you guys will hate me....

[MzChrista]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zergplex Says

Well if you noticed we DID move to another subject. And I tried to bring up another subject earlier because I don't want this to degenerate into a flamewar, just as you mentioned you didn't want it to either. Either way I'm just going to stop argueing my point, it isn't worth that much to me to get worked up over *shrugs* you believe what you believe and I shall continue to believe as I do.

No need to feel like an outsider, from the current replies more people seem to agree with you anyways.

So shall we continue on a differant subject?

-Zergplex

I reply to the posts as I read them. If Im on page 2 I dont know what got said on page 4 and it shouldnt matter anyway. If I want to respond to something written a year ago whos going to say I shouldnt?

Anyway I dont need to make my point anymore. Netzach nailed exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[MzChrista]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zergplex Says

I hope you don't continue to feel like an outsider. I really do look forward to reading posts by everyone. There is no way that I can have the perspective on things that you may have. We have different experiences, and experience different reactions to who we are. There are things I probably will never be able to understand or know, because I am bisexual.

I do value yours and others' views, and appreciate the differences. I think we have commonality in that we deal with the same issues, just in different ways many times. I hope this doesn't come across as ass kissing or anything. But I wanted to say it even if it does.

Thats alright babe, I like having my ass kissed.
We wont ever totally understand each other but that doesnt mean we cant respect each other. Thanks.

 

[ReBeLBeLLe]

But it's not you, is it? You see, as much as you'd like to believe it, not everything revolves around you or what you think just because you're a moderator.

Last time I checked, that club was about 4 strong including you, so I don't really think that's call for concern, considering that there are, what, several hundred members here and several dozen active posters?

Actually Bitchslapper, I find you quick to jump to conclusions and a highly argumentative individual. You continually berate other posters for misunderstanding the vein of your posts. In light of this I have to conclude that you are either unable to clearly and concisely convey your thoughts or plain and simple you are an argumentative asshole.

 

[MzChrista]

Actually Bitchslapper, I find you quick to jump to conclusions and a highly argumentative individual. You continually berate other posters for misunderstanding the vein of your posts. In light of this I have to conclude that you are either unable to clearly and concisely convey your thoughts or plain and simple you are an argumentative asshole.

Or both.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Actually Bitchslapper, I find you quick to jump to conclusions and a highly argumentative individual. You continually berate other posters for misunderstanding the vein of your posts. In light of this I have to conclude that you are either unable to clearly and concisely convey your thoughts or plain and simple you are an argumentative asshole.

Can you provide links to prove this assumption? No? Well, I guess if you could you would have already. Does anyone else find this ironic? Because you are leaping to a conclusion which is exactly what you accuse me of doing.

I would also like you to link us to anywhere that I've "berated" someone. I've had differing opinions on some issues, but that is hardly being antagonistic.

What I also find strange is the fact that you quoted something that no one else is talking about anymore and that there's no reason to bring up except to start an argument, and yet you accuse me of being argumentative.

Now, can we get back to the issue at hand or do you just want to argue?

 

[ReBeLBeLLe]

Can you provide links to prove this assumption? No? Well, I guess if you could you would have already. Does anyone else find this ironic? Because you are leaping to a conclusion which is exactly what you accuse me of doing.

I would also like you to link us to anywhere that I've "berated" someone. I've had differing opinions on some issues, but that is hardly being antagonistic.

What I also find strange is the fact that you quoted something that no one else is talking about anymore and that there's no reason to bring up except to start an argument, and yet you accuse me of being argumentative.

Now, can we get back to the issue at hand or do you just want to argue?

Can I provide a link to prove this assumption? Since when must I validate my own opinion with a link? As for leaping to a conclusion, try again. I have reached my opinion with a sure and steady count of reading your posts.

I will not be bothered in linking you to anywhere that you've berated someone. When one of the most common statements on any of your posts is, "You've misunderstood me..", it lends one to believe one may have a problem with communication. But, if it bothers you that much that I have not provided a link may I suggest you hit the search button under your nickname. I'm sure that would provide you with all the links needed.

I would like to know when it is permissible for me to comment on something I read. Is there a standard timetable for stating one's opinions? When you in fact state, "Last time I checked, that club was about 4 strong including you, so I don't really think that's call for concern, considering that there are, what, several hundred members here and several dozen active posters?", you in fact invite opinion and thus I rendered mine.

Now, by all means yes, lets get back to the issue at hand for I am interested in hearing others opinions on this subject.

Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below. ~Roger Baldwin

The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting. ~Justice William J. Brennan, 1982

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statements. Nothing is ever gained by remaining silent and the strongest voice usually is the one raised in controversy, the voice that shouts about inequality even in the face of opposition.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Can I provide a link to prove this assumption? Since when must I validate my own opinion with a link? As for leaping to a conclusion, try again. I have reached my opinion with a sure and steady count of reading your posts.

Since when? When you start making accusations. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect proof of someone's allegation if they're going to state them as fact rather than opinion.

I will not be bothered in linking you to anywhere that you've berated someone. When one of the most common statements on any of your posts is, "You've misunderstood me..", it lends one to believe one may have a problem with communication.

Can you quote me saying that anywhere? How many times have I said that exactly? Can't remember? Maybe that's because it never happened. Again, you make a baseless accusation.

You can be bothered to sling mud at me but you can't be bothered to back it up? Is that because you know your allegations have absolutely no basis in fact or is it because you enjoy being antagonistic?

Next time make sure you have solid evidence (which you are willing to present) before you attack someone.

 

[Queersetti]

I am sorry I remembered the quote wrong. It was the reference to the term "logic" that bothered me, I had read the post earlier and misunderstood it. Zergplex was referring to his own emotional state and I thought refering to what he was saying as logic made it sound like he was analyzing bi-sexuals instead of expressing himself through his own experiences as one. I may have over-reacted, but it got under my skin so to speak.

Thanks for explaining. I did not mean to be in any way dismissive of the validity of Zergplex's feelings, I meant only to question the larger conclusion he was drawing from them.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zergplex Says

Whoops looks like I been dismissed.

Nope no reason to feel like an outsider around her.

You are not an outsider here. These are extremely emotional issues, as they touch upon our inner most sense of self. Any discussion of this nature is bound to generate some heat along with light. But I don't think anyone in this discussion is trying to make anyone else feel marginalized or dismissed.

 

[Silverluna]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zergplex Says

You are not an outsider here. These are extremely emotional issues, as they touch upon our inner most sense of self. Any discussion of this nature is bound to generate some heat along with light. But I don't think anyone in this discussion is trying to make anyone else feel marginalized or dismissed.

I agree...I wanted to start this thread to shed some "heat and light" on what was going to be a complicated and emotionally challenging issue.

My appoligies to anyone who feels like they have been slighted or hurt in this discussion...


(I am actually amazed this thread lasted so long!)

 

[Jessalynvix]

EXACTLY... I want to marry my girl, not just call her my girlfriend, partner, lover. Fuck that. I want to call her my wife. I want her to be on my insurance. I want to have a real wedding and be legally married.

Perhaps San Fran went about this the wrong way, but at least they tried. It's more than others have done. But now... I hope it's not all in vain.

I feel exactly the same way I want to be your wife. I mean we've gone through so much together to come out on top and it not be legal for us to want be joined to gether in a real wedding and have it be recognized is BS.

Hopefully one day soon it will happen but until then we know how we feel and to me we are what we can't be in the eyes of the law.

 

[John Doe]

Trust me, you are not the first person to think of this. Many many conservative politicians use that as an argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.

The Feb 13th issue of the Washington Blade (my local gay paper) had an article on page 12 called Utah polygamy suit cites Lawrence ruling. Here's a relevant quote from the article:

I don't believe marriage should be legislated at all. I think it should be left to the people how they symbolize thier love, while the legal matters are handled seperately on a contractual basis.

For example, you could sign a 30 day co-habitation contract or something similar to a prenuptial agreement.

I've even toyed with the thought of a civil union that must be renewed annually.

 

[Queersetti]

I don't believe marriage should be legislated at all. I think it should be left to the people how they symbolize thier love, while the legal matters are handled seperately on a contractual basis.

For example, you could sign a 30 day co-habitation contract or something similar to a prenuptial agreement.

I've even toyed with the thought of a civil union that must be renewed annually.

I agree, in general. Equality under the law should be a standard on which we ought to be able to achieve a consensus. Gays are not asking for special treatment, only that we be treated the same as everyone else.

 

[John Doe]

I agree, in general. Equality under the law should be a standard on which we ought to be able to achieve a consensus. Gays are not asking for special treatment, only that we be treated the same as everyone else.

I see what you mean. There is less resistance to expanding marriage rights than de-legislating the institution, so working toward that end is more practical.

 

[AvaAdore]

Actually in some states the civil union legislation does account for straight people. I'm not entirely sure how it works. I think it mostly has to do with people who are devoted to each other, but do not necesserily want to be bound for life. I think mostly it's decided based on personal reasons within couples. But I know there is infrastructure for it in some places. Though not many.

In New Zealand at the moment, the issue of civil unions has come up, and they are going to vote on the issue (it will probably get passed). The civil unions will account for couple of any gender, gay, straight, transgender, whatever. Basically it is pretty much the same legally as marraige (I don't know what it says about children), just not so much related to religion.

Though here if you live with a partner for more than 2 years you are automatically labelled as "de facto" and pay the same taxes as a married couple.

 

[horatio]

When I was very young I was very homophobic. I had never met anyone that was gay. It was wrong because that was what I had been told. Abortion was also wrong, because again, that was what I had been taught.
Now that I am older, I see things in a different light. Abortion, in my opinion, is up to the woman whom it concerns. I do not like the idea, but it is not my body. I do not want these women to have to return to the back alley abortionists and possibly die. As for being gay, that is up to the individual also.
I do not want same sex unions considered as marriage. Listing them as a civil union is fine with me. These individuals hold jobs and are entitled to put a life partner on their insurance just as heterosexuals are. Same job, same work, same benefits.
Marriage is still more than a law, it is a union defined within religious dogma. According to this dogma, homosexuality is not acceptable, just as living together without marriage is still wrong. This is why I lean toward using a civil union.
Most of this arguement is tilted toward legal wrangling, manily insurance and such. I am still some what uncomfortable with aspects of homosexuality being displayed in public. I also do not enjoy seeing heterosexuals doing the tongue dance or groping in public before my chiildren either. Gays have not done themselves any favors by parading in the gay parades in drag or some of the other outrageous outfits we see on tv. if you want to be seen as responsible people, you should try to present yourselves as such.
This is not the point however. Gays work, pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, and all the other functions that straight people do. They should be given the same rights. Again, I would vote for a resolution of civil union. Gay marriages, however, I would vote against. It is a simple matter of dogma. I believe that all rights of marriage should be included in the civil union, including the tax break for couples.
If this is wrong, I will leave it to God to figure out in the afterlife. I am simply not that smart. To me, it seems only fair to give people their due.
It was not fair for blacks to be treated as lesser beings, nor for women to be second class citizens. This is another of the same type of situation.
To those whom this may concern: use this opportunity well. Do not flaunt it like it is one of those parades. Approach it as anyone else would and earn the respect of the rest of society. People fear you because you are different in some ways and will react to you with hostility. Be the better of the two groups and gain respect. This will only help in later strugggles. Good luck and you have my vote.