Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Gay rights in this country have changed almost immeasurably since the first incarnation of this thread sometime in 2002. It would be interesting to chart the progress over the years just by going through the posts.

 

I hope people know that it's Bert, not Burt.

 

A very just ruling. To deny even the offering of benefits to another adult of his or her choosing is unjust. These are people who are in a relationship and have property and work and pay taxes. For the state to come in and say "it can only be this type of adult relationship contract"....terrible. Glad the judge ruled how he did. Hope there is more and more until the last vestiges of this type of state meddling in adult relationships is swept away.

 

David Cameron put it best when he said that he wasn't for gay marriage in spite of being a conservative, but rather because he is a conservative. It's such a conservative cause at heart, and decades from now, when the circling of the wagons is long since past, I think it will be recognized as such.

 

Now can he tell that to those who call themselves conservatives on this side of the pond? Because many of them don't quite get that message.

 

dont say "this side of the pond"

 

I agree. It's a little comforting to see how the world has changed in a decade [of posts]. I'm curious to go back and look at all the old posts and compare them to how it has developed in the real world. I won't ... but I'm curious about it.

 

As I recall the posts mostly centered on it being unnatural, unfairly forced on the poor victimized religious community, and closeted politicians.

Oh, and wedding photographers.

On a different note, Minneapolis pride this weekend had a very different atmosphere. There was happiness, but also a kind of "What do we do now?" kind of vibe. After fighting for so long, I think some people will struggle with finding a new focus/passion.

 

So much time has passed now that I've gone from having no ability or interest in photographing weddings, to being interested in photographing them, to having no interest at all in doing them other than very small ones for friends. I understood that it was a crock back in the day, I think, but now I really know that it was (and is).

What a stupid thing that was.

 

As I recall, I had an argument with somebody who was advocating putting all homosexuals on an island because then they'd be gone in a generation. To which I responded that a gay man and lesbian are quite capable of having sex with each other. He didn't get it. I think some people actually believe that we are physically incapable of heterosexual intercourse.

The down side of the SCOTUS ruling is that the doom and gloom prophets are going to make a lot of money (and a lot of it from people who don't really have the money to give). I wonder if any of their followers ever wake up and realize that they are really nothing more than MacDonald's customers. Christianity - the original franchise.

 

Atta girl! Some things just have to be done.

 

I think I remember seeing that argument at one point when scrolling back through the thread one time.

As for the doom and gloom people, I think if that one guy from Meet the Press is any indication, some of the extreme Christian right are going to revive Bush 43's idea of a Constitutional amendment saying that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Good luck with that I'd tell him.

 

Yeah, they couldn't even do it then when support for ssm was 20 points lower.

 

Yeah, that would not explain the many children born from a man and woman who were married and then one finally came out as gay. They still had to have sex.

 

And of course you can't put all gay people on an island, because straight couples give birth to gay people. Therefore, it cannot end in "a generation". I'm glad I missed that absurd argument.

 

There's a story recently in the news here about a gay couple who adopted a boy, rather publicly, and then later revealed they had links to child sex groups.



Aside from the obvious terrible implications for the boy, this just sets back the arguments further back for same sex marriage.

 

This was already brought up by LandoThe CapeCalrissian and hashed out a good 25 pages back.

 

Ok, didn't know as probably wouldn't have checked that far back.

 

I don't think you want to say that. - SuperWatto

 

" It's such a conservative cause at heart, and decades from now, when the circling of the wagons is long since past, I think it will be recognized as such. "
Decades from now conservatives will deny they ever opposed it or tried to score political points off opposition to it. Much like modern conservatives and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and the Southern Strategy.

"As I recall, I had an argument with somebody who was advocating putting all homosexuals on an island because then they'd be gone in a generation. To which I responded that a gay man and lesbian are quite capable of having sex with each other. He didn't get it. I think some people actually believe that we are physically incapable of heterosexual intercourse."
Actually the next generation of homosexuals is most likely to come from the heterosexuals who remained.

"As for the doom and gloom people, I think if that one guy from Meet the Press is any indication, some of the extreme Christian right are going to revive Bush 43's idea of a Constitutional amendment saying that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Good luck with that I'd tell him. "
Yes, with more than half the electorate in favor of gay marriage now. Are they trying to lose in 2016, or do they think they've gerrymandered so well that they can't lose?

Now, the part struck down only applied to the section of DOMA that forbids federal benefits. Getting one state to recognize a wedding from elsewhere is still another matter. All one has to do is find a gay couple from a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, send them to get hitched in a state that does, and then apply for benefits back home.

 

I suspect that'll be the next big gay marriage related fight that ends up in the Supreme Court in a few years, Seeking to have states recognize SSM at least as far as federal benefits go, with the argument that federal law would supercede Federal law in that instance.

 

But does that mean it's because they're in a same-sex relationship that this happened? Do hetero couples ever do wrong by children? And if so, do we cast aspersions on the whole group?