Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 17, 2008
Homo So Many Anti-Gay Bigots, So Many Gay Friends
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Sarah Palin opposes gay marriage, adoptions by gay couples, and attends a church that promotes the ex-gay "movement" and pray-away-the-gay quackery. But she's not a bigot. How could she be—she has gay friends! Donny Osmond believes that gays and lesbians—particularly the marrying kind—will bring "bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." But "some of my best friends are gay," says Donny, so it's all good. Pat Boone compared gay people who want to marry to the terrorists who murdered scores of innocent people in Mumbai—but, hey, Boone has tons of gay friends too. (Including a Navy man who once put the moves on Pat. "I was a cow milker with a vise-like grip," Pat writes, "and after I nearly squeezed his wrist off, letting him know he had the wrong guy." The wrong guy? Some gay guys consider a vice-like grip a prerequisite for friendship.) And after the Rev. Peter Mullen—an Anglican priest—got in trouble for writing that "homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: 'Sodomy can seriously damage your health,'" he insisted that he had "nothing against homosexuals," adding that "many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion."
Is it really possible that these raving anti-gay bigots have more gay friends between them than I do? I somehow doubt it. So reporters should stop taking this "but I've got gay friends!" on faith. Anti-gay politicians, entertainers, and preachers shouldn't be allowed to take rhetorical cover behind gay friends if they're unable to produce any.
So you've got gay friends? Great. Bring 'em to a press conference—we've got some questions we'd like to ask them.
1
perfect and hilarious headline. i want more...this is a brilliant attack ad...i especially like seeing all there little lying faces together...their b.s. is truly beguiling...thanks for calling them out and i agree, let's talk to the friends...would make a very interesting documentary.
3
I think "a cow milker with a vise-like grip" is actually gay code for something (because we all know gays speak in code).
Moreover, where was said gay navy friend's hand when Pat put the squeeze on him?
Pat, what's the real story???
Moreover, where was said gay navy friend's hand when Pat put the squeeze on him?
Pat, what's the real story???
4
Any straight person can have a gay friend; that's easy. Show me your gay enemy if you want some cred.
5
This just sounds like a bigot telling Nigger jokes then saying its ok cause he has black friends. we have heard the same bullshit excuses from ignorant motherfuckers for a long ass time. Can I call them ignorant mother fuckers if a few are my friends. What if I called them Christ killers and Heritics for forgeting the basic tenents of Christianity. Like the words of Christ. I know they aren't a major part of the religion or anything like that.
6
"I was a cow milker with a vise-like grip" I've used that as a pickup line.
I wonder if the folks who named their child Adolf Hitler have Jewish friends.
I wonder if the folks who named their child Adolf Hitler have Jewish friends.
7
"So you've got gay friends? Great. Bring 'em to a press conference."
Or just have them send emails to a popular web-site, on the condition of complete anonymity. Close enough!
Or just have them send emails to a popular web-site, on the condition of complete anonymity. Close enough!
9
@2. The point is, it's not about whether you have gay (or black) friends at all. It’s about a person’s views and attitudes towards gays. Do they think that gays do not deserve all of the rights of straights? Do they think that straights are “better than” gays? Do they think that homosexuality is inherently harmful to the community?
These people may say that they don't hate the gays (as "evidenced" by their gay friends and the fact that they don't go around beating gays up), but they fail the tests that matter.
These people may say that they don't hate the gays (as "evidenced" by their gay friends and the fact that they don't go around beating gays up), but they fail the tests that matter.
11
Maybe instead of asking the bigots, you should be asking the gays, Dan. How many of us homos have friends who are evangelical anti-gay bigots?
I, for one, have none.
Is there any evidence that these guys' "gay friends" would consider these bigots their friends? I doubt it.
I, for one, have none.
Is there any evidence that these guys' "gay friends" would consider these bigots their friends? I doubt it.
12
I met Donny Osmond at Disney World a couple years ago. So I guess I would be one of his lesbian friends.
13
@6, speaking of Hitler, he supposedly said that, "everyone has their favorite Jew." Racist, bigoted demagogues seem to be able to pull off the trick of holding two contradictory ideas in their heads, intense hatred of a group, while professing friendship with individuals in that group, at least in public.
14
it's weird to watch bigots navigate a tolerant society. there was a time when bigots just stated their hateful views publicly and with impunity, now they have to tap dance around and say how many friends they have that they hate and how their friends don't mind that the bigots wish they didn't exist.
15
I have had "Christian" friends who have told me they hate gay people. They can't pull that "love the sinner, hate the sin" self- righteous bullshit with me. Needless to say, they are not my friends any longer. I was forced to be a "Christian" as a child but I wised up to those phonies by age ten. Religion is for phonies and morons.
16
Maybe all their gay friends are in the vein of Mary Cheney- i.e. spineless power-hungry hypocrites who'd sell themselves down the river to make a buck.
17
Let's face it, anyone who works in the entertainment industry knows some gays. I'm sure Donny (for instance) isn't constantly expounding his bigoted views and is probably quite pleasant to be around. Ergo, Donny may think of the gays he interacts with as his "friends".
Of course, my father in law used to love bragging about his celebrity "friends", which usually meant he'd met them once at a benefit, but from then on, in his mind, they were tight.
Of course, my father in law used to love bragging about his celebrity "friends", which usually meant he'd met them once at a benefit, but from then on, in his mind, they were tight.
18
Jeez, that picture of Donny Osmond you chose, look at that hair helmet! I had such a crush on him when I was a kid, but I never, repeat NEVER, bought an issue of Tiger Beat. Just wanted to make that clear.
19
Hitler saved his Jewish Nurse, but put the rest of the Jews in concentration camps.
Hitler, "See, I like one of them."
Hitler, "See, I like one of them."
20
You have misstated Osmond's beliefs.
The fuller quotation from the link is:
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
The passage; from the LDS Proclamation on the family; condemns extramarital sex, spouse abuse and failure to support family. It does not single out homosexuals but condemns the breakdown of heterosexual marriage (echoing the points you make in your 'every kid deserves two parents...' posts). The social costs of the breakdown of the family are universally acknowledged by sociologists.
Do you have any Mormon friends, Dan?
Perhaps if you did it would be easier to accurately comment on LDS positions.
The fuller quotation from the link is:
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
The passage; from the LDS Proclamation on the family; condemns extramarital sex, spouse abuse and failure to support family. It does not single out homosexuals but condemns the breakdown of heterosexual marriage (echoing the points you make in your 'every kid deserves two parents...' posts). The social costs of the breakdown of the family are universally acknowledged by sociologists.
Do you have any Mormon friends, Dan?
Perhaps if you did it would be easier to accurately comment on LDS positions.
22
oooh, press conference. i like that. i'd like to know how these "gay friends" feel about being their "straight friend's" token get-out-of-bigotry-free card.
23
If the only people who can be your friends are those who agree 100% with your positions then you must have few friends indeed.
A mature attitude would suggest that people of good will may disagree on some very basic and fundamental issues yet still interact in a civil manner.
"My way or the highway" is a formula for dictatorship, not friendship.
Sounds like we have control issues.
A mature attitude would suggest that people of good will may disagree on some very basic and fundamental issues yet still interact in a civil manner.
"My way or the highway" is a formula for dictatorship, not friendship.
Sounds like we have control issues.
26
@23. Being civil to someone is one thing, but we're talking about friendship here. Look at my list of questions @9. Could you have a quality friendship with someone who thinks you did not deserve the same rights as you do? With someone who thinks that you are inherently harmful to their community?
These are not "positions", they are attitudes that treat gays as sub-human. Hardly a trivial matter in a friendship.
These are not "positions", they are attitudes that treat gays as sub-human. Hardly a trivial matter in a friendship.
27
If they had real gay friends they wouldn't have to have a press conference. Their friends would just come out and defend them.
#2 I accept that you don't have any black friends, that's easy enough to know, but how do you know none of your friends are gay? I lived with a guy for three years in college and didn't know he was gay, even though I thought I had pretty acute "gaydar."
#2 I accept that you don't have any black friends, that's easy enough to know, but how do you know none of your friends are gay? I lived with a guy for three years in college and didn't know he was gay, even though I thought I had pretty acute "gaydar."
28
@23 what julie in chicago said. if someone thinks my existence is going to bring about the destruction of society, i would have a hard time considering that person a friend. that does not make me a dictator, it makes me a human being with feelings and a functioning brain. also, fuck you.
29
@26. Let's try that first question again... "Could you have a quality friendship with someone who thinks you do not deserve the same rights as they do?" That's better.
30
@28
brandon, you retard, that isn't the position. click on the link and have someone read and explain it to you.
also, fuck yourself.
brandon, you retard, that isn't the position. click on the link and have someone read and explain it to you.
also, fuck yourself.
31
@ 26 29
Opponents of gay marriage sincerely believe that everyone already has the same rights. And when you frame the debate in terms of "if you disagree with my position you are a bigot unworthy of civil treatment" (which is the slog position toward Prop 8 supporters) you have closed the door to communication and preclude anyone ever changing their minds.
The issue is the definition of marriage, one side advocates leaving it like it has been for 5000 years. It is an issue about which reasonable people may disagree, and resolve their differences in a civil manner. However there has not been much of that since Prop 8.
If homosexuals choose to treat those who disagree with their definition marriage that way then how should pro-lifers who believe abortion is murder treat those who disagree with them? The nation has resolved much stickier issues than gay marriage over the past 250 years but not by employing the tactics of Savage et al.
Opponents of gay marriage sincerely believe that everyone already has the same rights. And when you frame the debate in terms of "if you disagree with my position you are a bigot unworthy of civil treatment" (which is the slog position toward Prop 8 supporters) you have closed the door to communication and preclude anyone ever changing their minds.
The issue is the definition of marriage, one side advocates leaving it like it has been for 5000 years. It is an issue about which reasonable people may disagree, and resolve their differences in a civil manner. However there has not been much of that since Prop 8.
If homosexuals choose to treat those who disagree with their definition marriage that way then how should pro-lifers who believe abortion is murder treat those who disagree with them? The nation has resolved much stickier issues than gay marriage over the past 250 years but not by employing the tactics of Savage et al.
33
But so many of those who are "defending marriage" from teh Gayz *DO* think teh Gayz are sub-human. Yeah, I'm for same-sex marriage, and my cousin isn't - that is a difference of opinion. But my cousin also believes that teh Gayz who are beaten for their sexual presuasion somehow 'provoked' or 'deserved' the beating [in all cases]. He not only doesn't want Gays to have the rights of inheritance, hospital visits, etc. - he wishes they'd just go away.
This is why my cousin and I aren't friends.
This is why my cousin and I aren't friends.
34
@30 what link are you talking about? is it this:
?
"bring upon calamaties" is something even a retard like me can understand. just because that list also includes non-gay people doesn't make it any less demeaning, nor does it address how gay people getting married will ruin everything for everyone. it's just a statement that some people accept as fact because its written in a special book.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets
?
"bring upon calamaties" is something even a retard like me can understand. just because that list also includes non-gay people doesn't make it any less demeaning, nor does it address how gay people getting married will ruin everything for everyone. it's just a statement that some people accept as fact because its written in a special book.
35
@23. If the only people who can be your friends are those who agree 100% with your positions then you must have few friends indeed.
I don't need "100% agreement" from my friends on my positions, and nice try with the straw man argument, by the way. However, I do have only a "few friends." This is by choice and because I have high standards on who and how many people get my time.
Those who do not think I and all gay people should have all the rights that they enjoy don't make the cut. This is because, for me, full civil rights for all citizens is one of those "fundamental issues" you mentioned. It's a litmus test on what kind of people they are. Once I developed a "mature attitude" about life and who I wanted to be and how I wanted to live, being friends with those who would limit the rights of others who are "different" became anathema to my fundamental values.
@31. Opponents of gay marriage sincerely believe that everyone already has the same rights.
I don't allow stupid people to be my friend either.
I don't need "100% agreement" from my friends on my positions, and nice try with the straw man argument, by the way. However, I do have only a "few friends." This is by choice and because I have high standards on who and how many people get my time.
Those who do not think I and all gay people should have all the rights that they enjoy don't make the cut. This is because, for me, full civil rights for all citizens is one of those "fundamental issues" you mentioned. It's a litmus test on what kind of people they are. Once I developed a "mature attitude" about life and who I wanted to be and how I wanted to live, being friends with those who would limit the rights of others who are "different" became anathema to my fundamental values.
@31. Opponents of gay marriage sincerely believe that everyone already has the same rights.
I don't allow stupid people to be my friend either.
36
@34
you're right, brandon; it doesn't address how gay people getting married will ruin everything for everyone. because that isn't in there. Dan the Mormon hater is making it up as he goes. you blindly accept it as fact because you are a sniveling SavageFanBoy. grow a pair, and a brain.
ps- it isn't in a book.
it's a one page stand alone document.
RETARD
you're right, brandon; it doesn't address how gay people getting married will ruin everything for everyone. because that isn't in there. Dan the Mormon hater is making it up as he goes. you blindly accept it as fact because you are a sniveling SavageFanBoy. grow a pair, and a brain.
ps- it isn't in a book.
it's a one page stand alone document.
RETARD
39
@36 exactly. since this book (whoops, sorry "document." my downs syndrome is acting up again) does not explicitly state why gays getting married will destroy society, do you or anyone else care to explain why donny osmond -- a mormon -- cites it
as unequivocal proof that gays should not get married?
as unequivocal proof that gays should not get married?
41
@39
he cites it to explain his position on marriage. period. not everything revolves around the 'gay' perspective. he doesn't claim unequivocal proof that gays should not get married. only that his beliefs are different.
he cites it to explain his position on marriage. period. not everything revolves around the 'gay' perspective. he doesn't claim unequivocal proof that gays should not get married. only that his beliefs are different.
42
@31. First off, we are not saying here that "if you disagree with me you are not worthy of civil treatment." We are saying, if you disagree on this topic, you are not worthy of my friendship. Two completely different things.
I recognize that some people have not taken this route, but many of us are able to have completely civil discussions on this topic with people who disagree with us. Rarely would I be friends with someone on the other side of this particular issue, though.
I don't think this is an area where reasonable people can agree to disagree, because it's it demonstrably not true that all people currently have the same rights (also demonstrably not true is the statement that marriage has been the same for 5000 years -- do we really need to re-hash the history of marriage again?).
If someone disagrees with this, well, then, we can have a civil conversation about the facts. But, I don't accept that people can agree to disagree about unequal treating people of different races or genders, and I don't accept that they can agree to disagree about unequal treatment of gays either.
I recognize that some people have not taken this route, but many of us are able to have completely civil discussions on this topic with people who disagree with us. Rarely would I be friends with someone on the other side of this particular issue, though.
I don't think this is an area where reasonable people can agree to disagree, because it's it demonstrably not true that all people currently have the same rights (also demonstrably not true is the statement that marriage has been the same for 5000 years -- do we really need to re-hash the history of marriage again?).
If someone disagrees with this, well, then, we can have a civil conversation about the facts. But, I don't accept that people can agree to disagree about unequal treating people of different races or genders, and I don't accept that they can agree to disagree about unequal treatment of gays either.
43
@41 this is the question he is answering when he cites the passage in question:
no, not everything revolves around the "gay" persective, EXCEPT WHEN THE "GAY" PERSPECTIVE IS BEING DISCUSSED.
Here is my question. How do you think Christians should respond to Gay friends who consider themselves "Married" I know you have some friends like this (Rosie)?
no, not everything revolves around the "gay" persective, EXCEPT WHEN THE "GAY" PERSPECTIVE IS BEING DISCUSSED.
44
Dan,
@23 @26 @29 & @31
Best exchange so far. Before the "gay marriage" debate, I suppose many Americans had sincere gay friends (and family). And, still do. But, I wonder if the taking of one side or the other in this passionate and fairly recent debate dissolved a few (many?) friendships? It would seem a shame, if so.
@23 @26 @29 & @31
Best exchange so far. Before the "gay marriage" debate, I suppose many Americans had sincere gay friends (and family). And, still do. But, I wonder if the taking of one side or the other in this passionate and fairly recent debate dissolved a few (many?) friendships? It would seem a shame, if so.
45
@42
I appreciate your point of view.
But I think Osmond is trying hard to be open to people who may have very different beliefs than his own and he deserves better than to be labeled a bigot and have his position totally misrepresented.
I appreciate your point of view.
But I think Osmond is trying hard to be open to people who may have very different beliefs than his own and he deserves better than to be labeled a bigot and have his position totally misrepresented.
46
@37. I'm not sure why you're asking me this question. And why would my straight friends enter into same-sex marriages?
@42. As usual, you explained things perfectly.
@42. As usual, you explained things perfectly.
47
Yes, I <3 Julie in Chicago. She says it. Also agreed, very hard to imagine having a close friend who was deeply against gay marriage.
@31, yes, folks her on Slog are a hard-hitting; lots of gay folks here, & most people who live in bigger cities are open-minded by force of osmosis & proximity, if they weren't that way before.
I am sure if there were only a few gay rights activists in some big ol' Mormon Temple, they/their views wouldn't be very popular either.
Folks who oppose gay marriage may not see it as a matter of rights, BUT IT IS. YOU can marry whoever you love, because you are heterosexual. It is your right as an adult to make that legal (& some cases, religious) bond with someone. Gays CANNOT marry whoever they love. They don't have that simple right, to make that choice. The legal (rights, inheritance, ease of reference) should be separated from the religious (churches that disagree & don't want to have gay weddings).
One of the biggest misunderstandings on the pro-Prop-8 side of the argument has been that churches would *have to* marry gays or that the gay lifestyle would be taught in school. No, churches, private organizations, would not HAVE TO marry gays. Churches already marry whoever they want or don't; look at interfaith marriages. & "the gay lifestyle" wouldn't be taught in school; the tolerance which our children should already be being taught, for other races, genders, abilities - would merely have another category added to it.
Gays & straights DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, @31, & that's the problem.
BTW, you mention our country has not resolved issues using tactics of "Savage et al". Bullshit. During the 60's, our country was completely sundered, whole cities on fire, because of race. & the Civil War? Hearts & minds aren't won as much in battle as they are in the press. Our country was born in violence & strife. Sometimes change can only happen that way. & people being denied their rights is going to make them angry.
Peace can have a chance when gays can marry, which is a right tha tyou have, that they do not.
More...
@31, yes, folks her on Slog are a hard-hitting; lots of gay folks here, & most people who live in bigger cities are open-minded by force of osmosis & proximity, if they weren't that way before.
I am sure if there were only a few gay rights activists in some big ol' Mormon Temple, they/their views wouldn't be very popular either.
Folks who oppose gay marriage may not see it as a matter of rights, BUT IT IS. YOU can marry whoever you love, because you are heterosexual. It is your right as an adult to make that legal (& some cases, religious) bond with someone. Gays CANNOT marry whoever they love. They don't have that simple right, to make that choice. The legal (rights, inheritance, ease of reference) should be separated from the religious (churches that disagree & don't want to have gay weddings).
One of the biggest misunderstandings on the pro-Prop-8 side of the argument has been that churches would *have to* marry gays or that the gay lifestyle would be taught in school. No, churches, private organizations, would not HAVE TO marry gays. Churches already marry whoever they want or don't; look at interfaith marriages. & "the gay lifestyle" wouldn't be taught in school; the tolerance which our children should already be being taught, for other races, genders, abilities - would merely have another category added to it.
Gays & straights DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, @31, & that's the problem.
BTW, you mention our country has not resolved issues using tactics of "Savage et al". Bullshit. During the 60's, our country was completely sundered, whole cities on fire, because of race. & the Civil War? Hearts & minds aren't won as much in battle as they are in the press. Our country was born in violence & strife. Sometimes change can only happen that way. & people being denied their rights is going to make them angry.
Peace can have a chance when gays can marry, which is a right tha tyou have, that they do not.
49
@47
What's LOVE got to do with it?
>"YOU can marry whoever you love, because you are heterosexual."<
No one is guaranteed they can marry the person they 'love'.
The government doesn't care who or what you love.
Anyone can marry someone of the opposite gender. Anyone.
Stop looking for the government or society or big brother to validate your lifestyle choices, your LOVE.
Grow up, princess.
What's LOVE got to do with it?
>"YOU can marry whoever you love, because you are heterosexual."<
No one is guaranteed they can marry the person they 'love'.
The government doesn't care who or what you love.
Anyone can marry someone of the opposite gender. Anyone.
Stop looking for the government or society or big brother to validate your lifestyle choices, your LOVE.
Grow up, princess.
50
@47
If the issue of Gay Marriage
is resolved in a Civil War style
contest of violence it won't be pretty.
And it won't end with
Gays getting to marry.
Give civil discourse a chance.
If the issue of Gay Marriage
is resolved in a Civil War style
contest of violence it won't be pretty.
And it won't end with
Gays getting to marry.
Give civil discourse a chance.
51
47
"During the 60's, our country was completely sundered, whole cities on fire, because of race. & the Civil War? Hearts & minds aren't won as much in battle as they are in the press. Our country was born in violence & strife. Sometimes change can only happen that way."
Can you multiply?
What is
Matthew Shephard times 8 million?
"During the 60's, our country was completely sundered, whole cities on fire, because of race. & the Civil War? Hearts & minds aren't won as much in battle as they are in the press. Our country was born in violence & strife. Sometimes change can only happen that way."
Can you multiply?
What is
Matthew Shephard times 8 million?
52
I was raised in a very conservative Christian community. My views on gay rights were changed by my gay friend patiently putting up with my ignorance, helping me see another point of view, and loaning me "The Commitment." Change is made when people see other people. People who want to deny gay rights do it by making gays a group to fear instead of individuals. That's what happened in the '60s in the south and with Hitler and his gay nurse. Most people can't look another person in the eye and hurt them (there are exceptions I know).
My friend and Dan convinced me by being logical and just living their lives. The "fight" strategies just give your opposition the ability to say, "Look, we told you they were like that." It also alienates Christians who are pro-gay rights who get tired of being labeled ignorant gay haters. Those middle of the road Christians are among the ones who are voting for gay rights.
My friend and Dan convinced me by being logical and just living their lives. The "fight" strategies just give your opposition the ability to say, "Look, we told you they were like that." It also alienates Christians who are pro-gay rights who get tired of being labeled ignorant gay haters. Those middle of the road Christians are among the ones who are voting for gay rights.
53
Sheesh. I'm a princess 'cause I believe you should love the person you marry..glad I'm not married. ;) Quite grown up, thank you. I can accept being an idealist, but I think love is still considered a basic component of marriage. The government DOES care who we love, or it would butt the fuck out of marriage, wouldn't it? Also: way to assume my orientation.
My (misstated) point above, was, gays are pissed off/angry, because that is the nature of protest. They're being denied their rights.
Civil rights didn't COME FROM MLK. Civil rights CAME FROM a huge, long, epic struggle over hundreds of years with so many participants history has lost their names. As someone who grew in Plainfield NJ, in the early 70's, just after its center had been burned to the ground by race riots, I can tell you our issues with race are still a work in progress. (Yay Obama.) There was lots of civil discourse there too. But also fire, police & riots.
I am not saying we need civil war. *eyeroll* What I meant to say: But sometimes anger wins. We have a violent history as a young nation. The guy above didn't seem to understand the anger with which his (minority here) opinion was meant. I tried to frame it in terms of the thing it most resembles, the civil rights struggle. Which was sometimes pretty freakin' angry. I was at ACT UP protests in the late 80's & marches through the 90's & today. People get angry.
Personally, I think the positive reasons for gay marriage should be more of the focus of discussion whenever possible. Civil discourse is fine. We're doing it. :) I encourage it.
My (misstated) point above, was, gays are pissed off/angry, because that is the nature of protest. They're being denied their rights.
Civil rights didn't COME FROM MLK. Civil rights CAME FROM a huge, long, epic struggle over hundreds of years with so many participants history has lost their names. As someone who grew in Plainfield NJ, in the early 70's, just after its center had been burned to the ground by race riots, I can tell you our issues with race are still a work in progress. (Yay Obama.) There was lots of civil discourse there too. But also fire, police & riots.
I am not saying we need civil war. *eyeroll* What I meant to say: But sometimes anger wins. We have a violent history as a young nation. The guy above didn't seem to understand the anger with which his (minority here) opinion was meant. I tried to frame it in terms of the thing it most resembles, the civil rights struggle. Which was sometimes pretty freakin' angry. I was at ACT UP protests in the late 80's & marches through the 90's & today. People get angry.
Personally, I think the positive reasons for gay marriage should be more of the focus of discussion whenever possible. Civil discourse is fine. We're doing it. :) I encourage it.
54
"During the 60's, our country was completely sundered, whole cities on fire, because of race. & the Civil War? Hearts & minds aren't won as much in battle as they are in the press. Our country was born in violence & strife. Sometimes change can only happen that way."
Can you multiply?
What is
Matthew Shephard times 8 million?
***
I have re-read what I said, and your response, but I wasn't belittling violence that has happened to gay people. Matthew Shepahrd, sadly, IS part of the general problem of homophobia, just as I said above every struggle for rights has violence in it. Thanks for the snark.
Can you multiply?
What is
Matthew Shephard times 8 million?
***
I have re-read what I said, and your response, but I wasn't belittling violence that has happened to gay people. Matthew Shepahrd, sadly, IS part of the general problem of homophobia, just as I said above every struggle for rights has violence in it. Thanks for the snark.
56
Like Jade, @35, I, too, have become much more 'choosey' about my friends. (As I've gotten older.) I no longer have the time or the inclination to use my 'friend time' on people who disagree with my basic life tenents.
Yes, I can have 'civil discussions' at parties or among group gatherings. I've noticed, though, that the racial bigots have a hard time opening their mouths when the black neighbors attend. And many don't want to discuss gay issues when they find out I'm gay. These people definitely won't be getting dinner invitations to MY house.
Maybe I do need to get over my lingering mistrust toward neighbors who sported McCain/Palin signs in their yards. Then again, maybe not...
Yes, I can have 'civil discussions' at parties or among group gatherings. I've noticed, though, that the racial bigots have a hard time opening their mouths when the black neighbors attend. And many don't want to discuss gay issues when they find out I'm gay. These people definitely won't be getting dinner invitations to MY house.
Maybe I do need to get over my lingering mistrust toward neighbors who sported McCain/Palin signs in their yards. Then again, maybe not...
57
@56
So you lack the inclination to use your 'friend time' on people who disagree with your basic life tenets and the racial bigots have a hard time opening their mouths when the black neighbors attend.
Aren't you both just different flavors of the same bigotry?
So you lack the inclination to use your 'friend time' on people who disagree with your basic life tenets and the racial bigots have a hard time opening their mouths when the black neighbors attend.
Aren't you both just different flavors of the same bigotry?
60
@57, 58, 59. Personally, I don't have a problem being "bigoted" about those whose values I abhor.
Yes, I'm intolerant of certain beliefs, superstitions, and people.
Yes, I prejudge sometimes.
I've spent many, many years educating myself, reading, contemplating, debating, thinking, studying, praying, and surrounding myself with my intellectual and moral betters. I've arrived at the place where I want to be in life. I have strong convictions and mores that I follow. No, I'm not perfect, and my mind can be changed, but not easily, not often, and not about the important, profound fundamentals. I've already arrived at these and it was a long, hard, worthwhile, and satisfying journey.
I'm comfortable with my personal prejudices. Of course I am. Why wouldn't I be? Isn't everyone?
Yes, I'm intolerant of certain beliefs, superstitions, and people.
Yes, I prejudge sometimes.
I've spent many, many years educating myself, reading, contemplating, debating, thinking, studying, praying, and surrounding myself with my intellectual and moral betters. I've arrived at the place where I want to be in life. I have strong convictions and mores that I follow. No, I'm not perfect, and my mind can be changed, but not easily, not often, and not about the important, profound fundamentals. I've already arrived at these and it was a long, hard, worthwhile, and satisfying journey.
I'm comfortable with my personal prejudices. Of course I am. Why wouldn't I be? Isn't everyone?
62
At one time I am sure Donny Osmond at least had more gay people he was friendly with if not actual friends with than you. He did spend years and years not just in entertainment, but in musical variety entertainment after all.
65
When people delude themselves into thinking their foes are beneath contempt and don't deserve respect they are on the same path of Germany 1930s and Rawanda and the Middle East. It is easy to recognize it in others, not so much in ourselves.
66
I really am not that suprised by this. While Obama is liberal in many areas, in the 'moral' areas he is startlingly conservative. I know that much of the gay community supported Obama. THis suprised me, as Hillary has always been very blatant in her support for the GLBT community almost (not not) to the point of gay marriage. Where as Obama has appeared frequently with those with a virulently anti-gay message. I'm sure I missed some major thing so don't attack me, lol. I'm just honestly admitting that I don't understand.
68
I am bisexual and have (rather a lot of, actually) Mormon friends. Some of them have a surprisingly rational take on the whole Church position about gays. One of them likened it to the Church's former opinion that mental illnesses were caused by demons, and suspects that the Proclamation on the Family will be revised when alternative sexualities are better understood. Others state outright that they don't understand the doctrine, and are Mormons because they find the rest of the religion appealing, not because its more bigoted positions align with their own. With my one Mormon friend who is just uncomfortable with the entire topic, I confine our conversation to things that don't make her squeamish.
I don't think it's outrageous to suppose that these people really do have gay friends, even if they're not very close - it's probably possible to do whatever it is these folks do in their spare time (golf? bake cookies? how should I know?) without ever having to bring up politics. Maybe they're great company, off camera, and have come across gay people who don't think their politics - however appalling - should be a dealbreaker. (Or gay people who actually agree with them for whatever warped reason.)
Then again, none of my Mormon friends are public figures who loudly call for the quashing of my rights.
I don't think it's outrageous to suppose that these people really do have gay friends, even if they're not very close - it's probably possible to do whatever it is these folks do in their spare time (golf? bake cookies? how should I know?) without ever having to bring up politics. Maybe they're great company, off camera, and have come across gay people who don't think their politics - however appalling - should be a dealbreaker. (Or gay people who actually agree with them for whatever warped reason.)
Then again, none of my Mormon friends are public figures who loudly call for the quashing of my rights.
69
@66. My take. The Libertarians and Green Parties didn't offer credible candidates. The Democratic segment of the "gay community" had a choice between a two candidates who both had displayed tepid support for gay rights. Let's break it down:
Hillary: Bill Baggage (i.e., lots of talk about gay rights that got nowhere). She supported DOMA and DADT. She doesn't support gay marriage. Pretty fucking arrogant in her obvious "of course I have the gay vote" attitude.
All of the above, AND: pro Iraq war; neo-liberalism; courting the white trash vote; "OMG, Obama might be a muslim" campaign.
Obama: No baggage. Very large, sincere, gay campaign volunteers who personally vouched for his deep belief in civil rights for LGBT citizens. Brave enough to mention gays in his campaign speeches. Said he "respected" marriage rights in California (Hillary never said this).
All of the above, AND: Against the Iraq war; didn't coddle the white trash vote; never hit Hillary below the belt. Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
So we picked him over her. The cynical among us didn't have any illusions when we picked him, so we'll be the least disappointed.
Hillary: Bill Baggage (i.e., lots of talk about gay rights that got nowhere). She supported DOMA and DADT. She doesn't support gay marriage. Pretty fucking arrogant in her obvious "of course I have the gay vote" attitude.
All of the above, AND: pro Iraq war; neo-liberalism; courting the white trash vote; "OMG, Obama might be a muslim" campaign.
Obama: No baggage. Very large, sincere, gay campaign volunteers who personally vouched for his deep belief in civil rights for LGBT citizens. Brave enough to mention gays in his campaign speeches. Said he "respected" marriage rights in California (Hillary never said this).
All of the above, AND: Against the Iraq war; didn't coddle the white trash vote; never hit Hillary below the belt. Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
So we picked him over her. The cynical among us didn't have any illusions when we picked him, so we'll be the least disappointed.
72
you neglected to mention barack obama who also just luvs da gehyz, until it comes to granting civil rights to them as illustrated in his choice of rick warren to give the invocation at his inaugural because it's so 'diverse' to do so. .. so someone who thinks a large percentage of citizens are inherently immoral and, therefore, do not deserve equal treatment under the law is just expressing a 'diverse' opinion ?! looks like the gay community got bamboozled just like everybody else who voted for The One.
73
Hey Dan, of the find a name for the "mix of ejaculate, lube and fecal matter that is a biproduct of anal sex" fame: lets get to work on the invention of another term to fill a void that is all too glaring at this moment in history. What we need is a gay equivalent of "Uncle Tom" for those self-hating homos who would trade their rights and their souls for the friendship and approval of a homophobic straight person. My lame first attempt is "HomoSap".
74
I've milked cows, and if you use a "vise-like" grip on a cow's teat, you'll get the shit kicked out of you.
76
They can't pull that "love the sinner, hate the sin" self- righteous bullshit with me. Needless to say, they are not my friends any longer. I was forced to be a "Christian" as a child but I wised up to those phonies by age ten. Religion is for phonies and morons.
You sound like an anti-Christian bigot. So, if we should all oppose bigots, why should I listed to you?
PS -- Sound to me as if most of you consider "bigot" to mean "someone who disagrees with me".
You sound like an anti-Christian bigot. So, if we should all oppose bigots, why should I listed to you?
PS -- Sound to me as if most of you consider "bigot" to mean "someone who disagrees with me".
77
I guess that means there are some gays out there with some really crappy famous bigot friends! We should help them find some better people to hang with.
78
One of the protest signs I saw was carried by a young man and said "Are you sure you want me to marry your daughter?" Anyone who tells us that we have the same rights to marry because we can marry the opposite sex should consider whether they want a gay man marrying their daughter. And if not, why not? And now they have just answered their question.
79
@68: That's a good distinction. I DO have Christian fundamentalist friends but obviously we're not terribly close. We both seem afraid that the other's politics will ultimately lead to some fascist police state that will oppress us. The only difference is that my fears have been demonstrated to be true in many ways over the years while their fears only exist in paranoid wingnut circles. Our coffee chats tend to stick to safer topics like TV and kids.
81
As someone who had the privilege of voting No on 8, I don't have a problem with Obama's choice of Rick Warren.
I do have a problem with the failure on the part of a lot of gay marriage supporters to see the larger picture.
Your civil rights do not rest on marriage rites (see what I did there.) I voted no on 8 NOT because I thought it was a matter of civil rights, but because I thought Prop 8 was a bad idea - why take a privilege away once it had been established? But it is hardly an issue of civil rights.
In truth, however, your civil rights have nothing to do with marriage. Your civil rights rest on a FUNCTIONING civil society and a FUNCTIONING economy.
It has always been thus.
Obama will need to focus on the economy and ending the wars.
I don't recommend screaming about gay marriage at a time when we have two wars, Gitmo, an imploding economy, and while black men are being sentenced twice as severely for the same crimes as white men in a prison-industrial complex that this state can no longer afford. Because you're proving a serious failure to recognize what is going on. You think the riots in Greece that are motivated by an imploding economy, problems with the euro, and friction with the existing authority won't spread to central Europe? You think gay rights will be protected while the economy implodes? You're totally out of it.
I beg you, keep your eyes on the road here.
But go ahead, rant and rave on gay marriage. But has anyone hear read The Times lately, or even the WSJ? Is anyone offended by the idea that 37 million was raised to defend gay marriage, but nothing was raised by these same donors for The Innocence Project? Or for homeless veterans, who have much bigger problems right now than the majority of gay couples?
I'll keep voting to protect gay marriage, but I have to admit, I'm seriously unimpressed by the out-of-it-ness of people like Dan Savage and his acolytes.
More...
I do have a problem with the failure on the part of a lot of gay marriage supporters to see the larger picture.
Your civil rights do not rest on marriage rites (see what I did there.) I voted no on 8 NOT because I thought it was a matter of civil rights, but because I thought Prop 8 was a bad idea - why take a privilege away once it had been established? But it is hardly an issue of civil rights.
In truth, however, your civil rights have nothing to do with marriage. Your civil rights rest on a FUNCTIONING civil society and a FUNCTIONING economy.
It has always been thus.
Obama will need to focus on the economy and ending the wars.
I don't recommend screaming about gay marriage at a time when we have two wars, Gitmo, an imploding economy, and while black men are being sentenced twice as severely for the same crimes as white men in a prison-industrial complex that this state can no longer afford. Because you're proving a serious failure to recognize what is going on. You think the riots in Greece that are motivated by an imploding economy, problems with the euro, and friction with the existing authority won't spread to central Europe? You think gay rights will be protected while the economy implodes? You're totally out of it.
I beg you, keep your eyes on the road here.
But go ahead, rant and rave on gay marriage. But has anyone hear read The Times lately, or even the WSJ? Is anyone offended by the idea that 37 million was raised to defend gay marriage, but nothing was raised by these same donors for The Innocence Project? Or for homeless veterans, who have much bigger problems right now than the majority of gay couples?
I'll keep voting to protect gay marriage, but I have to admit, I'm seriously unimpressed by the out-of-it-ness of people like Dan Savage and his acolytes.
82
When a person (especially a celebrity) declares opposition to GLBT equality and includes a "but some of best friends are gay"(tm) as a mulligan, then I have to believe that either these so-called "friends" are self-loathing gay people or the whole declaration must be followed by "Not any more!"
My "friends" know that I'm gay (& that my long-term partner is gay!) fairly quickly, since I'm out everywhere in my life...and if I were to hear such a declaration I might continue to know them and interact with them on some level, but they would not be my "friends." I wouldn't hang out with them a lot or call them for a lift when in need or confide anything important in my life to them.
Years ago, my best friend during college and beyond suddenly insisted that I never mention that I am gay or anything about that aspect of my life to her, she had decided that she opposed my "lifestyle" and things would be just peachy if I would just never ever mention it in any way or make her think about it. A fairly short conversation -- I'm saddened that you feel that way but I'm glad to know that that's how you feel...it's been fun but I'm not going to filter my life at every turn just because you're "uncomfortable" and I would not ask you to do that for me...have a happy life, bye now.
My "friends" know that I'm gay (& that my long-term partner is gay!) fairly quickly, since I'm out everywhere in my life...and if I were to hear such a declaration I might continue to know them and interact with them on some level, but they would not be my "friends." I wouldn't hang out with them a lot or call them for a lift when in need or confide anything important in my life to them.
Years ago, my best friend during college and beyond suddenly insisted that I never mention that I am gay or anything about that aspect of my life to her, she had decided that she opposed my "lifestyle" and things would be just peachy if I would just never ever mention it in any way or make her think about it. A fairly short conversation -- I'm saddened that you feel that way but I'm glad to know that that's how you feel...it's been fun but I'm not going to filter my life at every turn just because you're "uncomfortable" and I would not ask you to do that for me...have a happy life, bye now.
83
Hey @23... No, my friends don't have to agree with me on everything. But if they have actively promoted the removal of my rights, then they are not my friends. A mature attitude would suggest that you shut the fuck up.
84
"I'm against gay marriage, but I'm not a homophobe."
"I'm against black marriage, but I'm not a racist."
"I'm against interracial marriage, but I'm not a supremacist."
"I'm against women getting a choice in whom they marry, but I'm not a sexist."
"I'm against Jewish marriage, but I'm not an anti-Semite."
"I'm against Islamic marriage, but I'm not a fundamentalist."
"I'm against atheist marriage, but I'm not a religious zealot."
"I'm against marriage between people who make less than $20,000 per year, but I'm not a classist."
"I'm against marriage between people without a college degree, but I'm not an elitist."
"I'm against marriage between people under 6 feet tall, but I'm not a heightist."
"I'm against marriage between people over 200 pounds, but I'm not a weightist."
"I'm against marriage between people over 60 years old, but I'm not an ageist."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't speak English, but I'm not a jingoist."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't walk, but I'm not an ableist."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't see, but I'm not anti-blind."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't hear, but I'm not an audist."
"I'm against marriage between people with HIV and AIDS, but I don't believe in AIDS-related stigma."
"I'm against marriage between two consenting adults who love one another, but I'm not anti-love."
"I'm against black marriage, but I'm not a racist."
"I'm against interracial marriage, but I'm not a supremacist."
"I'm against women getting a choice in whom they marry, but I'm not a sexist."
"I'm against Jewish marriage, but I'm not an anti-Semite."
"I'm against Islamic marriage, but I'm not a fundamentalist."
"I'm against atheist marriage, but I'm not a religious zealot."
"I'm against marriage between people who make less than $20,000 per year, but I'm not a classist."
"I'm against marriage between people without a college degree, but I'm not an elitist."
"I'm against marriage between people under 6 feet tall, but I'm not a heightist."
"I'm against marriage between people over 200 pounds, but I'm not a weightist."
"I'm against marriage between people over 60 years old, but I'm not an ageist."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't speak English, but I'm not a jingoist."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't walk, but I'm not an ableist."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't see, but I'm not anti-blind."
"I'm against marriage between people who can't hear, but I'm not an audist."
"I'm against marriage between people with HIV and AIDS, but I don't believe in AIDS-related stigma."
"I'm against marriage between two consenting adults who love one another, but I'm not anti-love."
85
Is it possible that some of the people who did vote the way you wanted them to might feel that your excessive focus on this particular issue at a crisis point in the global economy makes YOU... not such a good friend? Or, at best, a particularly solipsistic or narcissistic friend?
Like I said, I voted no on 8, but let's move on, there are far more serious civil rights issues in this country that aren't as "sexy" or frankly as divisive as gay marriage, but those issues apparently don't warrant your attention or the attention of the Yes on 8 people, either.
Hey, come to think of it, the No on 8 and the Yes on 8 people have an awful lot in common. Including the desire to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a jerk.
Like I said, I voted no on 8, but let's move on, there are far more serious civil rights issues in this country that aren't as "sexy" or frankly as divisive as gay marriage, but those issues apparently don't warrant your attention or the attention of the Yes on 8 people, either.
Hey, come to think of it, the No on 8 and the Yes on 8 people have an awful lot in common. Including the desire to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a jerk.
86
Hey, I have no friends, so umm...eep. Oh, well, I have internet friends. I know most people don't think that counts. It makes me sound like a stalker. Which I am. But at least I like gay people. heh. Oh which reminds me: I think I'm supposed to be Dan's stalker. Because, like, he needs another fag hag type looking after him. So yah, I have imaginary friends...and leave comments no one will ever read after articles have been long published! I guess my point was that I have the opposite problem: I have no friends, but I am pro-queer, unlike the above people who apparently have gay friends and are anti-queer. Makes sense. Right...
87
@#81: "I do have a problem with the failure on the part of a lot of gay marriage supporters to see the larger picture.
Your civil rights do not rest on marriage rites (see what I did there.) I voted no on 8 NOT because I thought it was a matter of civil rights, but because I thought Prop 8 was a bad idea - why take a privilege away once it had been established? But it is hardly an issue of civil rights.
In truth, however, your civil rights have nothing to do with marriage. Your civil rights rest on a FUNCTIONING civil society and a FUNCTIONING economy.
It has always been thus."
Yes, how selfish of us- gay people hate functioning societies and economies, we should reconsider that.
Uh, seriously, wtf. Gay people have to wait for society to be a perfect Utopia before we dare ask to be first-class citizens? Hardly an issue of civil rights? Serial killers in prison still have the right to get married, but gay families and couples are targeted and penalized. How is that not a civil rights issue?
Your civil rights do not rest on marriage rites (see what I did there.) I voted no on 8 NOT because I thought it was a matter of civil rights, but because I thought Prop 8 was a bad idea - why take a privilege away once it had been established? But it is hardly an issue of civil rights.
In truth, however, your civil rights have nothing to do with marriage. Your civil rights rest on a FUNCTIONING civil society and a FUNCTIONING economy.
It has always been thus."
Yes, how selfish of us- gay people hate functioning societies and economies, we should reconsider that.
Uh, seriously, wtf. Gay people have to wait for society to be a perfect Utopia before we dare ask to be first-class citizens? Hardly an issue of civil rights? Serial killers in prison still have the right to get married, but gay families and couples are targeted and penalized. How is that not a civil rights issue?
88
@85. You're not being fair. Take a look at Dan's blog posts for the past few weeks. You'll find posts about the economy (the bailouts as well as the state of dailies), national politics, local Seattle issues, and violence against children. And yes, you'll find posts about gay civil rights. It's possible focus on more than one issue at a time.
I'll also add that this fight for marriage is the springboard for a profound change in how gays, lesbians, and bisexuals will be treated in this country in the future. It's about more than marriage "rites." It will pretty much change everything.
I'll also add that this fight for marriage is the springboard for a profound change in how gays, lesbians, and bisexuals will be treated in this country in the future. It's about more than marriage "rites." It will pretty much change everything.
89
Hey, Desca, please don't put words in my mouth? I never said or wrote:
"gay people hate functioning societies and economies."
Let me make a suggestion. If someone doesn't agree with you 100%, but continues to support you politically, that's a good thing, right?
But there were a lot of other people in California who might have voted no on 8, maybe enough to make the difference, they merely needed a little encouragement. Instead, when they asked questions or expressed any reservations they were automatically denounced as bigots. Not everyone who disagrees with you will always disagree with you. And you yourself are not always right.
There are, unfortunately, bigger issues on the table.
Let me suggest that in this last election, the most vociferous "supporters" of gay marriage shot themselves in the foot.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm merely suggesting that you failed this time because you couldn't see, or didn't want to see, that the vast majority of people in this country are facing much bigger issues and no, they do not see it as a "civil right" (another great way to alienate non-white voters.)
Is it worth reflecting on why Prop 8 passed? When you lose a battle, does self-reflection serve a purpose toward a future win?
In the minds of most people posting here: "Nahhhh! It's more fun to call other people bigots! Chemical brain reward! Adrenaline and cortisol! Fun!"
But you could lose again with this approach.
The reality is that it's not all about "who's the best friend to the gay community"? It's: how do we set priorities to take care of those most in need FIRST?
The passage of Prop 8 was understandably enraging, but it was also a chance for you to reflect on how your tactics failed. Re-strategize. Reflect. And, uh, please don't put words in other peoples' mouths - it reinforces your own sense of victimhood, but it's not getting you anywhere.
More...
"gay people hate functioning societies and economies."
Let me make a suggestion. If someone doesn't agree with you 100%, but continues to support you politically, that's a good thing, right?
But there were a lot of other people in California who might have voted no on 8, maybe enough to make the difference, they merely needed a little encouragement. Instead, when they asked questions or expressed any reservations they were automatically denounced as bigots. Not everyone who disagrees with you will always disagree with you. And you yourself are not always right.
There are, unfortunately, bigger issues on the table.
Let me suggest that in this last election, the most vociferous "supporters" of gay marriage shot themselves in the foot.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm merely suggesting that you failed this time because you couldn't see, or didn't want to see, that the vast majority of people in this country are facing much bigger issues and no, they do not see it as a "civil right" (another great way to alienate non-white voters.)
Is it worth reflecting on why Prop 8 passed? When you lose a battle, does self-reflection serve a purpose toward a future win?
In the minds of most people posting here: "Nahhhh! It's more fun to call other people bigots! Chemical brain reward! Adrenaline and cortisol! Fun!"
But you could lose again with this approach.
The reality is that it's not all about "who's the best friend to the gay community"? It's: how do we set priorities to take care of those most in need FIRST?
The passage of Prop 8 was understandably enraging, but it was also a chance for you to reflect on how your tactics failed. Re-strategize. Reflect. And, uh, please don't put words in other peoples' mouths - it reinforces your own sense of victimhood, but it's not getting you anywhere.
90
If you actually know and associate with gays and still vote to suppress their rights and treat them as second class citizens, then you are just an especially insensitive bigot.
I can easily forgive uneducated people like most Mormons who are taught falsehoods by their church from the day they were born. For someone like Donny Osmond, whose career has been advanced and supported with the efforts of gay actors, writers, directors, producers and technical staff from his earliest days to vote against gay rights is appalling. Without the talents of Paul Lynde, the Donny & Marie Show would have never lasted a season, and once he left, the show collapsed.
Donny et al. owe their careers to the talents of many gay people, and instead they choose to betray them with a kiss. At least people like Bette Midler get that.
I can easily forgive uneducated people like most Mormons who are taught falsehoods by their church from the day they were born. For someone like Donny Osmond, whose career has been advanced and supported with the efforts of gay actors, writers, directors, producers and technical staff from his earliest days to vote against gay rights is appalling. Without the talents of Paul Lynde, the Donny & Marie Show would have never lasted a season, and once he left, the show collapsed.
Donny et al. owe their careers to the talents of many gay people, and instead they choose to betray them with a kiss. At least people like Bette Midler get that.
92
Medina,
Not having gay or black friends doesn't make you a bigot -- denying a specific groups equal rights under the law does. Can you comprehend that?
Not having gay or black friends doesn't make you a bigot -- denying a specific groups equal rights under the law does. Can you comprehend that?
93
Sure, you're pissed off. But will trashing Donny Osmond actually work? Isn't he a bit of a joke, anyway? And Paul Lynde? I mean, do we have to bring up Paul Lynde as an argument for gay marriage? Not that the guy wasn't talented, but most Americans when they hear Paul Lynde think "Hollywood Squares", not "American Artist."
Isn't the reason Obama won this election in large part because he made a case not for how bad the other candidate was, but because he painted a credible picture of what was right about his vision -
AND...
how close his vision was to the vision of all sorts of disparate members of American society, from blacks to gays to young people, etc.
That's my criticism of the "they're bigots!" approach. It hasn't worked. It strips you of your dignity, making you look like an over-reactive hysteric.
The best argument for gay marriage were the thoughtful protesters on November 15. The ones with simple placards professing their love for one another. The ones who didn't mock the other side, but who showed how resolute and calm they were.
That was solid. Conservatives will have no choice but to respect that. If you need to vent here, fine, I'm doing much the same thing, but in the end you aren't going to win by venting, but by figuring out how to get your message across to the other side.
Isn't the reason Obama won this election in large part because he made a case not for how bad the other candidate was, but because he painted a credible picture of what was right about his vision -
AND...
how close his vision was to the vision of all sorts of disparate members of American society, from blacks to gays to young people, etc.
That's my criticism of the "they're bigots!" approach. It hasn't worked. It strips you of your dignity, making you look like an over-reactive hysteric.
The best argument for gay marriage were the thoughtful protesters on November 15. The ones with simple placards professing their love for one another. The ones who didn't mock the other side, but who showed how resolute and calm they were.
That was solid. Conservatives will have no choice but to respect that. If you need to vent here, fine, I'm doing much the same thing, but in the end you aren't going to win by venting, but by figuring out how to get your message across to the other side.
94
27% of gay people voted for Sarah Palin. That's the highest percentage of the gay vote ever for a Republican candidate.
Nothing can ever shake my support for gay marriage. But how can gay people vote in such large numbers for people who would both deny them their rights and deny basic things like health insurance from the rest of the country?
Palin's an anti-gay bigot. But gay people seem either unconcerned or unconvinced.
Nothing can ever shake my support for gay marriage. But how can gay people vote in such large numbers for people who would both deny them their rights and deny basic things like health insurance from the rest of the country?
Palin's an anti-gay bigot. But gay people seem either unconcerned or unconvinced.
95
Where does this idea that marriage is an institution dating back 5000 years come from. Moreover when Rick Warren says "All religions" he is either uninformed or lying. He may mean to say that the three or four major relgions in the world today have always defined marriage between men and women but it certainly wasn't marriage they way we think of it today. Frequently the wife, oftentime wives, were the property of the husband--yes that's a relationship I want to emulate. Frequently the husband had the right to kill the wife if she somehow brought dishonor on him. Do we want to continue that tradition too?
It would appear to me that there has to be a better argument against same sex marriage than the old "but this is the way things have been." As for the comment that sociologists agree that the breakdown of the family has social costs, please be aware that there are multiple definitions of family. One of those definitions of family is "two or more people living in an interdependent relationship." When one cites social scientists it's important to get the operational definitions of the variables in question.
It would appear to me that there has to be a better argument against same sex marriage than the old "but this is the way things have been." As for the comment that sociologists agree that the breakdown of the family has social costs, please be aware that there are multiple definitions of family. One of those definitions of family is "two or more people living in an interdependent relationship." When one cites social scientists it's important to get the operational definitions of the variables in question.
97
I'm curious as to why it's okay to use the term "retard" and the term "Down Syndrome" as insults and as jokes. Pretty intolerant, I'd say. People who are born with mental retardation or with Down Syndrome don't have any choice in the matter.
Susan
Susan
98
Feh, I hear you & agree with you on many points. I also disagree with you on many points as well.
For example, I do believe that it is possible to care fervently about my rights as a gay American while also caring just as fervently about the wars we're in, the failing economy, health care, Gitmo, extraordinary poverty, the environment, the perilous power of a unitary executive, our unjust judicial system, and many other issues. I do not see a need to wag your finger at anyone here on "big picture" views -- the topic, among a bazillion addressed by Dan Savage on this blog, is about those who profess opposition to equality (& marriage equality in partcular) while also professing to be inherently inoculated from any criticism by simply tossing out the cliched "some of my best friends are gay." If we apply your standard to every zoomed-in topic ever discussed in blogs, then of course people are quite capable of zooming out to the "big picture" -- more than capable. And while I do not live in California, I sent money several times to support No on Prop 8 and I spoke at our local solidarity protest on Nov 15th...part of that ilk of which you seemingly approve, "resolute and calm," in your words. That doesn't mean I'm not pissed off or incapable of seeing the "big picture" of this election, any more than you're incapable of seeing the current topic at hand for what it is.
As for what my partner & I seek as legal recognition of our committed relationship, I can't say if it is a "right" or a "privilege." SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia called marriage a "right", as did California's Supreme Court with regard to gay and straight couples. I think that a vast number of Americans - straight & gay - consider marriage to be a "right." Either way, the reality right now in most states is that marriage for heterosexual couples is a "special right" or "special privilege" under the law. Either way, as gay couples What we seek is equality under the law. What we SEE are many fellow Americans who, whether based upon religious beliefs or ignorance or yes bigotry, see US as less than full citizens and, often, less than full human beings. That stings. It stings deeply. Every time we experience it.
What happened in Califonia with Prop 8 stings. The state put the rights (privileges?) of a minority to a vote of the majority, something our Founders explicitly opposed. The people of California through their elected representatives in the state legislature passed full marriage equality - not just once, but TWICE - for all of its citizens, and - not just once, but TWICE - the governor vetoed it. But I take heart in the fact that it's just a matter of time. In 2000, Prop 22 (the Knight Initiative, CA's DOMA) passed by 61%...just 8 years later in 2008, Prop 2 passed by 52%. 8 years, now only 500,000 votes from marriage equality via the ballot box. Perhaps sooner via the legislature or the courts. It's just a matter of time.
I live in Texas where in 2005 voters decided by 76% not only to deny marriage equality but also to ban ANY recognition of my relationship. We've got a LOT more work to do here, obviously. But since our rights/privileges are apparently subject to the tyranny of the majority, we NEED voters like you in order to achieve a majority -- in California, in my state, and around the country. And so I thank you for your support and I hope that you will continue to support our cause for equality.
My hope is that Obama will usher in REAL changes for GLBT Americans at the federal level -- a meaty meaningful & inclusive ENDA, a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a repeal of DOMA. I certainly do not expect Obama to lead us to full marriage equality at the federal level, though I do expect him to make good on his commitments to the basics like equal treatment under the law in employment and serving in the military. I'm game for federally-recognized civil unions if it means that our basic security as a couple is truly "secure" -- basic rights/privileges that married heterosexual couples take for granted like pre-tax health insurance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making, Social Security survivor benefits, property inheritance, and the list goes well above 1,000 rights/privileges and responsibilities. When anyone says that I'm not worthy of equal treatment under the law, it stings. Believe me, if someone who claimed to be my "friend" declared to me or to others or in public statements that people like me are deservedly less than equal under the law or inherently less than a fully human being on any level, it especially stings -- and it's not something I gloss over or take lightly; don't count me as "friend." Such a person does indeed "have something against gay people" -- that is clear. "Acquaintance" maybe, "friend" definitely not. And so I agree with Dan: let's see these "gay friends" that are still "friends" with Palin, Osmond, Boone, and the tattoo priest.
BTW, I do in fact support causes other than GLBT equality with my votes, my time, and my dollars, many with monthly credit card dings. My eyes are and have been on the road ahead, on many fronts. Just as you are, I am very capable of seeing the "big picture" as well as the discussion topic Dan posed at the top of this particular page, one of many pages on MANY different zoomed-in topics.
More...
For example, I do believe that it is possible to care fervently about my rights as a gay American while also caring just as fervently about the wars we're in, the failing economy, health care, Gitmo, extraordinary poverty, the environment, the perilous power of a unitary executive, our unjust judicial system, and many other issues. I do not see a need to wag your finger at anyone here on "big picture" views -- the topic, among a bazillion addressed by Dan Savage on this blog, is about those who profess opposition to equality (& marriage equality in partcular) while also professing to be inherently inoculated from any criticism by simply tossing out the cliched "some of my best friends are gay." If we apply your standard to every zoomed-in topic ever discussed in blogs, then of course people are quite capable of zooming out to the "big picture" -- more than capable. And while I do not live in California, I sent money several times to support No on Prop 8 and I spoke at our local solidarity protest on Nov 15th...part of that ilk of which you seemingly approve, "resolute and calm," in your words. That doesn't mean I'm not pissed off or incapable of seeing the "big picture" of this election, any more than you're incapable of seeing the current topic at hand for what it is.
As for what my partner & I seek as legal recognition of our committed relationship, I can't say if it is a "right" or a "privilege." SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia called marriage a "right", as did California's Supreme Court with regard to gay and straight couples. I think that a vast number of Americans - straight & gay - consider marriage to be a "right." Either way, the reality right now in most states is that marriage for heterosexual couples is a "special right" or "special privilege" under the law. Either way, as gay couples What we seek is equality under the law. What we SEE are many fellow Americans who, whether based upon religious beliefs or ignorance or yes bigotry, see US as less than full citizens and, often, less than full human beings. That stings. It stings deeply. Every time we experience it.
What happened in Califonia with Prop 8 stings. The state put the rights (privileges?) of a minority to a vote of the majority, something our Founders explicitly opposed. The people of California through their elected representatives in the state legislature passed full marriage equality - not just once, but TWICE - for all of its citizens, and - not just once, but TWICE - the governor vetoed it. But I take heart in the fact that it's just a matter of time. In 2000, Prop 22 (the Knight Initiative, CA's DOMA) passed by 61%...just 8 years later in 2008, Prop 2 passed by 52%. 8 years, now only 500,000 votes from marriage equality via the ballot box. Perhaps sooner via the legislature or the courts. It's just a matter of time.
I live in Texas where in 2005 voters decided by 76% not only to deny marriage equality but also to ban ANY recognition of my relationship. We've got a LOT more work to do here, obviously. But since our rights/privileges are apparently subject to the tyranny of the majority, we NEED voters like you in order to achieve a majority -- in California, in my state, and around the country. And so I thank you for your support and I hope that you will continue to support our cause for equality.
My hope is that Obama will usher in REAL changes for GLBT Americans at the federal level -- a meaty meaningful & inclusive ENDA, a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a repeal of DOMA. I certainly do not expect Obama to lead us to full marriage equality at the federal level, though I do expect him to make good on his commitments to the basics like equal treatment under the law in employment and serving in the military. I'm game for federally-recognized civil unions if it means that our basic security as a couple is truly "secure" -- basic rights/privileges that married heterosexual couples take for granted like pre-tax health insurance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making, Social Security survivor benefits, property inheritance, and the list goes well above 1,000 rights/privileges and responsibilities. When anyone says that I'm not worthy of equal treatment under the law, it stings. Believe me, if someone who claimed to be my "friend" declared to me or to others or in public statements that people like me are deservedly less than equal under the law or inherently less than a fully human being on any level, it especially stings -- and it's not something I gloss over or take lightly; don't count me as "friend." Such a person does indeed "have something against gay people" -- that is clear. "Acquaintance" maybe, "friend" definitely not. And so I agree with Dan: let's see these "gay friends" that are still "friends" with Palin, Osmond, Boone, and the tattoo priest.
BTW, I do in fact support causes other than GLBT equality with my votes, my time, and my dollars, many with monthly credit card dings. My eyes are and have been on the road ahead, on many fronts. Just as you are, I am very capable of seeing the "big picture" as well as the discussion topic Dan posed at the top of this particular page, one of many pages on MANY different zoomed-in topics.
99
Shrimpdip,
Thank you for such a thoughtful and convincing reply. You gave me a lot to think about.
Since returning to live in a city that's been tightly focused on marriage equality, it has seemed to me that many other issues were being ignored - the California prison system being a life-or-death human rights issue that has been conveniently ignored by most Californians who voted either Yes or No on 8. I will spare you the gory details on prison stabbings and the absurd overcrowding, which must have been cited in an Amnesty Int'l report by now.
We in the US have a strange way of tolerating violence (e.g. in prisons and two running wars) - while getting really weird about social issues like marriage. And I mean that about both sides.
As for "seeming approval" of certain "resolute and calm" factions of the Nov 15 protests, hell yes. That is the road to victory. Don't you feel it? It gave me chills, and it shamed me - just like if I'd seen the peaceful part of the march on the Pentagon in 1967. It was very powerful. I'm glad you were a part of it. I'd reflexively voted no on 8, but Nov. 15 was revelatory.
I was interested to read your thoughts on rights vs. privilege. I've never actually bought this idea of marriage as a right. To me, rights involve some pretty basic bread-and-butter issues: voting rights, anti-discrimination policies for the workplace, the ability to worship without your church being bombed by white supremacists. Here's another one: the right not to be interned in the middle of nowhere during wartime for years at a time.
I'd go to bat for you to have the same benefits/privileges/rights under the term "civil union" because 1) we can get there and 2) we can get there while bringing the traditionalists along to support you. I don't believe we can secure your rights, or anyone else's, without bringing along what Gene Wilder once called the "salt of the earth, you know... morons." I speak as the product of a mixed-race marriage (which may explain my skeptical view of the power of the courts, and my faith in the power of moronic mobs to really screw things up.) Look at how Nixon divided the country - we needed those poor white Southerners, and we lost them. For a short while, we have them back. This time, let's find a way to bring them along.
I disagree that Prop 8 means they see you as less than full human beings. They don't even know you. Civil unions could be, if you will, the debutante party. We could get those passed in a few more states, then go for gay marriage. It's a decent strategy, esp. in light of 2008's results.
I sincerely believe could have had the same rights to you years ago if the establishment leaders of the gay rights movement had been willing to take this in steps through civil unions. Instead, they went for the big money: the loaded semantics of the term marriage. And it was literally big money - $37 million raised in a year to battle Prop 8 isn't chump change. Same with NARAL - keep the culture wars going instead of helping us find common cause with the prolife movement.
You cited a lot of numbers. I seriously wonder how accurate this Prop 8 count was, because the language was so unclear. Were pro-8'ers voting no, unwittingly? Or the other way around? Or did the confused on both sides cancel themselves out? Either way, I think you're close to your goal.
Lastly, I do believe that everyone's civil rights/privileges/safety are less dependent on the courts than on a functioning economy and the fickleness of the mob. I'm frankly worried that if things get bad, really bad, this whole push for gay marriage will meet a real backlash. But I'm a worrier, not a warrior. All the same, I think we're all safer if we can build some bridges with the right. No doubt you've been doing that all along.
More...
Thank you for such a thoughtful and convincing reply. You gave me a lot to think about.
Since returning to live in a city that's been tightly focused on marriage equality, it has seemed to me that many other issues were being ignored - the California prison system being a life-or-death human rights issue that has been conveniently ignored by most Californians who voted either Yes or No on 8. I will spare you the gory details on prison stabbings and the absurd overcrowding, which must have been cited in an Amnesty Int'l report by now.
We in the US have a strange way of tolerating violence (e.g. in prisons and two running wars) - while getting really weird about social issues like marriage. And I mean that about both sides.
As for "seeming approval" of certain "resolute and calm" factions of the Nov 15 protests, hell yes. That is the road to victory. Don't you feel it? It gave me chills, and it shamed me - just like if I'd seen the peaceful part of the march on the Pentagon in 1967. It was very powerful. I'm glad you were a part of it. I'd reflexively voted no on 8, but Nov. 15 was revelatory.
I was interested to read your thoughts on rights vs. privilege. I've never actually bought this idea of marriage as a right. To me, rights involve some pretty basic bread-and-butter issues: voting rights, anti-discrimination policies for the workplace, the ability to worship without your church being bombed by white supremacists. Here's another one: the right not to be interned in the middle of nowhere during wartime for years at a time.
I'd go to bat for you to have the same benefits/privileges/rights under the term "civil union" because 1) we can get there and 2) we can get there while bringing the traditionalists along to support you. I don't believe we can secure your rights, or anyone else's, without bringing along what Gene Wilder once called the "salt of the earth, you know... morons." I speak as the product of a mixed-race marriage (which may explain my skeptical view of the power of the courts, and my faith in the power of moronic mobs to really screw things up.) Look at how Nixon divided the country - we needed those poor white Southerners, and we lost them. For a short while, we have them back. This time, let's find a way to bring them along.
I disagree that Prop 8 means they see you as less than full human beings. They don't even know you. Civil unions could be, if you will, the debutante party. We could get those passed in a few more states, then go for gay marriage. It's a decent strategy, esp. in light of 2008's results.
I sincerely believe could have had the same rights to you years ago if the establishment leaders of the gay rights movement had been willing to take this in steps through civil unions. Instead, they went for the big money: the loaded semantics of the term marriage. And it was literally big money - $37 million raised in a year to battle Prop 8 isn't chump change. Same with NARAL - keep the culture wars going instead of helping us find common cause with the prolife movement.
You cited a lot of numbers. I seriously wonder how accurate this Prop 8 count was, because the language was so unclear. Were pro-8'ers voting no, unwittingly? Or the other way around? Or did the confused on both sides cancel themselves out? Either way, I think you're close to your goal.
Lastly, I do believe that everyone's civil rights/privileges/safety are less dependent on the courts than on a functioning economy and the fickleness of the mob. I'm frankly worried that if things get bad, really bad, this whole push for gay marriage will meet a real backlash. But I'm a worrier, not a warrior. All the same, I think we're all safer if we can build some bridges with the right. No doubt you've been doing that all along.
100
I stood on the streets of san diego county protesting against prop 8 before election day, and i stood side by side with many Yes on 8 people (anti gay marriage). Several of them told me - as Christians - that they have many gay friends, and those friends were voting yes on 8 against gay marriage. After holding back a bit of laughter in disbelief, i told them the same thing before walking away...either you are lying, which is unChristian, or your friends are as ignorant and self-loathing as you are. I'm done playing the i have friends who are fundamentalist Christian card. Lets just call a spade a spade and a bigot a bigot and realize that there is a certain percentage of people whose minds are closed like pat boone's thighs and will never change
101
If you're not scared by the line "some of my best friends are gay", you should look up the context of the matching line, "some of my best friends are jews".
102
I love bigots, who always start a sentence with "But, I am NOT a bigot" or "I'm not homophoic, but..." Rick Warren screams that he is NOT a homophob or a bigot, but his actions speak a lot louder than his denial!
103
re: Rick Warren... Gee, I wonder, Mr. O... are you going to "reach out" by having David Duke speak at your swearing-in shindig, too? Can we expect Louis Farrahkhan to show up, as well? Or maybe Fred Phelps? In short, fuck you, Obama -- you are just what Time Magazine called you: "a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot".
Read: http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl…
Read: http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl…
104
I know a guy who was working on The Jeffersons in the 70's in the sound stage next door to The Donnie and Marie Show and he told me that the reason they up and moved to a brand spanking new studio at home in Provo was because mom and dad Osmond showed up at Donnie's trailer for a suprise visit in bad, bad Hollywood and there was their little star on his knees with a big mouthful of cock. Yum, Donnie!
106
Friends are overrated. Gay friends are underrated. How could you have gay friends and be as little fun as Pat Boone? Remember how clueless and strange he seemed in that fat guy's movie about GM and Flint, MI (rusty!) a decade and a half ago? I smell b.s. Plus, all those gay people probably don't consider you a friend, just someone to give them straight cred, because they really care about that. And all of my atheist friends are going to rot in hell, but they're fun to drink with now. Which is more important?
107
Feh & Shrimpdip,
Great exchange. Very civil and informed. I tend to agree with much of what both of you are saying. I agree that gay marriage should be allowed but the definition of marriage needs to evolve or expand to include other free-choice adult arrangements such as voluntary polygamy. Also, I don't believe that gay marriage is necessarily a "right" like feh points out. I believe it to be an institution. He has another point that there may be more important issues right now than gay marriage (like combatting illiteracy which could help enlighten people to accepting gay marriage and high illegitimacy rates now 70% in the African-American community. This and fatherless children are especially devasting to the family). I especially concur with the fact that calling someone a bigot or a moron will not change that person's mind regarding gay marriage or any other issue that one disagrees with. While many on this Slog are advocates for gay marriage we must be politicians when it comes to dealing with it. Otherwise, we'll just be at each others' throats.
Great exchange. Very civil and informed. I tend to agree with much of what both of you are saying. I agree that gay marriage should be allowed but the definition of marriage needs to evolve or expand to include other free-choice adult arrangements such as voluntary polygamy. Also, I don't believe that gay marriage is necessarily a "right" like feh points out. I believe it to be an institution. He has another point that there may be more important issues right now than gay marriage (like combatting illiteracy which could help enlighten people to accepting gay marriage and high illegitimacy rates now 70% in the African-American community. This and fatherless children are especially devasting to the family). I especially concur with the fact that calling someone a bigot or a moron will not change that person's mind regarding gay marriage or any other issue that one disagrees with. While many on this Slog are advocates for gay marriage we must be politicians when it comes to dealing with it. Otherwise, we'll just be at each others' throats.
108
"I was a cow milker with a vise-like grip" is literally THE GAYEST thing I have ever heard in my life.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (109) RSS