My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[Jeff Wrangler]

You're equating relatively minor modifications to marriage law to monumental changes in the overall concept of what marriage is.  I'm getting the very distinct impression that you just don't understand how significantly radical what you're asking for is in the eyes and hearts of many people.

Of course people once felt the same way about the abolition of slavery and the recognition of equal civil rights for women and racial minorities--that it was a significantly radical change for society.

But society changed, and society survived.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Then forget it.  Achieving "gay marriage" won't mean you are recognized as equal.  There will still be homophobes (or whatever they're called) that will look down on you.  And added to that you'll even probably generate more resentment from people that would have been willing to accept civil unions but take offense at gay marriage.

Get over the inferiority complex you apparently have.  If your concern is really about rights, take the civil unions and have your rights.  But if this is about you feeling like society recognizes you as just as important or whatever, you're not going to achieve that by bitching and moaning all the way to the Supreme Court trying to change the definition of marriage which might make you feel good but will make others feel pretty ticked off.  That's really not going to increase your stature in society.

This also isn't about becoming socially acceptable to Joe and Jane Six-pack. As long as Joe and Jane leave me alone, they can think what they damn well please, and I don't give a fart for their opinion of me. This is about being equal in the eyes of the law, which we aren't, and which civil unions aren't.

Once we get the legal recognition, society will follow in time. It may take a long time, even a very long time, but it will happen when society discovers that life will still go on as usual.

And how dare you assume that anyone here has an inferiority complex. Again we get the height of heterosexist arrogance.

[Kelda]

My positions are:

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.

Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.

Then I think you've joined the wrong forum then love.. nobody else here with your viewpoint! You do know this is a forum centred around a gay love story don't you!? 

[Kelda]

I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage.  If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it.  If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either. 

I just spoke with my mouth full there and screamed an obscenity when I dropped something on my toe earlier.. Sorry for offending you.. oh but then - you aint in my life, sitting in my living room or my friend..... so i can;t have offended you....

So gay marriage affects you how exactly?

[Kelda]

Well, like I said, please understand that just as you attach importance to the word "marriage," so do others that disagree with you.  So while we may not agree, you should at least understand that it's not hard to understand that people can have just as much interest in blocking the attempts to redefine marriage as you have interest in redefining it.

Why? What has it got to do with you? How does this affect your life or your marriage? I fail to undestand why it requires blocking?

[Kelda]

Again, no-one is redefining marriage.  They're violating their vows and it's a shame.  But that doesn't mean the definition of marriage is automatically changed.  2 + 2 = 4 even if lots of people can't add and get 5.

So what if the female has an affair and leaves the man and wants a divorce but the guy is a traditionalist? Or vice versa? What then?

That person doesn't want the 'shame' but unfortunately they've got it.

[Kelda]

Or perhaps those that have "a more progressive view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with the fact that society doesn't agree with them. 

Whose society are we looking at here? I think there may be quite a few societies that do agree.

[Kelda]

I take offense at what I consider to be extreme arrogance of those in the gay community that presume to tell society that we must change our traditional definition and understanding of a traditional institution such as marriage just because they've decided to become vocal. 

I'm straight.. am I part of the gay society?

[HerrKaiser]

Then I think you've joined the wrong forum then love.. nobody else here with your viewpoint!

Well I have the same viewpoint.

And it seems somewhat narrow and disingenuous to suggest that any "forum" should be completely linear and single-minded in its thinking.

[Kelda]

Well I have the same viewpoint.

And it seems somewhat narrow and disingenuous to suggest that any "forum" should be completely linear and single-minded in its thinking.

Okay Herr, I concur.. ONE other person has lexta's viewpoint.. anyone else?!

Nobody has the same viewpoint here completely but I'd bet my house that most people here support gay rights here.

(And I like my house. And I rarely bet. )