Fuck New York

[B_Stronzo]

Since Shelby often says we homos make ourselves into our own victims I've addressed the much larger issue here with his endless one-liner in mind. However, I'd like you all to read what these arrogant bastards are getting away with.

This is an issue directed at only ONE THING; marginalizing gay people

I'm very fortunate I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (at least for now).


This is precisely why we cannot envision (we gay folk) ourselves as not being ostracized/oppressed and why we remain "the last condonable prejudice".

There's no imagined persecution. This shit's real. No 'veiled' shit here. Nope none. I guess I should be tickled the bastards don't mind being so overtly bigoted.

Fuck this shit.

Read this link about New York's decision re Gay Marriage:

NY Times Article

(Stronzo--I edited the link so it would not stretch the page--Lex)

Now then. Let's give it some PERSPECTIVE:

*********************************************



10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

(due credit to my friend David in Provincetown who I love dearly)

• Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
• Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
• Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
• Straight marriage has been around long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
• Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
• Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
• Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
• Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
• Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
• Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is twilight. And it is in such twilight that we must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." Justice William O. Douglas

 

[phantom73]

I think I love you, Stronzo.

 

[DaveyR]

Great post Stronzo

 

[B_Stronzo]

Unite brothers and sisters I say Dave! Join us phantom! I love you too brother.

Fuck the bastards. I'm all done trying to explain myself away to the fuckers.

 

[Pirate Wench]

I voted against proposition 2 in TX last spring......it was to get an amendment in TX to ban gay marriages.....and it got approved.

Idiots.....they voted how their churches told them to....nothing more than a bunch of lemmings.

Guess they're incapable of thinking for themselves and doing their own homework when it comes to voting.

I knew about it way ahead of time from an email from Log Cabin Republicans....and what was added to the amendment that was just Wrong.
No One in the local media reported the issues piggybacked onto it until after it passed.
Those issues should never have become law either.
Sneaky bastards.


I know 2 male couples, good friends, who are more loyal to each other than some hetero couples I know.
I have never believed that our marriage certificate would be devalued if a same sex couple had the same certificate.

That is bullshit.

People are just too damned nosy and can't stand not telling others what to do with their lives.

 

[Lex]

Either the law makers have to create new laws that grant inclusion in all things and truly guarantee equal protection for everyone or the judges have to strike down the existing laws.

When we refuse to do neither, we can not grow.

 

[stud_hunter]

I'm convinced that nearly all bigotry is the result of schoolyard bully mentality. People want to feel special and good about themselves so they find other people to put down. Then they feel good that they themselves aren't "those" people. It's all so pitiful.

 

[madame_zora]

In the majority opinion, Judge Smith said that because same-sex marriage was not deeply rooted in history and tradition, barring it was not a violation of fundamental rights and liberties.

The majority decision argued that any comparison with anti-miscegenation laws was flawed because discrimination against homosexuals has been recognized only recently, while "racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil."

Hear that, faggots? You have to earn the right to be an issue by hundreds of years of discrimination and abuse first.

Fine, if that's the way they want to play, who's willing to gather and document that this has already happened? These fucktards need to start being put in their place by those of us who can write, research, think and feel. They are out of touch with reality and therefore wrong. Until we as a people stop accepting substandard representation, we will continue being led by individuals who are governed by SELF interest only, not the interests of ALL the people. Fuck this shit. "We the people" means ALL the people, not just the few. It means the gays, the women, the people of all races, the people of religions other than christian, the christians, the apathetic, the motivated-
ALL of us.

 

[Lex]

Well, I am off to be a good guy and stone some non-virginal women...

 

[DaveyR]

Having grown up in Britain and spent the last year in Spain I consider myself fortunate. Both societies - from my personal experience - have always been very tolerant.

I first visited the States ( New Jersey and New York ) in 1979 and loved the Country and the way of life.

I have visited many parts of the US since then, the latest being to LA last year and over the years my opinions have changed drastically. I cannot decide if society has changed or I have become more aware as I got older or a combination of the two.

It angers me that so much of US society is intolerant to anyone who does not conform to the accepted norm. Even my own family in America treated me dreadfully when I came out as gay. My Uncle has not spoken to my eldest cousin for 10 years because she married a black guy whom I have to say is one of the nicest people I have met in the States.

It also angers me when I hear America referred to as the land of the free. This should be bracketed with (if your are Mr and Mrs Average caucasian 2.2 children suburb dwellers).

I make no apologies if anyone finds my post offensive as I am speaking from many personal experiences. I could go on and on giving examples of my observations and examples of how badly I have been treated - especially by immigration officials - whilst visiting and spending my hard earned money in America.

I thank my lucky stars that I am from and now live in what I would call a free
and tolerant Country. I wanted to move permanently to the US in the early 80's I am so happy that I did not.

So Stronzo you have my backing for what it is worth.

 

[Lex]

In other news, I really loved this dissenting opinion. People forget that what it IS is not always what is WAS or even how it was originally intended.

Judge Kaye, however, argued that the historic and cultural understanding of marriage did not justify discrimination.
"Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination — no matter how entrenched — does not make the discrimination constitutional," Judge Kaye wrote in her 27-page dissent. "As history has well taught us, separate is inherently unequal."


"The claim that marriage has always had a single and unalterable meaning is a plain distortion of history," she wrote. Until well into the 19th century, for instance, she said, wives were considered the property of their husbands and married women could not own property or enter into contracts.


"Only since the mid-twentieth century has the institution of marriage come to be understood as a relationship between two equal partners, founded upon shared intimacy and mutual financial and emotional support."


She said that while encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry could be good for the welfare of children, denying marriage to same-sex couples did not serve that interest in any way.


"The state's interest in a stable society is rationally advanced when families are established and remain intact, irrespective of the gender of the spouses," Judge Kaye wrote.


"The ability or desire to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage," she said. "The elderly are permitted to marry, and many same-sex couples do indeed have children."


She noted that the United States Supreme Court has held that even prison inmates have a fundamental right to marry, despite the limits of prison life that may make it impossible to conceive children.


And she said there were other legitimate ways to encourage people to raise children, such as subsidizing child care or requiring employers to provide family leave for parents.


"Marriage is about much more than producing children, yet same-sex couples are excluded from the entire spectrum of protections that come with civil marriage — purportedly to encourage other people to procreate," she wrote.

 

[madame_zora]

I voted against proposition 2 in TX last spring......it was to get an amendment in TX to ban gay marriages.....and it got approved.

Idiots.....they voted how their churches told them to....nothing more than a bunch of lemmings.

Guess they're incapable of thinking for themselves and doing their own homework when it comes to voting.

I knew about it way ahead of time from an email from Log Cabin Republicans....and what was added to the amendment that was just Wrong.
No One in the local media reported the issues piggybacked onto it until after it passed.
Those issues should never have become law either.
Sneaky bastards.


I know 2 male couples, good friends, who are more loyal to each other than some hetero couples I know.
I have never believed that our marriage certificate would be devalued if a same sex couple had the same certificate.

That is bullshit.

People are just too damned nosy and can't stand not telling others what to do with their lives.

With the divorce rate at over 50%, and that doesn't even take into account that fewer and fewer people are choosing to even GET married, I'd have to say that heterosexuals are doing more to damage the institution of marriage than their gay countrymen ever could.

If marriage is to be ONLY for the benefit of raising children, than I'd be in favor of a dissolution of marriage being instituted automatically for every couple who does not produce in one calandar year. That will solve the problem, then the gays will have no benefits, just like the childless heteros, and everyone can drink tea and be happy.

 

[DaveyR]

With the divorce rate at over 50%, and that doesn't even take into account that fewer and fewer people are choosing to even GET married, I'd have to say that heterosexuals are doing more to damage the institution of marriage than their gay countrymen ever could.

If marriage is to be ONLY for the benefit of raising children, than I'd be in favor of a dissolution of marriage being instituted automatically for every couple who does not produce in one calandar year. That will solve the problem, then the gays will have no benefits, just like the childless heteros, and everyone can drink tea and be happy.

No arguing with that one MZ well put

 

[dong20]

Either the law makers have to create new laws that grant inclusion in all things and truly guarantee equal protection for everyone or the judges have to strike down the existing laws.

Or both. Would a constitutional amendment would be better if, as it seems the 14th Amendment is being trampled on? But legislation alone may be enough. Although they related to racial not sexual discrimiation I would have thought Woo v. Lockyer and Loving v. Virginia would have given pause for thought before ruling such a ban was not unconstitutional. It's especially interesting that the analogy and presumably reference to the early precedent of the 1948 Perez v Sharp case overturning the California ban on interracial marriage was rejected here as irrelevant!

This ruling seemed to me to be based rather more heavily on parochial sociological grounds rather than an interperatation of constitutional law but of course I know I am no expert. It still dismays me that decisions about such fundementals are left in the perview of state not federal law. It must drive you crazy.

It's hard to see this ruling not being overturned.

 

[B_Stronzo]

So Stronzo you have my backing for what it is worth.

It's worth the earth to me Dave as is the overt articulated anger of valued members like our madame_zora. I find good comfort in the comradship of thinking heterosexual women often. mz is a wonderful example of the best of her sex and those several other strong female posters in our midst are equally valuable to me. They know their status in this American society is tentative and are ever-vigilant that this purported equal status they "enjoy" needs to be guarded at every turn from the "good old boys" who'd snatch (word used advisedly) it away.

I must say something here with in an earnest attempt to dispel my innate sense of "'heteromaleophobia" (although in truth it's not a fear but truly a loathing);

In our "dong20" we have a shining example of the potential of all in our species. To me he's become a constant friend who lifts me up when I'm down (and I'm truly down now) and a brother in spirit when I need to bounce something off another poster here at LSPG. Short of getting all sloppy here I want to acknowledge that he, and he alone on this board, is a heterosexual male who (apparently) has no bias. His presence has been so reassuring to me in a variety of ways and to such a degree that I when I conjur him up in my mind's eye I don't really see a person. I see a feeling... a friend. I don't see him as straight or gay or white or black or tall or short. I see pure human being.

We're lucky to have him in our ranks for he gives other heterosexual men a good name.

My bias is of course going to be to my own sexuality. But dong20 appears to ride just above the wave of tolerance not on it. And in doing so he transcends its pitfalls.

And in the larger picture I'm grateful to be apart of this group generally. Even from those with whom I "do battle" I learn. And learning is all we've got folks........ for once we forsake the business of educating ourselves we are doomed to mediocrity.

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[dong20]

My bias is of course going to be to my own sexuality. But dong20 appears to ride just above the wave of tolerance not on it. And in doing so he transcends its pitfalls.

Damn, now I have get my cape back from storage. I think you're painting far more praisworthy image than I deserve, not that its unappreciated.:biggrin1: Like anyone I have my biases and predjudices; I just try to control them not vice versa. Sometimes I succeed sometimes not. It's far from ideal but I try my best.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Venting is healthy, as a good friend used to say to me; "Better out than in." We were usually drunk and curried up at the time so I suspect he was being rather more biological than philosophical but I believe the analogy has wider application.

 

[Rikter8]

Too bad we can't all stick together anymore and riot when a stupid decision like this is made.

Writing letters isn't going to get it Kids.

They could give a monkey shit less on an opposing opinion letter, IF...IF they even open it.

I say marry anyway - who gives a shit about a marriage license.
Fuck em. So it's not legal - big deal. Neither are drugs, but everybody's got them, and nobodys doing much about them either.

As long as your union is blessed in the church of your choice, by a Priest, that's all that counts.

 

[LeeEJ]

I can't really add anything more -- what I would have said has already been said very well. Loved to see the dissenting opinion, and MZ had a very good post, too.

 

[dcwrestlefan]

maybe its time for a "drive by shitting" in albany, stronzo. :smile:

i only ask one thing from the other side. give me a logical explanation why it matters to your straight marriage if jane and sue or mark and steve get married. please. i wanna hear it.

ITS NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS WHO I MARRY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU !!!!!!!!!!! beginning, middle and end of discussion.

off my screaming box. back to your regular programming.

 

[B_Stronzo]

maybe its time for a "drive by shitting" in albany, stronzo. :smile:

There's one in the planning stages dc!!!

only ask one thing from the other side. give me a logical explanation why it matters to your straight marriage if jane and sue or mark and steve get married. please. i wanna hear it.

'logic' you say?? Why dc! Are you daft!! It's in the Bible. Logic is irrelevant. Plus it fucks with the straight male notion of their "natural order of things" (for which read "remaining in charge of who everyone fucks..."

NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS WHO I MARRY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU !!!!!!!!!!! beginning, middle and end of discussion.

If only it was the end. I'm afraid they're mandating segregation these days mon ami.