Homosexual marriage II

[inked]

Butterbeer! A blast from the past. How are ya?!

Seriously, if they had read what we wrote years ago, they'd have gotten it right by now, eh?

HINT: read backwards through, oh, say 2004!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I felt like I needed to add on a little post-tag...

People who believe that things like pride parades and festivals (again, as they currently tend to be structured) are important for 'gaining acceptance and equal rights' are deluding themselves. As far as I'm aware black people did not gain acceptance and fight racism by prancing around in bikinis. There are, frankly, far more effective methods of fighting hate and bigotry .

That's like saying that your neighbor hates dogs so you make sure your dog poops on their front doorstep every single morning. I mean with a plan like that how could your neighbor fail to come around and eventually love and accept dogs?

I used to agree with that-I've always been in favour of gay rights, but I thought the Pride parades were just playing up to negative stereotypes.

Except, looked what's happened to them- the ones in the larger cities anyway - Sydney, New York, Amsterdam, Chicago. London, Toronto- they've become increasingly accepted as part of the shared civic tradition.

Tens of thousands of straight people turn out to be agreeably shocked and titillated, and, in the ultimate sign something has become mainstream, they've become required appearances for politicians, right up there with St Paddy's Day Parades. Last one in New York had Senator Schumer, Governor Paterson and (Republican ) Mayor Bloomberg in attendance.

They've become modern Carnivals, traditionally associated with overturning (temporarily) of accepted social values, licentiousness (see the costumes and dancing in Rio), and masquerade and cross-dressing.

[Insidious Rex]

Yeah. Lets not forget how mainstream and popular disco was in the 70's (anyone who remembers join me in shaking your cane in the air!) and guess what sub-culture scene that came from... No that was not a straight invention. Disco was born in the underground gay bars and clubs of the early 70s and like so many other artistic phenomenons originally born from minority subcultures, it was siezed and coopted by pop culture to the point where it became the dominant musical movement of the late 70's. And it was routine to hear Raining Men or Dancing Queen at 4th grade school dances all over the country.

The only issue with the most extreme gay parade hijinks is that they tend to be shown on short clips of say Fox News over and over and over again to simple good christian midwesterners far from New York or New Orleans or Rio who react in horror at the "vulgarity" of the gay community. On the other hand Im still torn as to if this really truly hurts the gay equality movement in the long run. Someone mentioned that blacks never acted extreme during the civil rights movement. But lets not forget Malcom X and the Black Panthers and such. The Mexico City Olympic stand protest is still famous and america at large found them to be completely repugnant at the time and there were was real hell to be paid because of them but I dare say in the long run even they advanced the cause of civil rights. Sometimes homogeneity keeps the populace from having to deal with acceptance and ignorance based discrimination can remain in place. Sometimes you need someone to really push the envelope to the point where the "norm" suddenly becomes much less extreme to them.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Someone mentioned that blacks never acted extreme during the civil rights movement. But lets not forget Malcom X and the Black Panthers and such.

Yeah, that's certainly not true! I've heard plenty of people proudly telling of their involvement in protests-cum-street brawls during the civil rights movement.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The Mexico City Olympic stand protest is still famous and america at large found them to be completely repugnant at the time and there were was real hell to be paid because of them but I dare say in the long run even they advanced the cause of civil rights. Sometimes homogeneity keeps the populace from having to deal with acceptance and ignorance based discrimination can remain in place. Sometimes you need someone to really push the envelope to the point where the "norm" suddenly becomes much less extreme to them.

Hey, IR, I forgot how much you rock.

In my experience, the fact of many of the Pride-type events becoing mainstream has been a positive force towards the development of more tolerant attitudes.

I know many gay people that don't buy into it, of course. Not all are "scene Queens". But I think pretty much all have appreciated the opportunity to not feel like they are abnormal in some way.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In my experience, the fact of many of the Pride-type events becoing mainstream has been a positive force towards the development of more tolerant attitudes.

I wonder however which is the hen and which is the egg. Isn't a high degree of tolerance to begin with almost a requirement for a Pride parade to evolve into a modern mainstream carnival?

[Insidious Rex]

But how can tolerance develop without a mechanism (parades) on which it can be built? If you are from say Brooklyn or Los Angeles or San Francisco where immigrant influenced culinary variety is common place and you eat spicy food all the time you eventually develop a tolerance where what may be spicy to most becomes "normal" to you and you seek it out or at least happily put up with it. But if you grow up in some Kansas farmland or in some small Mormon town in Utah where spicy food is extremelly rare well you may react with horror the one time somebody slips a habanero in your meatloaf...

[Jonathan]

So basically parades breed tolerance breeds mainstream parades breed acceptance?

[The Gaffer]

No I think you were closer to the mark with #506, it's a chicken and egg thing. They are both causes and effects of each other.

[Insidious Rex]

But where does the tolerance come from if not from real world events? Tolerance cant happen in a vacuum (unfortunately). Exposure is a necessity to get anywhere.

[Jonathan]

How about applying the same questions to intolerance?

[Insidious Rex]

Intolerance comes from ignorance. And fear. Both natural states of the human animal. We are by nature suspicious of the unknown. Tolerance happens when we breach our ignorance and overcome our fear and the unknown becomes the known.

[inked]

Of interest.................

"The question of what it means to be a parent has never been simple. But three recent cases highlight just how complicated things can get—and how inconsistent the courts have been in weighing genetic parenthood against the deals struck by would-be parents (gay and straight) with their partners.

"Case 1: Sean Hollingsworth and Donald Robinson Hollingsworth are legally married in California and are registered as civil union partners in New Jersey. The two husbands arranged for Donald's sister, Angelia Robinson, to serve as a gestational surrogate carrying embryos produced using sperm from Sean Hollingsworth and donor eggs. In October 2006, Ms. Robinson bore twin girls whom she turned over to their two fathers. In March 2007, Ms. Robinson sued for custody alleging that she had been coerced into being a surrogate. A New Jersey court ruled last week that Ms. Robinson, who has no genetic tie to the twins, is their legal mother and can sue for primary custody later this year.

"Case 2: A November 17, 2009 New York Times magazine cover article described the case of a man identified as Mike L in Pennsylvania who discovered through genetic testing that the 5-year-old girl he thought was his daughter was in fact the child of his wife’s co-worker Rob. Their marriage dissolved immediately but the cuckolded husband Mike L testified that he agreed to child support when his cheating former wife said that the girl’s genetic father Rob would not support the girl. Two years later, his former wife married Rob, but continues to receive child support for her daughter from her former husband.

"Case 3: Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2000. In 2002, Miller bore a daughter, Isabella, by means of artificial insemination. The couple broke up in 2003. Now Miller, the biological mother of their child, has become an evangelical Christian, and refuses to allow Jenkins visitation rights with their daughter, claiming that such visits violate her new Christian principles."

The rest is at...


http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/0...-or-your-other

[Tessar]

Edited.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Of interest.................

"The question of what it means to be a parent has never been simple. But three recent cases highlight just how complicated things can get—and how inconsistent the courts have been in weighing genetic parenthood against the deals struck by would-be parents (gay and straight) with their partners.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but...

"Case 1: Sean Hollingsworth and Donald Robinson Hollingsworth are legally married in California and are registered as civil union partners in New Jersey. The two husbands arranged for Donald's sister, Angelia Robinson, to serve as a gestational surrogate carrying embryos produced using sperm from Sean Hollingsworth and donor eggs. In October 2006, Ms. Robinson bore twin girls whom she turned over to their two fathers. In March 2007, Ms. Robinson sued for custody alleging that she had been coerced into being a surrogate. A New Jersey court ruled last week that Ms. Robinson, who has no genetic tie to the twins, is their legal mother and can sue for primary custody later this year.

Pretty open and shut here. Unless she was actually threatened, custody goes to the Hollingsworths- Sean is the genetic father, and surrogacy should be simply a contractual arrangement.

"Case 2: A November 17, 2009 New York Times magazine cover article described the case of a man identified as Mike L in Pennsylvania who discovered through genetic testing that the 5-year-old girl he thought was his daughter was in fact the child of his wife’s co-worker Rob. Their marriage dissolved immediately but the cuckolded husband Mike L testified that he agreed to child support when his cheating former wife said that the girl’s genetic father Rob would not support the girl. Two years later, his former wife married Rob, but continues to receive child support for her daughter from her former husband.

Preumably Mike L agreed to the payments because he loved his "daughter" and wanted to maintain that relationship with her. Reduce the payments if Mike L wishes to continue to have legally-guaranteed access; if he wishes to stop the payments altogether, he loses visitation rights.

"Case 3: Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2000. In 2002, Miller bore a daughter, Isabella, by means of artificial insemination. The couple broke up in 2003. Now Miller, the biological mother of their child, has become an evangelical Christian, and refuses to allow Jenkins visitation rights with their daughter, claiming that such visits violate her new Christian principles."

Miller is in the wrong. What if she refused visitation on the grounds that Jenkins was a Jew or Catholic? Or an interracial couple broke up and one of them became a racist?

[GrayMouser]

And Rob in case 2 should be legally obliged to pay child support.

[romeo.juliano]

well.. as long they not disturbing.. its okay

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There have been homosexuals for millenia; I imagine as long as or nearly as long as the human race has existed. People turned a blind eye because they were able to, but that is not the case anymore. They were much more homophobic in the old days; how likely is an agnostic these days to hate "buggers" as virulently as Queensberry did?

I was just now scanning through this thread and saw a LOT of messages arguing as the one above does. Let me just inform all of you out there who are saying this in favor of homosexual marriage: that is chronological snobbery. The lengthy existence of something does not make it right or wrong. PLEASE give us a better argument if you're going to post at all.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Wow! Long time no see!

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what point I was trying to make. Perhaps that being "homosexual" was more difficult in olden times, and thus more likely to cause psychological or even physical damage in the gay person than it is today? Perhaps that issues of same-sex relations have always existed.

Whatever the point was, I would certainly not use those words today without a good deal of qualification.

I should further clarify that I do not not now, nor have I supported gay marriage, though I am gay myself.

I agree with your basic point, that just because something is long established does not make it right, though I don't know if I'd call it "chronological snobbery."

[Earniel]

Hm, it seemed a valid enough argument to me in the sequence of the discussion where it was made. But I've noticed that comments always look weird when you start pulling them out of context as they will invariably be interpreted differently.