As I’m sure you are aware, LGBTs do nothing in a monolithic fashion. We are as diverse as the larger society, hence the rainbow as the symbol. The diversity plays out here on B-J as well. Please don’t assume any of the gay people posting on B-J speak for any other gay person, much less the LGBT community at large, for which there is NO APPROVED SPEAKER. The only one who could come close to a gay version of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was Milk and we haven’t seen someone of his caliber in 30 years.

Here, here. It’s as if people forget the most fundamental rules about The Intertubes—it’s a (mostly) anonymous forum and the people that you encounter don’t necessarily represent the views of others, no matter how much they may claim to do so.

I’m a lesbian in 10+ year relationship. I find it frustrating when our allies are attacked but I also find it equally frustrating when those very allies take the comments of a few to represent a many.

It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

What’s pathetic is to continue insisting that it’s your way or the highway in the face of the evidence that the choice being made is the highway. Now, that’s childish.

I don’t agree with what you are saying, but I don’t think you are a bigot.

I don’t think he’s a bigot, either; just childish and stupid. His “solutions” make absolutely no sense and never have made any sense. And since we don’t buy into his “solutions,” he’s going to take his ball and go home, all the while yelling loudly about everyone who disagrees with him and insisting over and over again, ad nauseam, that he really “doesn’t care what people think of him” and that he’s “not going to post on this topic anymore,” all the while he posts the same shit, over and over again, ad nauseam. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

Ed, you are so charmingly optimistic.

Stay golden, ponyboy.

When LGBT gets enough sense to stop alienating their true allies in this situation, they will do better at the voting booths. Or, they can wait another 10 or 20 years, whichever. I really don’t care, it is not my struggle any more.

As I’m sure you are aware, LGBTs do nothing in a monolithic fashion. We are as diverse as the larger society, hence the rainbow as the symbol. The diversity plays out here on B-J as well. Please don’t assume any of the gay people posting on B-J speak for any other gay person, much less the LGBT community at large, for which there is NO APPROVED SPEAKER. The only one who could come close to a gay version of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was Milk and we haven’t seen someone of his caliber in 30 years.

I don’t agree with what you are saying, but I don’t think you are a bigot.

@valdemar:

The conventional anti- argument seems to be that God and/or nature intended marriage to be between a man and a woman so they can have kids and perpetuate our wonderful species.

@

That’s only the text. The subtext is that marriage is between a dominant man and a subservient woman, and is meant to teach any resulting children to perpetuate that model.

Nellcote:

Please explain Log Cabin Reps to me!

“We’d like our economic/gender/racial privilege, please.”

Church leaders condemned the shit that went on in Alabama, the bombings, attack dogs and water hoses, and often stood against racial bigotry. With SSM they’re among the bigots now.

Err… not all church leaders are in with the bigots. If you were to draw a Venn diagrams you would see that Church leaders are one group, bigots are another group, and although there is some overlap, neither group is entirely contained in the other.

Not really. People who were on the right side of history when it comes to Iraq—-people who were proved right time and time again—-are ignored now as DFHs. The people who were entirely wrong and have been about everything have well-paid jobs writing columns.

I hear you, but I think the dynamic is different for this one. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe Gay Marriage will happen? There could be some short term hit in some places, but on the whole, big political gains for being on the right side. Obama could have taken care of this a while ago, but there still may be time to benefit in 2012.

Works for moo! I mean, me.

...It’s a bit depressing to me to realize that, at least now that I’m older, I am more truly conservative than those who wrap themselves in the mantle of conservatism today. Me, a dirty fucking hippie my entire life.

Heh, I find myself feeling the same way. We should call the “conservatives” what they really are: radical reactionaries.

We are on the same page as to desired outcome, and I believe also on the libertarian stance on individual rights. My argument is simple, don’t cloud the issue of securing the individual rights of legally recognized partnership by broadening the issue into arguments over what the limits of government are, or what the proper place for religion is. Instead focus on the idea that history has shown that a legally protected joining of individuals is a net good for society. Two are more powerful than one, more safe, more capable of economic success, and in general more happy. Who those individuals are is and should be irrelevant (as long as they are legally able to consent).

I take the libertarian position on individual rights. Who are you to tell me that I can’t do that since I am not hurting anyone, is a very persuasive argument in my book.

I am not sure what you mean, so I may have missed something. Clarify? I thought I was taking a libertarian position on this issue.

Update—LD clarified it for me, thanks, I get what you are saying now.

I also think you are saying, as I am, that DOMA narrows the view of partnerships (my version of “family”) while the LGBT position appears to widen it. But, where I diverge from LGBT is that their widening is … too narrow, parochial, and self-interested.

What we need is not “gay” rights, what we need are broader HUMAN rights. Which includes … LGBT, religious diversity, gender diversity, racial diversity, etc.

Anyway I think we are on the same page.

Don’t mistake my position on that score as disagreement. I just recognize that the government is proxy to polling all the individuals on every issue. I take the libertarian position on individual rights. Who are you to tell me that I can’t do that since I am not hurting anyone, is a very persuasive argument in my book.

I am merely suggesting that in this case the powers of government question broadens the argument when the goal should be narrowing it to why increasing legally recognized partnerships is good overall for society. The trick here is to convince everyone that they can have their cake and eat it to.

Trust me, as infuriating as this might be, the reason you may be the only one railing against this site is that it was much, much worse before.