NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[TheBigDog]

That is what I got out of it as well.

However, it is non-sensical. Would allowing gay marriage mean that we would no longer identify gays as ... well... gay? Or, homosexuals as... homosexual?

 

Or, to use the same type of comparisons originally used. When we first made inter-racial marriages legal, did we stop identifying blacks as black?

And it goes to the point that cwes and I have been making. Why should we STOP identifying "married" as "straight". If it is rights they want, who on this site has said that homosexual couples should not have rights? But it appears that in addition to rights they want to keep their "special" identity when it is convenient for them, and hijack the meaning of that which has uniquely identified me at their conveinience as well.

 

It seems the gay-marriage crowd wants it both ways.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

But it appears that in addition to rights they want to keep their "special" identity when it is convenient for them, and hijack the meaning of that which has uniquely identified me at their conveinience as well.

I missed that. What's the "special identity" and why do you think they want it?

 

Now isn't that special,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

I missed that. What's the "special identity" and why do you think they want it?

 

Now isn't that special,

Buffy

Are you kidding? Homosexuals have any number of monikers to identify themselves as a subgroup. Homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. I would be labeled a hatemonger if I started a straight pride organization. Married has been a safe haven of "straight pride" that has also been politically correct.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

And it goes to the point that cwes and I have been making. Why should we STOP identifying "married" as "straight".

 

Married to my knowledge does not mean straight. It may be implied in your mind and in the mind of many people, but they are not synonyms.

 

That strikes me as saying 'why should we STOP identifying "water fountain" as "white only"'.

[Zythryn]

I would be labeled a hatemonger if I started a straight pride organization.

 

Bill, I don't believe this is the case.

The only reason I could see that label being applied is if your straight pride organization spouted hate speeches or did something else to get it labeled a hateful organization.

[Buffy]

<whoosh-goes straight over Buffy's head>

I would be labeled a hatemonger if I started a straight pride organization. Married has been a safe haven of "straight pride" that has also been politically correct.

</whoosh-goes straight over Buffy's head>

 

Now I know that there's negative reactions to phrases like "white power" that are unfortunate hijackings of historical groups. I don't think they're justified in a lot of cases--I know the Navajos and the Hindus hate getting dinged as "Nazis" just because swastikas are icons of their history.

 

I think its important to note that the term "gay marriage" was originally a pejorative invented by those who are against it. The gay/lesbian community if anything has used it the same way some blacks use the N-word.

 

Support of militant gay rights groups like ActUp has really fallen by the wayside, and when you hear this topic discussed in "liberal" places like the Bay Area, it all focuses on simply having rights such as being treated as family members, having inheritance rights, etc. and indeed a lot of these benefits are simply the way things are here. To the extent that there is interest and promotion of it, it is to get to some of the last legal rights remaining to be had here, but far more importantly, to see these benefits available to people everywhere.

 

What's been really surprising to a lot of folks here is that there's no problem with calling it "civil unions" or anything else: the conservatives came up with this a while back to make it "different than marriage," and when the gay community said, "sure no problem" all of a sudden, that was no longer acceptable to the conservatives.

 

SO, I guess I'm still confused, because while I'm sure you can find "militant gays" who will do anything to diss you as straight (heck, you can actually still find a few Communists in Berkeley!), the vast majority simply don't care: they just want to have the same rights and benefits. If its good enough for HP and Intel--who have fabulous domestic partner benefits--why isn't it good enough for the state?

 

Uncontrovertially,

Buffy

[Cedars]

Bill, I don't believe this is the case.

The only reason I could see that label being applied is if your straight pride organization spouted hate speeches or did something else to get it labeled a hateful organization.

 

ummm...

 

Woodbury MN. All the kid did was wear a tee shirt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_pride

[Zythryn]

ummm...

 

Woodbury MN. All the kid did was wear a tee shirt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_pride

 

Interesting. It appears that the school's ban of the t-shirt was ruled unconstitutional. So the school made an error.

 

In addition, the school did not label the child a hatemonger. The principal stated the reason for the ban was a fear of the hostilities it could generate, not the message itself.

 

The information in the article you linked to indicates the 'straight pride' movement is 'outspoken that they [homosexuals] should not enjoy the same rights for civil engagement and the chances of adopting children that heterosexual couples do. It would be interesting to see some of their newsletters to see if they remain that civil:)

 

So, let me expand on my earlier statement to Bill. I believe it would be wrong for anyone to label you a hatemonger for showing pride in your heterosexuality. I also don't believe that there are many people, if any, that would label you as such.

[Buffy]

ummm...

 

Woodbury MN. All the kid did was wear a tee shirt.

Yep, and the ban against his wearing of it was ruled unconstitutional. I agree with this finding: free speech must be free for all or it means nothing.

 

Now the downside of free speech is that others are free to interpret your speech any way they want. Unfortunately, as this Wiki page says, the notion of "straight pride" was started as a protest *against* gay rights, and however much someone might want to be interpreted as simply *promoting* a "straight lifestyle" (oh my that sounds strange on the other foot, don't it?), its been stolen by the folks who "hate fags." Sorry!

 

Key issue here is basically a key side effect of being a member of the Majority: if you claim persecution, even folks on your "side" will question your biases (or even your sanity), so you can't really get away with it....

 

Not that any of this is *fair*, its just how people react....

 

Equinanimous,

Buffy

[Cedars]

First, it does not matter if Straight Pride was formed to protest gay rights and has since switched its message to promoting hetero lifestyles. In the USA you are allowed to protest gay rights. You can protest anything you want to, non-violently, and should be free from being labled a 'hatemonger'.

 

Follow-up to this particular case, which I mentioned because there was no hate mongering and yet this kid, and his family had to bring this issue to court to get this resolved is this:

 

"An offended classmate, representing a group of homosexuals students, brought the complaint to the school office after talking with Chambers."

 

Now for me, this is the rub. Why in the world should anyone be 'offended' by heterosexuality?

 

Additionally there is this:

 

" In certain places around the school, pink inverted triangles advertise the rooms of designated “safe” teachers, whom students can meet with to discuss homosexuality. This raises the question, “Are other teachers considered ‘unsafe’?” and followed by this:

 

"AFA attorney Michael DePrimo said there have been situations where parents have e-mailed complaints to the school concerning the overt support of homosexuality, only to have those letters read to the students by teachers who critique the letters, explaining why the parents are wrong. "

 

From this website: http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.asp?id=27

 

So my point of bringing this particular case up is TBD is probably correct in his statement that he would probably be labled a hatemonger should he start a straight pride group.

[Zythryn]

Without hearing from the students I can only guess.

From what I read in the wiki article the students probably were offended, by the organization not heterosexuality, because of derogetory comments from the 'straightpride' founders blog (if they did indeed exist there, I haven't seen it).

 

I agree that the ban by the school was wrong, and it was overturned by the courts.

 

I again disagree with you, I don't think Bill would be labeled a hatemonger for showing pride in his heterosexuality. Heck, I'll sign up for his club as long as there is nothing derogatory in it's position towards any people that aren't in the club:)

[Buffy]

You can protest anything you want to, non-violently, and should be free from being labled a 'hatemonger'.

No, the First Amendment *only* restricts government actions. If you advocate something as a private citizen, there is nothing to prohibit me as a private citizen from disagreeing with you publicly if I wish. I can even call you a hatemonger, and if I have sufficient evidence, you can't even sue me for libel or defamation of character.

 

The law does indeed lay a considerably weight behind intent. If you simply wear a "straight pride" t-shirt, I might be vulnerable to such a suit. On the other hand if you're wearing it at one of Rev. Wildmon's "God Hates Fags" protests, you'd have an almost impossible task suing me for libel.

 

Short of civil suits, you still have to deal with the fact that it is easy--although not justified--for people to lump you in with the extremists, thus exposing yourself to being "labeled" a "hatemonger." Note that the same thing is happening in this thread: the actions of a few activist gays are being used to plaster all of them as "demanding special rights" when that is clearly not the case.

 

So, asking:

Why in the world should anyone be 'offended' by heterosexuality?

is a strawman: its not that the complainants were "offended by heterosexuality", they were--wrongly in my view, and most of the gay folks I know--jumping to the conclusion that the *intent* was motivated by hate. The important thing is that even if it was, the government has no right to supress it.

 

So my point of bringing this particular case up is TBD is probably correct in his statement that he would probably be labled a hatemonger should he start a straight pride group.

"Probably" is a big word, and just because a *minority* "probably" would, does not justify tarring the majority. You're welcome to make this case of course, just don't expect people not to complain that the implication is wrong....

 

No, no, no, don't tug on that,

Buffy

[Cedars]

 

So, asking:

is a strawman: its not that the complainants were "offended by heterosexuality", they were--wrongly in my view, and most of the gay folks I know--jumping to the conclusion that the *intent* was motivated by hate. The important thing is that even if it was, the government has no right to supress it.

 

"Probably" is a big word, and just because a *minority* "probably" would, does not justify tarring the majority. You're welcome to make this case of course, just don't expect people not to complain that the implication is wrong....

 

No, no, no, don't tug on that,

Buffy

 

hmm.... I gotta quit posting so close to bedtime. I am too tired to think right.

 

ok...

 

your right. Good points.

[cwes99_03]

Further notice. Bedarche, is an old term for a kept boy, or male prostitute kept as a slave by men. 1) This doesn't imply that it was socially acceptable to do so, but that people were aware that it was done. 2) it also implies a division between a married couple who were referred to by another word and a man kept for sexual reasons by another man.

3) The term two-spirit, as used by TFS, is a new terminology used to refer to transgendered people. It's origin according to the Wiki site that TFS posted is in 1990, hardly a historical use of the term. Further, the wiki article pointed out that the majority of Native American people do not like either term, nor do they like the idea of men having sexual relations with men (or women with women.)

[TheBigDog]

Did anyone note the Judge's comments when he issued the ruling on wearing the shirt?

 

The judge said the sentiment behind the "Straight Pride" message appeared to be one of intolerance to homosexuality. But he ruled there was insufficient evidence that it would cause a substantial disruption of school activities.

 

At the same school there are specific allowances for "Gay Pride" clothing.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Further notice. Bedarche, is an old term for a kept boy, or male prostitute kept as a slave by men. 1) This doesn't imply that it was socially acceptable to do so, but that people were aware that it was done. 2) it also implies a division between a married couple who were referred to by another word and a man kept for sexual reasons by another man.

3) The term two-spirit, as used by TFS, is a new terminology used to refer to transgendered people. It's origin according to the Wiki site that TFS posted is in 1990, hardly a historical use of the term. Further, the wiki article pointed out that the majority of Native American people do not like either term, nor do they like the idea of men having sexual relations with men (or women with women.)

 

Bedarche is the anthropological term for the concept of the third gender found in nearly all Native American Cultures. Although it is etymologically related to the term you cite, it does not MEAN that (at least to anthropologist familiar with the concept.) Since I did not know it was offensive the first time I mentioned it, I started using the term "two-spirit", which is what is preferred now, and it was decided that would be the English word in 1990.

 

The concept of the two spirit has been extant in Native American culture since long before white folks showed up, that big list of words at the bottom of the article is a list of words in particular native languages for that concept.

 

And where did you read in that Wikipedia article this "the majority of Native American people do not like either term, nor do they like the idea of men having sexual relations with men (or women with women.)"

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

At the same school there are specific allowances for "Gay Pride" clothing.

Yes. It's unfortunate that they'd need to put such a protection in place. I'm sure they'd do the same if their was an outcry among the school's other groups, so long as the understood stance of those groups was not hatred.

 

Protect those who want equality and peace.

Restrict those who want institutionalized bigotry.

 

Pretty simple really. Not too many majority groups having to fight tooth and nail to earn rights afforded to minority groups. :)