Prayapolooza in Houston

[Zigzagman]

so, what you're saying is, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist? That gay people are perfectly happy, or should be, in the closet? I guess your friends have learned to just shut up and sit down when dining, and socializing with their "good friends".


Actually what I'm saying Peggy is, stop making an issue where there is none.

I beg to differ. I think it is indeed an issue, more correctly a civil rights issue. Why should a group of people be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation? Why should a gay couple not be guaranteed the same rights as a hetero couple? Why should the government be allowed on a state by state basis to decide who is decent and who is not, who is entitled to spousal benefits and who is not? Why, just why?

This is where we stand in Texas.


Wed Apr. 13, 2011 12:01 AM PDT

Eight years after the Supreme Court deemed Texas' anti-sodomy statute unconstitutional, the state's penal code still lists "homosexual conduct" as a criminal offense—and Republican lawmakers are fighting to keep it that way.

A pair of identical bills that have been introduced in the Texas House would delete language from the state penal code making "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" a misdemeanor offense. Under the proposals, a clause in the state's health and safety code that cites the criminal statute and states that homosexuality is "not an acceptable lifestyle" would also be repealed.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the state's enforcement of the "homosexual conduct" provision was unconstitutional. In that case, two men were arrested for having sex in their bedroom, after a neighbor phoned in a phony weapons complaint. Texas, which at the time was one of 14 states with anti-sodomy laws on the books, has noted the Lawrence decision in its online penal code, but it takes a full act of the legislature to repeal a law.

"By removing it from the statute, it says Texas is both literally and figuratively complying with the law and making that known to its citizens," says Coleman. "This is a legal issue, not a social issue. It would be like still having on the books that an African-American couldn't marry an Anglo."

Peace

[Catwoman]

I'm quite offended that both Peggy and LC think that I must not be "enlightened" enough to have real relationships with these friends I spoke of. That in itself is the height of arrogance and being judgemental. Unbelievable....

[peggy]

And Scarlett loved her darkies...as long as they knew their place.

[Mangano's Gold]

I think they are going to need some star power to fill up a stadium that big. This has the potential to be a huge flop.

[Polliwog]

I'm quite offended that both Peggy and LC think that I must not be "enlightened" enough to have real relationships with these friends I spoke of. That in itself is the height of arrogance and being judgemental. Unbelievable....

Yes, but you almost ask for it. You state that the gay issues are manufactured by the left. How ridiculous. You deny all of the inroads made by the GLBT movement since before and after Stonewall. The GLBT community and its friends did NOT manufacture these issues. Possibly your friends who work for your husband don't want to make any waves by having an honest discussion with you. Maybe they feel there jobs would be at stake.

You mention giving everyone EQUALITY. Well, how do you think the GLBT community will get full equality without bringing their issues into the political "sphere"? Laws have to be passed and overturned for full equality. The GLBT issues are civil rights issues that have permeated all facets of our social, cultural, religious, political, philosophical, etc. lives. How sad that we can't all remember that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone, because, after all, they do not "choose" their lifestyle. IMHO, even if a lifestyle is a choice, it is worthy of equality.

[Catwoman]

Peggy - outrageous remark and I'm reporting you

@Polliwog - I said two of his Business Partners are gay, not work FOR him...equal footing here. His admin asst. is also a gay man.

[redfox]

So, if I wanted to marry my sister or perhaps my neighbors wife, that would be the same thing wouldn't it? Not allowing me to do so would be a violation of my "rights" since my neighbor had the right to marry his wife and virtually every other male on the planet would enjoy the right to marry my sister.

Granted, I don't actually want to do either of those things, but if I did, are my "rights" actually being violated? And would I be correct in labeling anyone who disagreed with me as a "hater" or a "hate group"? I'm just trying to understand this whole argument of "rights".

This reminds me of the "I want to marry my dog" issue. (No one ever remembers that the dog is underage fer Gawd's sake!)
I think I'll rely on a bit of science here, and maybe some common sense. Marrying your sister is inappropriate and taboo based upon the appropriate boundaries of familial relationships, in themselves grounded in a long time understanding of the genetic risks. Marrying your neighbors wife is between you & them! If you're referencing polygamy, that's another topic.

The arguments against the state endorsing marriage between same gender couples are neither scientifically grounded nor made from common sense. Legal marriage is a civil right granted by the state to protect its interests largely in the realm of childrearing & assuring that divorce is equitable so that children don't end up being dependent upon the state for support. It's a 3 party contract between the betrothed and the state. Any prohibition against legal marriage of two consenting adults is by itself illogical. Same gender couples acquire property & have children - the two primary activities within a marriage that the state has an interest in. Not all marrying couples do either or both; nonetheless, the state hedges its bet by contracting equally with all who marry.

Religious marriage is a sacrament, and every church has as its absolute right to take whatever stance they wish regarding marriages of many kinds. No one has a civil right to a religious ritual. Catholics don't recognizes divorce and remarriage.

So, advocating for the state to license same gender couples to mary is really of both civil rights; having access to the same legal protections as other married couples, which are specified within the binding contract that is marriage, and one of common sense. Ditto for federal recognition. Same gender unions have always been a part of human society. Acknowledging this by the granting of equal civil rights in marriage is an important step in so many ways.

I don't understand the objections to it. Perhaps you could explain those to me.

[redfox]

I have some confusion on this...gay people do what they want in their bedrooms, heterosexual people do what they want in their bedrooms...its all about what people do in their bedrooms right? so who is stopping that?

If it were that simple, it wouldn't be an issue. My marriage certainly doesn't stop existing outside the bedroom. It also exists in all our financial affairs, including co-owing a mortgage, etc. It exists in our legal affairs with children, title to the car, auto insurance, our federal tax returns, our Living Wills (which we don't have yet - but I will some day, thanks for reminding me!), each of our rights of survivorship; the list goes on & on. It's near-impossible to make a civil agreement piece by piece which replaces the complex weave of civil rights which legal marriage confers.

It's also a very important rite-of-passage in our society. Marriage confers a particular status to couples and families. I experienced this when I married my DH after living with him for 7 years. His kids - my steps - immediately felt different about our family. That's the socio-cultural significance. It's about belonging.

So, no, what happens sexually between any two people is not what marriage is about. But hopefully that's some of the good stuff!

[peggy]

Peggy - outrageous remark and I'm reporting you

@Polliwog - I said two of his Business Partners are gay, not work FOR him...equal footing here. His admin asst. is also a gay man.

who you gonna report me to? Rhett Butler?

OK, well maybe it was a little over the top, but I was trying to make a point. Saying things should just stay the way they were cause it worked for me doesn't fly. it may have worked for you, but it ain't working for gay people.
So, if you're not gay, what do you care? Really, what's the objection?

[Gregg]

There are several people in my life that I consider friends who happen to be gay, a few of them I've met through my brother who is also gay. I've never had any problem posing any question to them and they certainly have no problem discussing the gay topic du jour with me. In fact gay (rights) issues often make up a significant portion of our conversation. What I can not imagine is having someone you care about in your life who is gay and NOT spending time discussing these topics. I guess "friend" is a subjective term with a different meaning to everyone.

On a related note, my brother turned me on to a story of a group of clergy in my very conservative home state of Nebraska. It seems more than 100 ordained (Christian) ministers have signed a proclamation stating that they do not believe homosexuality is a sin. One of the signers, a Rev. Eric Elnes, said, "We believe homosexuality is not a sin. It’s not a birth defect or a choice. God created people this way. And if God created them this way, they need to be honored for who they are, and fully included in church life and wider society". I don't know how you could say it any better than that. I am VERY proud that a group with such an enlightened view was able to put this together in Nebraska. It should give hope to all y'all down there in Te-jas. Here is a link to the story...

http://www.ketv.com/r/28214658/detail.html?taf=oma