad gay marriage threads, I think the fact that this issue is being given such profile at the moment may be one of the factors in the perceived "gay backlash". It is being made a wedge issue and - while many (though not all) gay men and lesbians may support gay marriage - this has primarily become a partisan issue. This is not a national debate between gays and straights, it is a national debate between party politicians and political factions - with the gay community simply receiving all the fallout. That would seem to be the case with a number of the more divisive "gay issues" here.

When people complain about the "homosexual agenda" and how the campaign for homosexual marriage is "weakening the moral fiber" or demeaning the "tradition" of marriage I, as a primarily gay male, am tarred with the same brush. In fact, I am quite happy to have been cohabiting with the same guy for twenty-three years and don't really give a damn whether our relationship has a seal of approval from church or state. Will I suffer any "backlash" from the profile that the gay marriage issue is getting? Sure. As one who is presumed by nature to be an advocate of gay marriage, I already am. Sure, I support gay marriage - for others - the same way I support a number of other "progressive" policies. But not because I am primarily gay.

You might want to check out the Gay Marriage - What is harmed? thread, Bradster, which more directly addresses some of the concerns you've expressed here.

They should have the right to try. Just as heterosexuals do.

And, while I feel for you, to compare homosexual marriages to your broken family and put them in one category is a bit much, no?

The poll is absurd. It merely asks: too fast for americans, hate, americans have good values? One inflammatory pro-gay marriage, two other options against. There are so many reasons why this could be happening. I think the major reason is ignorance. Why isn't that in the poll?

This response demonstrates exactly what is wrong with "conservative" thought in this country today. You sling the word "liberal" around like a slur, using it to refer to a self described libertarian who quotes Barry Goldwater in his sig.
Your words elevate bigotry and discrimination to the "apogee of conservative thought", and are an insult to true conservatives. I find it telling that no one calls me conservative as an insult when I oppose restrictive gas mileage regulations that would single out SUVs, buy when I complain about discrimination the religious right apparently think that makes me a liberal.

Victoria Silverwolf wrote:

1. I think the question in the poll was poorly worded

2. What you saw outside of Wal Mart Was just plain WRONG! If you have read my posts you KNOW that I am Anti Gay Marriage, but, and this is a BIG BUT, being against something is FAR from what that "moron" did. I am also Pro-Life, but it sickens me to see how some Pro-Lifers handle their public discourse.

There are many who favor defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. My question is: What is a man? What is a woman? If we regulate who may get married, then we must, in essence, answer these questions. Many Americans assume that all people fall neatly into one of the two categories, but alas, it’s not quite that simple, especially when one considers that the number of intersexed individuals in our country may be as high as 2% of the population, or approximately 5.8 Million Americans. These individuals may not fit neatly into either a chromosomal or anatomical definition of male and/or female, so what would their status be? What standards will be used to prove ones “sex?”

Chromosomes? In Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome a person can be chromosomally XY but phenotypically anatomically female. In Complete Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia a person can be chromosomally XX but phenotypically anatomically male. Prenatal hormonal influences can "sex reverse" an XY or XX person causing a XY-female or XX-male syndrome. Not all human beings are even XX or XY. Some are XXY, or have other atypical chromosomal configurations. Some people possess a mosaic of chromosomal patterns, such that one tissue may test as XX, and another XY and yet another as something else, all in the same person. The International Olympic Committee once tried to determine sex via chromosomal testing, and quickly realized the enormous complexity of this method. They quickly repealed this policy.

Gonads? A true Hermaphrodite can have both ovarian and testicular tissue in the same organ, which is called an ovotestis. Some people have ovaries but otherwise normal male anatomy. Some people have testes but otherwise normal female anatomy.

Genitals? Reproductive organs? Some males with Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome have a uterus. Some males suffering from Penile Agenesis can be born with no penis. In Vaginal Agenesis an otherwise normal female can be born with no vagina. In many fetal androgenizing conditions an otherwise normal female can have a very normal looking and even full-sized functional phallus.

Reproductive capability? There are XY sex reversed women who have successfully born children and naturally XX sex reversed men who have biologically fathered children. There are True Hermaphrodites who have born children.

In most cases where ambiguous genitalia are present at birth, a doctor will assign a sex and conduct arbitrary sex reassignment surgery. This determination may often conflict with the child’s true gender identity. After reaching maturity, should that child be allowed to change their sex through reassignment surgery to conform to their perceived gender identity, and if so, should their legal “sex” be changeable? In many jurisdictions, it is NOT.

What do you think? What standard(s), if any, should be used to determine “sex.”

I just want to add a news article concerning a county next to the one in which I live. There was a backlash against gay rights in Rhea County, Tennessee, but two days later the county commission rescinded its effort to "keep them out of here."

Tennessee County Reverses Ban on Gays

There is hope, that after a backlash like this, there can be sanity.

And what empiricle evidence can you offer that will prove that same-sex couples who can enter into a marriage and be protected by the same marrital provisions that heteros are will have worse results?