Support NeoGAF

[DOWN]

Convincing gay men that monogamous relationships were desirable at all was an enormous part of the fight for gay marriage. It was arguably the defining battle. You don't get gay marriage until you start asking for it, and you don't start asking for it unless you want it.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue.

 

[TheHeretic]

Just to be clear, your position is that gays are partially responsible for the length of time it has taken to achieve marriage equality?

I can't write counterfactual history, and its difficult to imagine it happening any faster. Consensus only really occurred when lesbians began having children and realising they had very few legal protections, and when the aids epidemic broke and spouses were thrown out of hospitals by spiteful relatives. Without those two shifts in the 90's the prevailing attitude may still have been what it was in the 70's and 80's - a rejection of marriage altogether.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't even know what that means, so stop repeating it over and over.

You got your right to marry and now don't want to open the doors for anyone else.

 

[TheHeretic]

You got your right to marry and now don't want to open the doors for anyone else.

Why don't you begin by explaining who the other groups are?

 

[KHarvey16]

I can't write counterfactual history, and its difficult to imagine it happening any faster. Consensus only really occurred when lesbians began having children and realising they had very few legal protections, and when the aids epidemic broke and spouses were thrown out of hospitals by spiteful relatives. Without those two shifts in the 90's the prevailing attitude may still have been what it was in the 70's and 80's - a rejection of marriage altogether.

Cases were tried in court regarding same-sex marriage in the early 70's. Maybe those cases would have gone better had the plaintiffs wanted it more?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why don't you begin by explaining who the other groups are?

Well you already said you don't want to make room for Asexual and questioning folk.

In the other thread you argued for a balance between gay and religious folk without going into detail.


You clearly take issue with on monogamous gay folk.

 

[TheHeretic]

Well you already said you don't want to make room for Asexual and questioning folk.

In the other thread you argued for a balance between gay and religious folk without going into detail.


You clearly take issue with on monogamous gay folk.

Asexual and "questioning" folk can get married, so whats the issue?

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

I don't know
isn't Neogaf support gays? the new logo itself prove it.
or the owners are afraid from being called homophobic if they don't add the colors to the old logo?

.....what?

 

[Darksol]

For your reading pleasure:

And this isn't same-sex marriage related -- it's just, wtf.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Asexual and "questioning" folk can get married, so whats the issue?

Uhhhh that there's more to QUILTBAG activism than same sex marriage.

 

[TheHeretic]

Cases were tried in court regarding same-sex marriage in the early 70's. Maybe those cases would have gone better had the plaintiffs wanted it more?

Thats a terrible reading of the history of this. Real arguments only began in the late 80's and the first real opening was the Baehr case in Hawaii. Gay rights groups ran from the issue in Hawaii because they didn't think they could win, and didn't consider marriage to be a real priority. I'm sure there were cases in the 70's, social change doesn't come from a few court cases, it comes from argument and debate in the larger society which certainly wasn't there in the 70's.

 

[TheHeretic]

Uhhhh that there's more to QUILTBAG activism than same sex marriage.

So humour me with specifics then.

 

[KHarvey16]

Thats a terrible reading of the history of this. Real arguments only began in the late 80's and the first real opening was the Baehr case in Hawaii. Gay rights groups ran from the issue in Hawaii because they didn't think they could win, and didn't consider marriage to be a real priority. I'm sure there were cases in the 70's, social change doesn't come from a few court cases, it comes from argument and debate in the larger society which certainly wasn't there in the 70's.

Because in the 70's they were focused on not being thrown in jail for having sex, never mind getting married. Cases were tried, and it was obvious that nothing was going to happen there. The point being, the idea that the reason it took this long was because they didn't start fighting for it until the late 80's is ridiculous. If instead of arguing for employers to not be allowed to discriminate against them, they argued for marriage equality, you really think that would have changed things? You can't treat these things separately and in a vacuum.

 

[Aselith]

And this isn't same-sex marriage related -- it's just, wtf.

It's against nature to take your boat down the red river

 

[TheHeretic]

Because in the 70's they were focused on not being thrown in jail for having sex, never mind getting married. Cases were tried, and it was obvious that nothing was going to happen there. The point being, the idea that the reason it took this long was because they didn't start fighting for it until the late 80's is ridiculous. If instead of arguing for employers to not be allowed to discriminate against them, they argued for marriage equality, you really think that would have changed things? You can't treat these things separately and in a vacuum.

Gay rights and gay marriage are separate issues, and were treated separately throughout that period. I explicitly said the timing has been almost miraculously fast as it is, so no, I don't think making the argument earlier would have made much of a difference. The point I made is that the gay community itself wasn't arguing at large for gay marriage, nor did its members really want it, until the middle 90's.

 

[mazpratim]

Thank you!!

 

[Chairmanchuck]

For your reading pleasure:

And this isn't same-sex marriage related -- it's just, wtf.

What is this? Seriously? Satan? "Gas chambers have been justified for not much more".

These arent christians, but radical assholes.

 

[sakuori]

I don't get why these people make their stupid post public.

Oh yeah, I saw this from the guy who made the all-over-the-place-salt as well.
I was surprised to see that the FB post I put up earlier to be set as public too.

His succeeding posts are pretty embarrassing.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

What is this? Seriously? Satan? "Gas chambers have been justified for not much more".

These arent christians, but radical assholes.

Yeah..that was a scary read..

 

[KHarvey16]

Gay rights and gay marriage are separate issues, and were treated separately throughout that period. I explicitly said the timing has been almost miraculously fast as it is, so no, I don't think making the argument earlier would have made much of a difference. The point I made is that the gay community itself wasn't arguing at large for gay marriage, nor did its members really want it, until the middle 90's.

But you called convincing gay men and women to want marriage perhaps the defining battle in the fight for gay marriage. How can it be so defining if it didn't have any impact on when it happened? And how can you divorce a lack of focus on marriage from the obvious fact that the community had more pressing legislative protections to pursue?

 

[excelsiorlef]

So humour me with specifics then.

Asexuality is claimed to not even exist by many

Trans rights are a mess all over the place

You already said there's no room at the table for people who are unsure of their sexuality because they'll eventually figure it out

Job and housing discrimination

Bisexual erasure

Media representation

etc...

We've already discussed you're slut shaming of non monogamous queer folk

 

[TheHeretic]

But you called convincing gay men and women to want marriage perhaps the defining battle in the fight for gay marriage. How can it be so defining if it didn't have any impact on when it happened? And how can you divorce a lack of focus on marriage from the obvious fact that the community had more pressing legislative protections to pursue?

It was defining only in hindsight because the legal struggle - not to diminish the work involved - was relatively straight forward. The organisational backbone that pushed for it came from the 90's when there was a shift in the intellectual argument for how homosexuals would fit in society. I don't know how many times I can explain the same thing over and over.

 

[TheHeretic]

Asexuality is claimed to not even exist by many

Trans rights are a mess all over the place

You already said there's no room at the table for people who are unsure of their sexuality because they'll eventually figure it out

Job and housing discrimination

Bisexual erasure

Media representation

etc...

We've already discussed you're slut shaming of non monogamous queer folk

Transexual rights are already in the "LGBT". The other issues appear to be social grievances which I probably don't agree with, but in any event they don't involve the law.

 

[HUELEN10]

Transexual rights are already in the "LGBT". The other issues appear to be social grievances which I probably don't agree with, but in any event they don't involve the law.

BS, aces like myself are only a protected class in NY, we have a LONG way to go; and that is just one example, from one group of queers.

We have a long way to go, but marriage equality is a good step forward.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Transexual rights are already in the "LGBT". The other issues appear to be social grievances which I probably don't agree with, but in any event they don't involve the law.

Yeah they're in the T but they're fight is constantly treated as secondary and frequently there's talk about how we don't belong in the GLB

And yes that you don't really care about the rest or don't involve the law is literally why I accused you of being "Fuck you I got mine"

 

[hateradio]

This has been showing up on my Facebook feed

http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/

#WhosTheBigot #DeepThoughts #MakesYouThink

Adam 4 D?

 

[VaultBoy101]

Some anti-salt from Facebook:

 

[User 463088]

Transexual rights are already in the "LGBT". The other issues appear to be social grievances which I probably don't agree with, but in any event they don't involve the law.

You believe housing and employment discrimination are not legal issues?

Really?

 

[TheHeretic]

BS, aces like myself are only a protected class in NY, we have a LONG way to go; and that is just one example, from one group of queers.

We have a long way to go, but marriage equality is a good step forward.

Asking for a right everyone else in the society enjoys - marriage and the pursuit of happiness is quite different from asking for special protection laws. I don't even agree with special protection laws, but thats a separate argument altogether. Sorry, being gay doesn't mean axiomatically signing on to a whole legal regime.

 

[Darksol]

Some anti-salt from Facebook:

Heh.

 

[Izuna]

That's a big question! I will try and answer briefly and would be happy to elaborate if you'd like to know more.

Well...

I very much disagree with what you are saying. What you are ultimately saying is that the concept of money and success, status and progression are all bad and we should never have something more than the other.

The reason why I disagree with this so much is because being a leader of economy does not reflect a person's happiness. We all know that. What it does it give them power. Where that money or power comes from, how it's rewarded, man that's an interesting thing to think about too, but to get rid of that entirely (communism) would never work because you would never be able to regress greed in people. Basically, it wouldn't last very long, a total police state is bad sure, but having no system to enforce the law is far worse.

Capitalism as it stands is responsible for the very reason you are able to communicate on this very forum.

 

[KHarvey16]

It was defining only in hindsight because the legal struggle - not to diminish the work involved - was relatively straight forward. The organisational backbone that pushed for it came from the 90's when there was a shift in the intellectual argument for how homosexuals would fit in society. I don't know how many times I can explain the same thing over and over.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. How can it be defining if all of these other things coming together are what allowed it? It seems you want it to be defining in some attempt to assign some responsibility to the gay community.

 

[VaultBoy101]

 

[A Link to the Past]

Asking for a right everyone else in the society enjoys - marriage and the pursuit of happiness is quite different from asking for special protection laws. I don't even agree with special protection laws, but thats a separate argument altogether. Sorry, being gay doesn't mean axiomatically signing on to a whole legal regime.

You either have special protection laws or discrimination. Why do you seem perfectly fine with choosing the latter? Do you also think that food drives for the poor are bad because rich people get hungry too?

 

[TheHeretic]

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. How can it be defining if all of these other things coming together are what allowed it? It seems you want it to be defining in some attempt to assign some responsibility to the gay community.

Because it wasn't clear in the early 90's homosexuals as a body politic even wanted gay marriage.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because it wasn't clear in the early 90's homosexuals as a body politic even wanted gay marriage.

So because people were too afraid of being harassed, assaulted, or killed to be open, it's their fault? How do you expect them to operate?

 

[Izuna]

You either have special protection laws or discrimination. Why do you seem perfectly fine with choosing the latter? Do you also think that food drives for the poor are bad because rich people get hungry too?

Isn't the ultimate goal such that there doesn't have to be special protection laws? ... not that I agree, but I think that's where he is coming from.

When people are not part of a group, what they easily lack is empathy on an issue. It's like people who disagree with affirmative action.

 

[KHarvey16]

Because it wasn't clear in the early 90's homosexuals as a body politic even wanted gay marriage.

Ignoring the obvious fact they had other priorities, I really can't believe someone would look at this situation and conclude the reason a group wasn't afforded a right they deserved was partially because they didn't ask for it earlier.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Because it wasn't clear in the early 90's homosexuals as a body politic even wanted gay marriage.

Fuck man you couldn't even legally have gay sex in all states during the 90s.

 

[TanookiTom]

Have these been linked yet?

Landmarks-you-wont-believe-were-turned-rainbow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Bridge_(Niagara_Falls)

 

[User 463088]

Because it wasn't clear in the early 90's homosexuals as a body politic even wanted gay marriage.

You're being extremely myopic here.

In the 90s, some of us were still having to fight to avoid going to jail for consensual sex. Our community was still struggling through the horrors of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, having had a President for the 1980s who didn't even acknowledge it as a real thing. We were fighting against a possible Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. In the 90s, the US government won a court case saying they could refuse to give gays security clearance...simply because they were gay.

...and you're saying that it wasn't clear we wanted marriage? Well, we had a few more pressing things to deal with first.

I have no idea where this idea comes from that you work towards change by demanding the entire farm. Real change is taken one small step at a time. You have an end goal, but you don't "win" only if you hit a home run every time you're at bat.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Isn't the ultimate goal such that there doesn't have to be special protection laws? ... not that I agree, but I think that's where he is coming from.

When people are not part of a group, what they easily lack is empathy on an issue. It's like people who disagree with affirmative action.

But is it even special protection laws? Sure, they're made because of discrimination against specific groups, but these laws do work to protect people on both sides of the spectrum. If a white person is fired for being white, anti-discrimination laws protect them.

 

[DOWN]

Before I post something I'll regret, is English your first language?

EDIT: I'm gonna need a rainbow avatar pleeeeeez

 

[User 463088]

But is it even special protection laws? Sure, they're made because of discrimination against specific groups, but these laws do work to protect people on both sides of the spectrum. If a white person is fired for being white, anti-discrimination laws protect them.

I wonder how long it would take for protection laws to protect sexual orientation if someone refused to hire a straight person. (Obviously, said refusal is asinine, but still...) In my state, there are no private sector employment protections for sexual orientation. I'm well within my "rights" to refuse to hire a straight person. Can't you just imagine how the pearls would be clutched if that were to happen?

 

[shoreu]

man i gotta stop watching all of these videos i think i had a nightmare last night, but their soo funny to watch. its crazy people think like this

 

[titiklabingapat]

Some of my schoolmates from highschool were posting a link talking about the rainbow stuff on FB and how this means that the gay agenda is gonna spread to our home country and some stuff about the Bible.

I was really disappointed because some of these people were some of the smartest kids I knew back then. I told them to be ashamed of themselves and left a Jesus quote about respecting others and spreading kindness, not hate and then promptly deleting them from my friend's list.

Time to prune some more, I guess.

 

[HUELEN10]

I don't Facebook, but is the ignorance/hate still going strong? I mean, over the past few days, has it died down, or riled up?

 

[A Link to the Past]

I wonder how long it would take for protection laws to protect sexual orientation if someone refused to hire a straight person. (Obviously, said refusal is asinine, but still...) In my state, there are no private sector employment protections for sexual orientation. I'm well within my "rights" to refuse to hire a straight person. Can't you just imagine how the pearls would be clutched if that were to happen?

I'd almost like to see someone refused employment for being straight. How great would it be to see anti-discrimination laws apply to sexual orientation? It'd be just like that attempt to ban gay marriage in Minnesota.

 

[TheHeretic]

You're being extremely myopic here.

In the 90s, some of us were still having to fight to avoid going to jail for consensual sex. Our community was still struggling through the horrors of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, having had a President for the 1980s who didn't even acknowledge it as a real thing. We were fighting against a possible Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. In the 90s, the US government won a court case saying they could refuse to give gays security clearance...simply because they were gay.

...and you're saying that it wasn't clear we wanted marriage? Well, we had a few more pressing things to deal with first.

I have no idea where this idea comes from that you work towards change by demanding the entire farm. Real change is taken one small step at a time. You have an end goal, but you don't "win" only if you hit a home run every time you're at bat.

We are going around in circles. If you think there was a consensus back then in the gay community go ahead and believe it. Apparently the absolutely roaring debate that marriage was a patriarchal, oppressive institution that took place back then is a figment of my imagination.

 

[Regret Truth]

This is too good.