My Right-Wing Friend

Hehe

I have a friend who's fine with me but "against homosexuality"....doesn't make sense .

 

Lots of people are like that.
Against "homosexuality", but
OH, you're gay?!?! oh that's cool by me. whatever makes you happy.

 

Being in a southern public school, I know a lot of right-leaning students, and several of them are mixed on the issues concerning gay rights. I recall one of them participating in the DOS last year, shortly after saying she "wouldn't mind if we never had another Democratic president". Another of them is in theater and works with a lot of out gay people, but still uses "gaaaaay" for things she doesn't like. And then there are the ones who "ain't voting for no Democrat, we're southerners" - AND who can't stand us nasty homos.

 

Yes it is! These people really need to speak up! I need to mail you a PFLAG Straight for Equality booklet for her!

 

Activist Judges aren't the way to get stuff done. You need to get the will of the people on your side. For that reason alone I'm inclined to support the proposition.

Besides, marriage for most has religious elements. I thought we wanted the separation of church and state? And shouldn't we respect those people on the otherside? A compromise is needed. That's why I'm for civil unions that carry all the same legal protections and responsibilities.

And "right wing people" in general as a group don't hate gay people, most are just not used to them. Having a difference of opinion as to policy doesn't make you homophobic or hateful.

Instead of trying to stir the pot of unrest here, where gay people have freedom, and right to life and civil unions in some places (and always the chance for more places), why don't we speak out against other countries like Iran that EXECUTES gay people.

 

And so you would chose to support a proposition that would effectively ban all forms of gay marriage in only the second state to have it legalized? I can't see the logic in this. There are plenty of ways to have a nonreligious wedding, and the act of legally/socially joining two people together far predates modern theism. That's not enough to merit a ban for all the people who want marriage.

 

Respecting the other side? So by respecting the other side you mean that we should just settle for less and remain unequal? You see allowing same-sex marriage, doesn't affect those heterosexual marriages at all. You are saying that my son does not deserve the SAME protections as my daughters just because he happens to love another man. I'm sorry I totally disagree with that. You say marriage is a "religious" thing well many gay people are religious. They want their unions blessed by God and deserve that right. If they want to get married by Elvis in Vegas, they deserve that right too. Someone on death row who has committed a henious crime can get married. My son cannot. There is something seriously wrong with that.

Oh and YES, we should be speaking out to those countries like Iran who execute gay people. So we agree on that.

 

Becky said it better than I could. Settling for inequality, inferiority, and discrimination is NEVER the way to gain rights. Yes, we should definitely support gays in countries where homosexuality is illegal, but there's nothing stopping us from doing that WHILE we secure equal marriage rights. Civil unions are not the same as marriage, and until same-sex couples are granted the same rights as heterosexual couples, I'm not going to stop fighting. You vote however you want, but I have to seriously question why you would choose to restrict the rights of your own minority.

 

If you are concerned about hospital visitation rights, make that an issue, make sure issues like that are on the lawbooks.
I've often heard questions about wills, and how the gay partner is left out---well, that's easy to fix: anyone can update their wills to include anyone...

And "equal rights" aren't even a part of heterosexual marriage yet. I know my mom and other wives who have trouble getting some financial business taken care of without the signature of the husband/bread winner.... even though they are married and have joint everything.

I've said this before but will repeat it here. Gay people, along with some other groups, often talk about identity...well, straight people (being the majority) don't think of identity that often, but the idea of identity is paramount. Men grow up and seek a wife, girls grow up and seek a husband, so they can get married. Now, I wish we could all respect that, get the same rights on a different piece of paper, and we can all still throw around the words "marriage, husband or wife"--it would just be a different brand of the same product. We get what we need, and they keep what they want.

Maybe one day when priests can marry, and women can be priests, then the prospect of gay marriage might be appealing to others but until then, that's why we have the government to ensure equal rights through unions.

 

Here is something from Fact Check on the differences between Civil Marriage and Civil Unions:

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

 

From the fact check site:

1, It's not a federal issue... it's a state issue.... state's have to decide (the people have to decide) that they want this. It's not something that can be forced.

2. If the federal government ensures that rights will be carried over between states where unions are legalized, and also grants the legal rights of straight couples on the federal level to gay couples as well, then that would be okay. That would represent legal rights and responsibilities for all, just in a different packaging.

3. "Terminology"..... anyone can use the words marriage husband or wife....

Victory at all costs? Do we really want to tear up the country over this when we can get the same secular legal rights without offending the religious. Obviously not everyone gets married in churches, or is even religious, but that doesn't negate the ones who are and those who do get married in churches.

 

First of all, sure, any couple can call themselves husbands or wives, but until that status is legally recognized, it means nothing. It's not the title we're fighting for, it's the civil rights aspect, which brings me to...

Civil unions =/= marriage. Partners in civil unions do NOT get the "same secular legal rights" as married couples. Look back over that site, or ask Becky. They're close, but there are still many key rights that don't come packaged with the title of "civil union".

And lastly, I don't really care if I offend a few of the religious right. After fifteen years of being suppressed by them, and many more years for the people before me, their feelings are at the bottom of my list. I'm not going to dance around the issue, rather than attacking it, just because doing so might offend some people. Civil rights, basic humans rights that everyone should be entitled to, come before the feelings of these "pro-tradition, pro-family" asshats.

 

What about Gay people who are religious, and want to be married in a church? I know I do. I also noticed a comment you made about wemon not being able to be priests...We'll I have a cousin who is a Pastor at a church, and She preaches. She can marry people too, sure it may be alittle unorthidox, but it would still be recognized by the church and government.

A civil union and a marriage are different. You say some people wont be happy about gay being being able to be married in a traditional fashion, even if its an untraditional union of people. Alot of people fought against marriage between races too. And you know what, I wont be happy without having the right to marry whom so ever i please in the environment I see fit for the occasion, with equal legal rights of a marriage between a man and a women.

I am religious, and I respect marriage, and the Ideal of Love, and unity until death. Probly more so than the people fighting against us having the right. Because they obviousely dont understand that being married isnt about a man and a women being together, Its about two people who love eachother, committing there lives to one another. Not only to say they will be there in sickness and in health, but also to have the ability to be there in sickness and in health.

There is no shame between me and God, especially about my sexuality, which I did not choose, which is as much apart of how I was made as my skin color or the color of my eyes. Just becouse other people are insucure in there beliefs doesnt mean that I should be denied my God given right to Love and be Loved. When I marry someone I will have a service with a preacher, and my union will be recognized by the God I love and serve. I will fight for the right to have it recognized by the Government also.

 

Beautifully written, Endlessnight.

I personally care the most about legal rights, had they been equal to those of a married husband and wife I don't think I would have felt as strongly about this as I do.
I want the right to get married to the person I love, I would like to have this wedding in a church and I would like to enter this union by being united as one under the eyes of God.
If I'm dying in the hospital I would want the one I love to be by my side.
Had we only had the same rights I don't think I would care what they called it.

As a straight friend of mine just said: "should this even be a problem... I do believe marriage is for everyone, there are actually bad things out there that we should put on hold, not love"