Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

“They Won’t Magically Turn You Into A Lustful [snip]: Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Believer101 ... I'm going to be honest about reading this letter ... It seems a bit like the same rhetoric that gets us nowhere?

The issue with using those buzz words like 'first amendment' ... 'freedom' ... is they're overly used an abused by both sides of this discussion. America especially seems obsessed with abusing these terms to add fuel to their argument and they're far too easily spurned aside by both sides ...

The first amendment ... some people will go as far as saying that it's freedom to hate. The religious right believes that homosexuals want to silence them completely and vice versa. It's just such a rhetorical conversation I wish we didn't have to have it any more.

Freedom is the other big one. To some people it means freedom of majority rules. That means homosexuals should shut up and go to the back of the bus. Some believe that freedom has nothing to do with the debate; you're free to have sex with whoever you want.

The next part is, this letter is written in America. Not a single one of the 60 - 70% of Christians in the country will likely be touched by this approach. Unfortunately, I just feel like it's preaching to the strawman choir and encouraging yet more rhetoric and saber ratling.


Originally posted by charles1952
So for me, (And I am perfectly willing to admit this is just a feeling, and that many see it differently.) the gay marriage question is "Will you pass laws so that we can get more benefits than we had in the past?" I can understand that it would make them happy, and would be a "nice" thing to do, but I don't see the necessity for it. And I don't want to sound harsh, but I can almost hear the straights asking, "Why should we change? What do I get out of it?" And I haven't heard a good answer.


Hiya Charles (we spoke ages ago in another thread, was good)

I could go on for quite a while regarding the usual ones that Americans often don't have like spousal privilege/inheritence rights, hospital/nursing home rights, family leave, not having to constantly prove a relationship exists ... I can see necessity for all of these things and strongly encourage research in this area as to what 'benefits' means. I actually think 'benefits' is a really wrong term for around 1/3rd of the equation but anyway ...

There is something that homosexual marriage would give that straight people could get behind though to be honest. My privacy. That isn't a threat saying I'll post pictures of myself and my partner making out on youtube (that unfortunately might back fire anyway) but privacy for myself means no awkward conversations with the dentist, work colleagues, random people on the street or whoever else asks ...

Insurance company asks? I'm married.
Office worker asks? I'm married.
Hospital asks? We're married.

It removes a whole level of awkwardness out of the equation when you can just blend in with everyone else. Take insurance companies for example. You get asked this question, what do you say? 'I'm in a relationship' and it pretty much goes down hill from there. I really don't want my insurance company taking interest in these questions. Then you have to explain the whole thing in case your insurance company doesn't see it the same way.

Then there's the absolute worst thing to have to say ... 'yes, but we're the same gender, is that okay?'. Like we should be apologising to the person on the end of the phone? Then they feel awkward, and we all feel awkward. You can imagine how much more awkward it gets when whatever you're asking isn't covered or they haven't dealt with it before or they're not sure if we're eligible etc ...

Frankly I don't want to have to look up gay friendly insurance companies or open a conversation with, 'do you support gay people?' I don't want to discuss my homosexual health plan, and I like to think the person on the other end of the phone doesn't either.

Moving country can be just as irritating. I guess there's always this ilussion that people want to force sexuality on other people when in fact the vast majority just wanna fill out our XY41 application and get on with our lives.

Guess a good way of putting it is ... next time you see a rainbow flag outside a chemist or insurance company with a bunch of the typical types having a giggle about how gay people are always out and proud and they hate it, and they would be okay with gay people if they would just not scream about it so much and why the hell did they all move into the same suburb anyway? ... Answer is because they have a check box like this:

[ x ] In a relationship

And I tick it without making the administration staff picturing what my partner looks like.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I had already read this letter and the story that goes along with it.

What is significant for me is who is speaking up for gay rights - - that didn't only a few years ago.

And how they are speaking up. First it started with teams officially supporting equality - - but now players are voicing their support independently and strongly.

Major league players supporting gays is huge.

And Rappers are now also coming forward in supporting gay rights.

Quite a few in the GOP are now coming forward with support stating - - - we are on the wrong side of this fight.

“These guys are heroes,” Brian Ellner, a leading marriage equality advocate, said of Kluwe and Ayanbadejo. “This kind of thing has never happened before. It matters because Brendon and Chris are professional athletes who are uniquely positioned to help shape opinions and say to fans, to people who may not be focused on this, that gays are just like you and me.” www.nytimes.com...



edit on 10-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Burns backs off bid to silence Ravens player
Delegate drew national fire trying to stop Ayanbadejo's support of gay marriage


The Baltimore Sun - September 9, 2012

After drawing national attention for his attempt to muzzle a football player who supported gay rights, a Maryland delegate walked back his position Sunday and said Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo should be allowed to speak out in favor of same-sex marriage.

"Upon reflection, he has his First Amendment rights," Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Baltimore County Democrat, said in a telephone interview. "And I have my First Amendment rights. … Each of us has the right to speak our opinions. The football player and I have a right to speak our minds."

www.baltimoresun.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 

Dear Pinke,

Yes, it is good to see you again. Thank you for your really solid reply, I'm grateful.
You're an example of why I came to ATS. Give yourself a pat on the back.

It's tough for me to understand this issue. I don't know anyone who is gay (or, at least, is willing to admit it), so I speak from ignorance. May I touch on the benefits issue first, and briefly?

For me, in this situation, a benefit is a good thing granted by some level of government that can be changed or ended as they desire. Rights, on the other hand, are more properly the concern of courts, the Constitution, and God.

I had never thought of the awkwardness arising from the question "Married or Single?" I can imagine people saying "We're married. (in our hearts)" "We're single. (But I hate your guts for not supporting gay marriage.)" or "I sleep with whomever I want, whenever I want, and it's none of your %*(@ business." The last used by a slightly more assertive supporter of the movement.


You've raised a good point. I'll have to think about it a little more. My first thought was "Wow! I never thought of that. That could be a real problem." My second thought was "Is it enough of a problem to re-define marriage?"

Pinke, you're expanding my thinking and I'm grateful. If there's anything I can ever do for you, let me know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

It's tough for me to understand this issue. I don't know anyone who is gay (or, at least, is willing to admit it), so I speak from ignorance.


Hey Charles - - I was once ignorant too of LGBT.

I will forever be thankful for being hired by a company - - where I - being straight - - was the minority.

Guess what - - they're just people.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

The next part is, this letter is written in America. Not a single one of the 60 - 70% of Christians in the country will likely be touched by this approach. Unfortunately, I just feel like it's preaching to the strawman choir and encouraging yet more rhetoric and saber ratling.


Yeah - - - but I think it takes all kinds to get a message across and then results.

There are the quiet behind the scenes campaigners. There are many groups working on Equality. There's radio shows. There's new TV shows centering around LGBT and family. There's the No Bullying campaign. There are those who made a point of having personal meetings with Obama - etc.

A very vocally strong public response from a Major League athlete - - - to an anti-gay politician - - who had the audacity to stick his homophobic nose where it had no business going - - - is quite something.

We know the Fundy Christians aren't gonna change - - - but some sports fans who may not have even had an interest might just take notice.

Voting on marriage equality is coming up in this state.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


I suppose then again it's better a kid be raised by a gay couple than by the g--v in an orphanage right. Those kids end up usually in a lot of bad situations.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

hello again Charles -

What's wrong with us?

We're freaks Charles - plain and simple. And polite debate is boring - for some. Must be we're boring :-)

Agreed again, but I think voting and getting benefits from marriage are different enough to take note of.

I really don't. I used women winning the right to vote as an example for a reason. Because at the root of all this is not an argument about benefits - it's about the people asking for those benefits. The people of today don't see women the way they did back then - we can't, because it's not our reality in the here and now. Women were property Charles - not individuals and equals. It doesn't matter that some or even most men respected, liked or cherished their women - women had different rights. Not even separate but equal rights. They were subject to the laws of men - men decided their lives down to the smallest detail

And for quite some time no one thought to question this - not even women. At one time people of color weren't even considered fully human...

Perception is everything - but more powerful than perception is maintaining the status quo: this is how it's always been - this is what's normal. We all come to accept together what's normal - and nothing is better, more comfortable and more right than normal . It's not about benefits Charles :-)

I think this is where our difference can be found. Nobody is entitled to, or has a right to, by law, a religious marriage ceremony. So let's look at the government sponsored marriages I honestly believe that if there were no benefits written into law for a married couple, then no gays would insist on a "legal" marriage. They'd just say "I love you," and start living together.

I think people make the mistake of seeing this as being just about acquiring the right to be married when in fact it's about the right to be treated like everyone else. It's about equality - and since this is about gender and sex - marriage becomes the symbol of true freedom and real equality

It won't affect the faithful in reality - but it may stick in their craw. Nobody will force churches to marry gays - though I would be willing to bet a few churches will do it willingly - and gladly :-)

Religious folk won't be losing a thing - except the power to decide these things for the non-faithful or non-conforming

They just want to be legally married - and we can debate from here to eternity about what marriage really means - but we all know it's not about what it means. It's about what people want it to mean

And I don't want to sound harsh, but I can almost hear the straights asking, "Why should we change? What do I get out of it?" And I haven't heard a good answer.

I have heard so often lately how tired people are of hearing about the gays - and their needs and wants and demands. What that says to me is - the whole thing is outside they're comfort zone - they quite literally don't want to hear about it any more because it's annoying - and it just makes them uncomfortable

And I think many see it as whining - but truth is they're not whining. And they're also not asking anymore - they are demanding that they be treated the same as everyone

So, what are we left with? One group of people saying: You aren't the same as everyone. What you are is unnatural - and unholy

Who are these people - and by what right do they get to decide what is right - and what is wrong? They have God's permission to subjugate other people? What God - whose God? Does our Constitution give them the right to deny others what should also be theirs by simply being born human?

Not in my Constitution. All men are created equal in my Constitution

Should this ever be a majority rules issue - or are some rights obvious and inherent - inalienable? What does it mean to be human - and are some people more human than others? No - no one is more human than anyone else

What they get out of it is knowing that they've done the right thing

You're right, I don't know if there lives will change, and I would bet that they wouldn't. However, I would wager that you and I both have cheered or booed proposals that wouldn't affect us personally. The fresh raw milk off the farm controversy, for example. I've got an opinion, but raw milk will never affect me personally.

Well, about this - we all know people who are gay - and we all love people who are gay. You may not know who some of them are - and you should probably wonder why that is. This affects all of us whether we see it or not. People shouldn't be forced to live a lie. Things are finally changing so they don't have to

I think it's not unreasonable to assume that gay marriage will have an effect on society as a whole, though.


But will it be a negative affect do you think? And even so - does it matter? It may just come down to opinion and perception like everything else. What's right is still right - let the chips fall where they may


Spiramirabilis, I'm taking a chance with you, because of my respect for you. I'm intentionally trying to explore areas where there might be some disagreement, trusting that we won't fall into the traps that others seem to. This is helping me to open up, have my beliefs challenged (and modified), and gain a better perspective on this issue and other people.


I hope I didn't disappoint you Charles

:-)
edit on 9/11/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


I want to apologize for monopolizing huge chunks of your thread Believer101

I wasn't off topic exactly (not exactly), but still...

I've been reading all along and should have said earlier: right on Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo

Our world really is changing - isn't it?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Hey, it's no problem. I haven't been replying much because there really hasn't been anything for me to reply to that isn't off-topic.






top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join