| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/3/15-16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36697 Activity:very high |
3/15 A few months ago, the East Bay Express had an excellent article
profiling six same-sex couples who got married during the time SF
was issuing licenses.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-10-13/news/feature_1.html.
If you can read this article and still oppose gay marriage, you have
no soul. These are human beings, just trying to live their lives.
-tom
\_ I hate gays because they have subverted so many English words like
"gay". And "fruity". And "queer". Fucking homos.
"gay". And "fruity". And "queer". And "pirate". Fucking homos.
\_ I thought it was my fellow het's who did this. ashamed. --het
\_ I can probably find equally convincint stories about father/daughter
brother/sister mother/son.
\_ if they can share the pain of going thru child birthing together
then okay..
\_ i guess couples with fertility problems are not okay.
\_ or couples over age of 60.
\_ Ah, tom. Always the paragon of tolerance. "If you don't agree
with me, you have no soul!"
\_ Ah, anonymous coward with the ad hominem attack. Did you read
the article? -tom
\_ I read it when it came out. I never said if I was for or
against gay marriage did I? I'm just pointing out that
your statement is stupid on it's face. BTW, that's not
ad hominem.
\_ There is something karmic about an obvious grammar error in
a clause which begins with "your statement is stupid". -tom
\_ Same sex marriage always results in the Best Motd
Discussions.
\_ Dude, someone just called tom a "stupid face". Apparently
the CSUA is allowing junior high school students to join.
\_ So, your whole argument is "tom sux." Could you just post that
and save us all the drama? --erikred
\_ tom, why are you wasting your time convincing us that same sex
marriage is not evil? Almost everyone on motd is liberal and
tolerate same sex marriage. The exception would be the religious
Christians and Mormons, and you can't possibly convert them. So
why waste your time. -evil satanic liberal who agrees with tom
\_ BTW, Mormons are Christians. -emarkp
\_ Only Mormons think this.
\_ Oh, Mormons are Christians...they're just wrong.
-Snide Catholic Troll
\_ Now that's more like it. -emarkp
\_ Sign your name troll. -emarkp (And this is a false
statement you're trolling with.)
\_ It's a false statement to you because you are
Mormon. Do any non-Mormons think this?
\_ I work with several non-Mormon Christians in my
office, and they have told me that they consider me a
Christian. Since we talk about the Bible and Christ
as a group a lot, I'm not surprised. -emarkp
\_ I posted it because it is the best portrayal of the reality
of the issue that I've seen; that gays are not trying to subvert
the institution of marriage, or overthrow society, but are just
trying to enjoy some of the same rights that the rest of us
take for granted. And that one of those rights is the right
to get "married," not "civil unionized." I think there are
still reasonable people who believe that gay marriage is not
OK but civil unions are; I think that's a cop-out position.
[For the record, I'm neither gay nor married.] -tom
\_ Remarkably, I don't think gays are "trying to subvert the
institution of marriage, or overthrow society." But the
argument "they're just trying to get the same rights as
everyone else" avoids debate and trivializes the issue. It's
the equivalent of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"--just the
other side of the issue. -emarkp
\_ I don't see your point. They *are* just trying to get the
same rights as everyone else. How is that avoiding
debate or trivializing the issue? I think the issue is
totally fundamental. -tom
\_ I've heard that "Adam and Steve" crap since I was a little
kid at the Christian school I went to. You are a fucking
bigot Mark.
\_ Huh? Try re-reading the post. He says that's a
stupid thing to say. Sheesh.
\_ Wow! pp really hates gay marriage! emarkp says
the phrase about "Adam and Steve" is dumb, and this
guy calls him a bigot! Bravo!
\_ Bad comparison (my fault). The typical response is that
they do have the same rights as anyone else. A gay man
can marry a woman just like a straight man can. Now
can we both agree that your statement and this
counterstatement are equally useless? -emarkp
\_ No we can't. The response is a stupid response.
As was mentioned before the argument could be
rephrased to deny mixed race (for the commonly
used version of race) marriages because then
everyone has the same rights, the right to marry
a member of the same race.
\_ I concur. -tom
\_ But then the pro-SSM side argument can be disputed
by pointing out that not everyone else can marry.
We have restrictions on who can marry left and
right (close relatives, adults/minors, etc.).
-emarkp
\_ So the debate is more Pro: "Gays
should have the same rights as heteros."
Anti: "No they shouldn't." The problem
when put in those terms it is hard for the
Anti side to keep pretending it isn't being
prejudiced, and so the anti side conviently
tries to pretend there are other issues at
stake. Embrace your true nature and just
admit that you don't think gay people deserve
the same rights as everyone else.
\_ They do have the same rights. I can't marry
someone of my own gender and neither can
they.
\_ Hello Mr. Trees, you seemed to have
missed the forest for yourself. -dans
\_ I used to think this argument was just
hypothetical. But I forgot that Mormons
actually hold out hope that they can marry
their brothers/sisters, have sex with their
daughters, etc. So, good point emarkp.
\_ Woo! Where would we be without the
clueless anti-mormon troll?
\_ The response is not stupid. The comparison
btwn gay marriage and mix-race marriage is
flawed. The denial of marriage rights to a
mix-race couple was based on a false concept
of race. The denial of marriage rights to
gays is not based on any such false concept.
Gays want more rights than other people in
society and there is no compelling reason
to grant them these rights.
\_ What more rights? You will have the
right to marry the same sex as well.
And mix-race marriages were illegal because
it was against the laws of nature. We don't
do that sort of thing. Ick! Oh my god
that is wrong and an abomination. That is
for the same reason you oppose gay marriage.
\_ You really don't understand the
arugment do you?
My opposition to gay marriage has
nothing to do with the law of
nature (by these I'm assuming you
mean something like maxwell's laws
or the uncertainty principle,
which couldn't care less whether
a person is gay or not).
My opposition to gay marriage is
based on the fact that there is
no basis on which to claim that
these people have been denied a
right that all other people w/
their same real characteristics
have. (Mixed-race is irrelevant
to the discussion b/c race is
not a real characteristic, please
go read some human evolutionary
studies, if you think that race
is really a true concept).
If two gay people are allowed
to marry, then why should a
schizophrenic not be able to
marry herself and claim a dual
tax deduction? What about a
person and his imaginary best
friend?
BTW, I don't want more rights,
I'm perfectly happy w/ the rights
I have.
\_ including, apparently, the right to
be a complete fucking moron. -tom
\_ If anyone but tom had posted this, it would have slid by with
no comment. Oh, wait, ilyas, John, and emarkp have their
tormenters as well.
\_ And funny enough, I don't think any of "us" take them at all
seriously. Frankly, I'm a bit worried about both ChiCom
Troll and heil cherman john guy--I hope they're ok, I haven't
seen them around. After all, an integral part of being a
responsible troll farmer is paying good attention to your pet
trolls' well-being! That said, I think both ilyas and
emarkp are occasionally full of shit, but there seems to be
an interesting tendency for people who stand behind their
arguments and who sign their names to attract morons.. -John
\_ And speaking of motd regulars, where's BDG to rant for half
a screen about how gay marriage will allow gay people to
ruin the lives of other gay people?
\_ I discovered you are actually a closet commie, so I no
longer troll you - Chicom Troll
\_ Well, there's a price to be paid for being a consistent
asshole. I don't give a shit about tom being a fag. I have
fags for friends. tom's just an asshole. If I ever met him
I'd pound his face into the street, clear and simple.
Being a gay misanthrope doesn't excuse him of anything.
\_ I'm usually the last one to say this, but post your
name, tough guy. --erikred
\_ use kchang's intellicrap.
\_ the what? what does it do?
\_ blames ilyas for everything.
\_ This is pretty funny. Run it through b1ff for it to be
taken extra-serious! -John
\_ Vell, zeere's a preece-a tu be-a peeed fur beeeng a
cunseestent esshule-a. I dun't geefe-a a sheet ebuoot tum
beeeng a feg. I hefe-a fegs fur freeends. tum's joost un
esshule-a. Iff I ifer met heem I'd puoond hees fece-a intu
zee street, cleer und seemple-a. Beeeng a gey
meesunthrupe-a duesn't ixcoose-a heem ooff unytheeng.
\_ I don't oppose same-sex civil unions, but I think marriage
is a religious institution and should not be in the dominion
of the government. A priest can already 'marry' two gay
people. We're talking about the government, in which case
I think 'marriage' is the wrong term to use. --dim
\_ In which case, we should abolish the use of the term
"marriage" in any secular description of a contractual
binding of two consenting adults. Go ahead and start that
movement, then report back on how that works for you.
\_ Well, then failing that I am opposed to using the
term 'marriage' to describe same-sex unions. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-10-13/news/feature_1.html Letters for the week of October 13-19, 2004 London, Brazil, and Illinois write in to comment on our coverage of rock icons and the gay dancehall boycott. Last winter, close to four thousand gay and lesbian couples exchanged wed ding vows beneath the dome of San Francisco's City Hall. Six months late r, the state Supreme Court declared the marriages "void and of no legal effect." Six very different East Bay couples agreed to tell us about their lives s ince that remarkable Valentines Day weekend, and their legal and emotion al roller-coaster ride as the first people in American history to be mar ried, and then involuntarily unmarried by the courts. Times in which bureaucracies and p oliticians debate how and whether to recognize their bonds and in which a lack of recognition brings serious consequences. Some of their legal conundrums could be clarified in January, when state bill AB205, now under challenge in the courts, is slated to take effect. The new law would give California domestic partners the same rights as married straight couples, including rights to child custody, child suppo rt, and extended family leave. But gay couples are still excluded from t he 1,049 specific rights granted to legally married couples by the feder al government, which controls Social Security, Medicare, inheritance rig hts, and immigration, among other things. With voters in eleven states weighing in next month on proposed state ame ndments banning same-sex marriage Louisiana and Missouri have already pa ssed such prohibitions and President Bush calling for a federal constitu tional amendment, the future of rights and recognition for gay unions is anything but certain. In the meantime, twelve complicated East Bay lives roll forward. Johnny & William Johnny Symons, 38, documentary filmmaker William Rogers, 39, senior programs director Kids: Zachary, 5, and Kenyon, 3 Years Together: 11 The Oakland couple adopted their sons, biological brothers, from Californ ia's foster care system. Although they'd registered as domestic partners , between caring for two children and being, as Johnny puts it, "kind of ceremony-averse," they had never held a public celebration of their uni on. Johnny: Suddenly one day the opportunity presents itself to get married a nd it was this now or never thing, and we just jumped at the chance. I s tarted frantically calling City Hall -- are you guys really issuing same -sex marriage licenses today? All the lines were j ammed, there was no information available. I k now they close the doors at four o'clock, it's Friday, it's a three-day weekend -- chances are really good the court is going to slam the door o n this when the doors open Tuesday morning. If we're ever going to do th is, this is our little window of opportunity. William: I was at work and Johnny called me up and he says, "Hey, will yo u marry me?" And I said, "You know what -- I'm on the other line, let me call you back." Then I called him back and I'm like, "Now, what is this ?" William: I didn't take it very seriously because I felt like, look, we ha d been together for eleven years, we own a house, we have two children. It didn't feel like there was anything else I could do that would make me feel like we were a more legitimate family. At that moment I felt like it was more of a political act. It wa s an important thing to do, to show up to this event. So we grabbed the kids out of school, we zipped across the bridge. We go up to City Hall a nd we were in line for four and a half hours. Johnny: I think we had brought diapers with us, thank God, but that was a bout it. There were cameras everywhere, and you could see people jubilantly emerging from th e recorder's office and going up to have their ceremonies under the rotu nda. So suddenly we're standing there in the rotunda and the kids are around us and some of our friends are there and we're repeating these vows. The whole thing had been such a whirlwind and so exhausting and frantic, but it all fell away in that moment. We were holding hands and looking into each other's eyes and re peating these vows, and it was intense. It was weird because up until that point I'd bee n like, this is an important political statement, blah blah blah. It was n't until I said the vows that I just felt this rush of tears. I've always had the attitude of like, "fuck you, you don't have to legitimize my relationship -- I'll have my relat ionship, I'll have my children, and I will live my life." But once I got married, it was this amazing feeling of belonging in a way that I never thought I could belong to the larger culture. My whole life has been in some ways about not quite fitting into the larger culture, whether it's racially, or my family structure. I'm biracial, half white and half bla ck -- I lived in the African-American community almost my entire life, a nd I was always really clear that my mother's white parents did not appr ove of my parents' relationship. I often walk a tenuous line between soc iety's perceptions of black and white in the same way I now walk that li ne about what makes a family. William:Shortly after we got married, we had a play date with one of Zach 's friends who said, "I heard you got married." And I looked over at Zach and his shoulders sort of s hrunk a little bit and his head sort of went down. I turned to this little boy and I said, "That's right, we are married jus t like your mom and dad are married." And I could see out of the corner of my eye Zach's shoulders, he was sort of sitting up straight and he wa s like, "Yeah!" For the first time I realized that our children deserve to have their parents be married if that's what their parents choose. William: Because ultimately, if we are put on the fringe, so are our chil dren. Johnny: I've really gotten into using the word "husband." Like, our insurance is based on the idea that we are two unmarried male drivers under forty. S o I called up the insurance company and talked to the agent and she took $250 off of our policy. William: We had been paying $250 extra a year for the last eleven years. How many other ways are we made to pay more becaus e we're not benefiting from the advantages of marriage? Like when we ren t a car, our relationship is not recognized, therefore we have to pay mo ney for an additional driver. A ll these little ways that we're reminded constantly that our family is n ot recognized. That's wrong, because if one of us were to die, one of us is going to be a sin gle parent and we're going to need as much assistance as possible. To de ny us that because we happen to be two men instead of a man and a woman is outrageous. |