tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post6111155882551919662..comments2023-05-13T04:50:48.956-05:00Comments on Keep Changing- A Gay Mormon Journey: A few recent thoughts-L-http://www.blogger.com/profile/02854867259876731599noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post-76632876743670674432011-09-13T20:14:20.747-05:002011-09-13T20:14:20.747-05:00This is why I have such a hard time trying to hold...This is why I have such a hard time trying to hold a meaningful conversation with the gay rights lobby, at least as it is represented by the likes of Andrew Sullivan. <br /><br />In Sully's world, there are no rational objections to same-sex marriage. If you oppose it, you're a bigot, end of story. Ignore the fact that I, as a straight man, have a distinguished tolerance resume, thanks to an above-average/unhealthy involvement in music performance (I couldn't tell you the number of gays I've worked around and befriended over the years). <br /><br />What do they make, I wonder, of the Ty Mansfields of the world? That they're self-hating queers?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09171860761654388090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post-52345287643804204182010-02-16T10:14:37.410-05:002010-02-16T10:14:37.410-05:00L, you said...
As for marriage, my commentary is ...L, you said...<br /><br />As for marriage, my commentary is not on what's fair but on the fallacious arguments that are being made about civil rights. If I were denied marriage to a woman because I'm gay, that would be a clear violation of civil rights even if people could demonstrate that I'm a horrible parent because of it, or whatever. <br />*****<br /><br />I think you miss my argument--which is asking you to weigh the evidence, legality and fairness of what is essentially a majority vote on whether sexual orientation can be used to deny a person this choice i.e., prevent marriage to the person they choose. I believe you are saying the federal government can deny a gay person the right to marry the same sex based on the majority view of what is best, but not dany you the right to marry the opposite sex, even if there is evidence of risk there based on your orientation and the majority oppose it.<br /><br />...you say...<br />That's in no way the same as denying gay marriage which is not marriage at all as defined by the federal government--the secular legal definition is the only one that has significance in this debate.<br />*****************<br /><br />Yes, the secular legal definition is the focus here. I am suggesting that definition is different in Canada and some US states--THERE IT IS MARRIAGE. Why would it not be feasible to deny you that civil right if, in fact, they are now using sexual orientation as the basis for denial? We have seen in CA they can take away a right once given if the majority approve. <br /><br />I think you seem to be suggesting it is a clear civil right for you because the government says so. But it could be taken away, if as your argument implies someone makes a case against it so that then ---a majority vote is all that is needed for you to lose that right. Why is it a civil right for you but not for them? Why can't the government take away your right just as it did with them?<br /><br />I say again, I strongly support your right but I don't see how your situation is different if majority rule is how we make these decisions. I think some would say the rights of minorities should be protected.Ron Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00746648445630697224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post-49304334863038893032010-02-16T09:00:11.255-05:002010-02-16T09:00:11.255-05:00Ron: The don't ask don't tell tirade was a...Ron: The don't ask don't tell tirade was a separate thought from the gay marriage thought. I don't think anyone should get anything but absolute confidentiality when they discuss their health issues with their physician. <br /><br />As for marriage, my commentary is not on what's fair but on the fallacious arguments that are being made about civil rights. If I were denied marriage to a woman because I'm gay, that would be a clear violation of civil rights even if people could demonstrate that I'm a horrible parent because of it, or whatever. That's in no way the same as denying gay marriage which is not marriage at all as defined by the federal government--the secular legal definition is the only one that has significance in this debate.<br /><br />You wonder whether I would view things differently in the scenario you suggest, but I wouldn't. I would still weigh the evidence, the legalities, and the nuances of fairness without regard to my personal situation as I do now and which so many other people seem completely incapable of doing. And I would try to withhold judgment of the character and motivations of those who have legitimate points that may seem threatening. Too bad most people find that impossible.<br /><br />Santorio: I'm still a Romney fan. Don't worry, the sky isn't falling quite yet. :-)-L-https://www.blogger.com/profile/02854867259876731599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post-70045895413191151372010-02-14T23:59:48.114-05:002010-02-14T23:59:48.114-05:00Whoa, I didn't see that coming, Next thing, y...Whoa, I didn't see that coming, Next thing, you'll be repudiating Mitt Romney, who I understand is still waiting for an invitation to the Prom. No one wants really wants to go with him but he has a neat convertible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post-51441161275233856982010-02-09T01:24:57.811-05:002010-02-09T01:24:57.811-05:00I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. This post p...I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. This post provides interesting food for thought. <br /><br />I am strongly opposed to any government regulation that would prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex, even if they admit to being 6 on the HH Scale. It seems to me everyone should have the right to choose to marry in a case like that, when both parties to the marriage agree. <br /><br />But it occurs to me that if a person would need to explain their sexual orientation to get proper medical care, this could put a person in the position of fearing to divulge their orientation to a physician, in, for example, a pre-nupital physical. As you note, being unable to discuss your sexuality with your physician out of fear is reprehensible.<br /><br />If, in fact, it is not denying a "civil or unalienable right" nor inappropriate to deny certain couples the "liberty" to marry (based on sexual orientation) nor is it denying them the "pursuit of happiness," it seems we could reach a point in the government where a gay person admitting their gayness to a physician could be denied the right to marry an opposite sex person. What is the difference between denying you your right to marry a straight woman based on your sexual orientation, and denying two gays the right to marry each other based on their orientation?<br /><br />Yes, the U S government currently has definitions that favor you based on majority rule. But, the same majority rule allows gay marriage in Canada. And the majority can and probably will change over time. <br /><br />It is sobering to me to think that majority rule could take away your right to have the marriage you currently have. Of course, the majority could easily argue that the public good would be served by denying you that right and probably on grounds that are at least as compelling as the advantages of "breast feeding." (Apparently even straight marriages do not provide that quite often---- about 1/3 of all babies in the US are not breastfed in the first 7 days and 2/3 are not so fed for as long as 6 months).<br /><br />Protecting a minority in the matter of not using sexual orientation to allow or not allow marriage might then look different.<br /><br />Would you still feel that those who oppose YOUR MARRIAGE are NOT irrational, NOR deserve to be vilified, NOR are any less entitled to an alternate opinion as well as vocal advocacy in the political process?<br /><br />Such discrimination against your marriage would rather upset me.Ron Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00746648445630697224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22877324.post-37990410569830812982010-02-08T12:56:38.419-05:002010-02-08T12:56:38.419-05:00Is the wet nurse a new concept or has it many cent...Is the wet nurse a new concept or has it many centuries?<br /><br />What is awkward for some is seen fondly by others.playasinmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998841658611428960noreply@blogger.com