jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (127 posts)

Gay Rights, Obama has Ballroom heckles

  1. theirishobserver. profile image58
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    The US president received an enthusiastic reception from gay supporters at a New York fundraiser, but a few dozen gay rights protesters outside the hotel and a handful of hecklers inside the ballroom where he spoke served as reminders of frustration that he has not done more for their cause.

    1. earnestshub profile image86
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I imagine he is doing all he can despite the opposition of the religious right, who seem to interfere in anything that involves growth and change.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There are those with in the Democrat party that also oppose gay "marriage."  It is not just a phenomenon of the "religious right."  There are those who believe that governments and courts have no business inserting themselves into an institution that has been in existence across millennia and cultures.  It requires courts, law makers and regulators to define love and relationships. 

        The insatiable desire by governments to gobble up more and more authority over everything in their purview is likely to infect other purely cultural and social relationships.  To restrict "marriage" to just two people, or people of a certain age range or genetic relationships or species all become arbitrary when one decides to hand over culture to the state.

        We already see a movement arising among the foggy minded liberals world wide to declare animals to be people.  The legal implications are staggering when we elevate the movement of the moment and its allies in government to a position of preeminence over long understood societal, cultural and "civilizational" truths.

        There is a conceit in the contemporary.  We believe that anything that predates us is foolish, restrictive, bigoted but not rooted in a long tested nature.  We act as if we are standing on the shoulders of dwarfs when we are merely men as they were.  Things persist for a reason and to undo them merely because we believe in our contemporary superiority is a poor reason, indeed.  We do not live a life free from the cumulative triumphs and failures of centuries past.  Marriage has endured as it is for centuries for a reason.

        Oops, I failed to talk about the bible and Jesus.  Sorry.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Marriage is indeed an institution that has lasted over millennia.  It has, however, changed radically over that period as society has changed.

          In the past, blacks were not allowed to marry whites.  Children of any age could marry. Siblings could marry.  While a handful of states allow first cousins to marry still, most do not allow that practice.  Multiple wives and/or husbands could make up a marriage.  One spouse (usually female) became virtual property of the other.  Divorce was unheard of for any reason.

          All of these things have changed as society has changed.  They were undone "because we believe in our contemporary superiority".  It is quite true that "We do not live a life free from the cumulative triumphs and failures of centuries past" as you state, but that implies that the failures need changed.  And there are and were failures; we now believe that all of those marriage concepts from years past were failures or we would not have changed them.  Gay marriage is another such failure.

          Marriage has indeed endured as a human institution for centuries for a reason, but it has seen the enormous changes it has for good reasons as well.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There has been a constant in marriage.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes there has.  At least two people declare to the world that they wish to co-habitate and live as one family.

              Other than that, not much.  We have seen one man and 10 or 100 women.  We have seen the opposite.  We have seen one man and one child.  We have brother and sister, father and daughter.  We've seen even two children far too young to have their own children, let alone support themselves.  We have seen virtually every combination of two or more people joining in "holy" matrimony.

              About the only thing we haven't seen (at least in the US) is two consenting adults of the same sex.  Isn't it about time that we decided that they aren't, in fact, so special after all and allowed them the same thing the rest of us have?

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Brother and sister?  Father and daughter?   Since when has marriage of incest been legitimatized?

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Royalty often used that method of maintaining the "purity" of the bloodline and to keep it in the family.  As knowledge of science and genetics grew it fell out of practice, to say the least.  Parent and child is not unknown, either, and while uncommon has been accepted in the past.

                  We tend to be rather insulated from cultural practices used in the world as a whole, but when speaking of millenia of marriage customs it is necessary to look at everything and not just what we today find acceptable.

                  Like everything else man does, society changes.  Marriage is one of the strongest customs in nearly every country, but can and does vary radically between one culture and the next. 

                  I watched a TV documentary on (I think) an south American tribe where a man and a woman marry, but then the woman travels to different men to gain genetic variety.  They don't recognize it as such, but the tribe is too small to give true variety any other way and they recognize that it is a virtual necessity if the community is to survive.  Too many children by the same man is frowned on.

                  There is truly almost endless variety in marriage customs throughout the world and nearly as much in the heritage of our "melting pot" country.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, don't go reminding us of history. We're meant to ignore the stuff that conflicts with our current narrative. smile

                  2. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Society may change;  laws may change.  But right and wrong does not change.

                  3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    And yet the constant, even in your example, persists.

              2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So you are saying that all cultural practices are equally valid.  There is a reason why some cultures and their practices fade.  What is being suggested now is that culture be subjected to court decisions. 

                Has there been a successful gay "marriage" referendum?  When any referendum passes that defines marriage between one man and one woman it and its supporters are castigated as hateful.  What bares that out?  It is merely a reflection that American culture still defines marriage as one man and one woman - as it has for centuries.

                It becomes obvious quickly that the only invalid culture is the one lived and defended by the majority of Americans and supported through out mallennia.  This is the essential difference between conservative and liberal.  The conservative seeks to defend the development and evolution of society.  The conservative seeks to continue inexorable civilization.

                To the liberal all of this is meaningless.  The only thing that matters is a vision of utopia in which all others must be compelled to live either by violence or through manipulation and pressure.  The liberal will retreat to the least democratic body, the courts, as a redoubt against democracy, society and culture.  Ultimately everyone else is wrong and the liberal is right.  Those who are wrong must be forced to accept the liberals utopian vision or suffer.

                Luckily American liberals, at least for now, are mostly wimpy, whining, shouting, trash throwing, graffiti scrawling cry babies.  It is when the American liberal adopts the tactics of European or Asian liberals that real violence will happen.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem is that America is based on freedom.  We are all equal in the eyes of the law and of God.  No individual or group is to be treated any different than any other.  To my mind this completely overrides any idea that one group can "oppress" any other by demanding different standards.

                  Gay marriage bans fly directly in the face of this, but they are secondary and of less important and thus not to be allowed.

                  The two concepts (equality and gay marriage bans) present a dichotomy that can only be resolved by accepting the first, primary concept of our country.

                  Marriage = one man and one woman and has been for centuries.  You do realize, of course, that only two centuries are available in America.  AND that it is only the past couple of decades that polygamy has actually been prohibited?  Laws may have been on the books  but actual prohibition was not country wide until very recently.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Homosexuals are equal regarding marriage.  A homosexual man can marry any woman, this is not denied to him.

              3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                True. And recent surveys show that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. This represents an advancement of our civilization, in my opinion.

                1. TMMason profile image64
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No they don't. And that is proven by the fact that the courts have to continually over-ride the will of the Majority in the states where it is legal. Because everywhere it is placed on a referandum it fails miserably.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ralph is correct.

                    Unfortunately, the human race seems to have a built-in desire to control someone else.  It is always much easier to get someone to join the crowd wishing to control than it is to get someone to fight for anothers rights and freedom.  Particularly when they already have that freedom themselves.

                    In addition there is the method of using fear.  Promote the idea that a particular group (gays in this instance) are different and fear and hatred almost automatically raises its head and makes it very easy to gather followers.  Hitler was very good at this, as are the various sects of Islam.  Christianity is well known for using the technique in the past to both control and murder. 

                    They all use the idea of difference = undesirable and/or evil to convince one group to control another.  Not much difference today.

      2. Vladimir Uhri profile image59
        Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        GROWTH TO DESTRUCTION?

      3. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Earnest? question? what do Austrailians think of Gay Marrage?
        Please know this is not a smart A question, I really wish to kow?

        1. livelonger profile image89
          livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I know that Australia is further behind than the US in terms of marriage equality. In some territories civil unions are allowed, but gays can not marry anywhere in Australia.

    2. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hecklers are only showing off their own ignorance. Goes to show how people don't know their place. Plain and Simple.

  2. TMMason profile image64
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    http://www.battlefield315.com/2011/04/g … ained.html

    And that is all I have to say about it... roll

  3. theirishobserver. profile image58
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Surely Homosexual activity between consenting adults is their own business smile

    1. TMMason profile image64
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Surely it is. Untill it is pushed upon the public into institutions such as Schools, and Govt, media, etc, then it becomes all our bussiniess.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Heterosexuality should be kept as private as homosexuality is, then.

        You have a picture of your wife or girlfriend on your desk? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality!
        You wear a wedding ring? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality.
        Did you get married in a church? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality!
        Do you tell people about your children? Grandchildren? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality!

        This is water.

        1. TMMason profile image64
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A picture of you and your spouse is not flaunting your sexuality, unless your both undressed and in a state of arousal. Niether does a wedding ring, nor getting married in a church, nor talking about your grand-children.

          Stop throwing red herrings around.

          sex·u·al·i·ty
          noun \ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\

          Definition of SEXUALITY

          : the quality or state of being sexual:

          a: the condition of having sex

          b: sexual activity

          c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive


          You do stay true to Leftist form. Obfuscate and re-define to your own underestandings and needs. Frankfurt School much?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But you keep saying that a gay couple getting married is gay sexuality "pushed upon the public."
            Did you get married?
            If so, by your own definition, you 'pushed' your sexuality 'upon the public.'

            "A picture of you and your spouse is not flaunting your sexuality,"
            Really? What do married people do to get children? Talk about your wife, and you're talking about a woman with whom you have sex.

            "nor talking about your grand-children."
            Really? So the stork brought your kids, then? And your grandkids? Or were they result of sex?

            Wearing wedding rings, holding hands in public, talking about one's boyfreind or girlfriend--all of these are things that heterosexual people do every day, and it's perfectly fine, but if a gay person does it, then they get accused of 'flaunting their sexuality' or 'making a big deal about being gay.'

            Double standard much?

            1. TMMason profile image64
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No.

              I have said it is no-one bussiness. The issue of homosexuality becomes society's bussiness when it is pushed into the schools and other social institutions, and on our children as normal, moral behaviour.

              Stop twisting what I say and you wouldn't be so confused.

              Yes Uncorrect... and marriage is a social instistution.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You said: "Untill it is pushed upon the public into institutions such as Schools, and Govt, media, etc, then it becomes all our bussiniess."
                But you fail to see that heterosexuality is already pervading our schools, government, media, etc etc etc.

                I'm not twisting what you say. I'm showing you that you're holding homosexuality to an impossible standard that you would never try to hold hetersexuality to, and in fact you would think it absurd to hold heterosexuality to. 

                I'm not confused at all. And you are absolutely holding gay people to a double-standard.

                "And do you even know the definition of Sexuality?"
                Of course. Do you know how kids are made? 'Cos you seem to think that talking to people about your kids and grandkids doesn't have anything to do with the act that made those kids, when in fact it's inherently implied.

            2. TMMason profile image64
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And do you even know the definition of Sexuality? I posted it for you, so stop trying to confabullate your way through the debate.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The question wasn't about homosexual activity but about homosexual "marriage"

      1. Cardisa profile image91
        Cardisaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't that already legal in some States? Pardon my ignorance, not American.

        1. TMMason profile image64
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          In some, because the courts usurped -(over-rode)-, the will of the majority in those state. Which proves my other point, America is not a Democracy.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Of course, that is one of the tasks of the courts and government in a free country - to protect the minority from the vagaries of the majority that would rule over them.  And for no more reason than they don't like them or what they believe.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Precisely. If not for the courts "usurping the will of the majority" ("defending the rights of the minority" would be a more accurate characterization) our schools might still be segregated.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There are four states where it is legal contingent upon no state constitutional amendment banning it being passed.  California passed such an amendment that is now wrapped up in court.

          Apparently there are only 6 countries where gay"marriage" is legal.

        3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Don't ever worry about being ignorant of the peculiarities of American law.  I know nothing about Jamaican laws.

        4. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Marriage equality was just approved in the state of New York.

  4. aware profile image71
    awareposted 6 years ago

    marriage is a broken institution . this  wont fix that.
    ray

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't heard anyone claim that allowing gays to marry will "fix" the institution. Homophobes claim it would destroy or damage the institution of marriage, but I haven't heard any persuasive explanation of why that would be true. Also, I haven't heard any explanation of why they are opposed to encouraging monogamy in homosexual relationships although they believe in faithful, "family values" for heterosexuals.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I (being straight), for one, am all for gay marriage. No one is in a position to declare if it's right or not or if it's affecting the "institution". Basically it's none of their business. Of all the marriages, a lesibian marriage is the most stable, floowed by a gay marriage between two men and finally with a 52% failure rate - the regular marriage.

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Breaking news--


    ALBANY — The State Senate is poised to vote on same-sex marriage Friday night, setting the stage for a final decision on a measure that could make New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples can wed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyreg … ge.html?hp

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It passed...

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol

  6. theirishobserver. profile image58
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Perhaps Obama needs more Ballroom smile

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Was this a discussion of Barry's foreign policies?

  7. Evan G Rogers profile image79
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Obama can easily solve this entire "gay marriage" issue, and it's disgusting that he hasn't.

    He can simply refuse to enforce all federal laws banning the discrimination of gay marriages.

    Ron Paul has repeatedly said he would do so -- but he's "just a fringe candidate".

  8. Dublin profile image60
    Dublinposted 6 years ago

    Peoples private lives should be their business and not the business of politicians or men of 'God' smile

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image59
      Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is interesting than one group right violating majority right.

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Kind of like those black people's right to freedom violated Southern white people's right to enslave them.

  9. TMMason profile image64
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    And here is the extreme to which America will be dragged by  all this BS and the pushing of this agenda.

    -No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias
    By JENNY SOFFEL Associated Press The Associated Press-

    STOCKHOLM (AP) — At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

    From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

    "Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

    The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

    Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

    To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

    Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

    "Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.

    http://www.windstream.net/news/read.php … mp;ps=1018

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OMG, teachers in Sweden are calling their students, "friends" instead of "boys and girls!" Clearly, they're trying to turn the kids gay! roll

      Why do you continue to call our attention to these utter non-issues? What is it that you're trying to distract everyone from?

      1. TMMason profile image64
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is about nullifying the differences in gender, period. Stop being so simple, Jeff. there are difference in gender, regardless of if you or anyone else want to accept it or not. The whole assault on geneder, Marriage, and supossed gay rights, is all about the secular humanist agenda and the destruction of moral America.

        Which I can see America rejecting very soon.

        like this idiocy...

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-s … r-options/

        -"Who says elementary school is too early to start discussing gender issues?

        This week, educators at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, California, are teaching young children all about the complicated world of “gender diversity.” The school has designed curriculum for every grade level. Amid the resulting controversy, Principal Sara Stone is defending the initiative, claiming that it is in line with what parents want:

        “If we don’t have a safe, nurturing class environment, it’s going to be hard to learn. Really, the message behind this curriculum is there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls.”

        A gender expert and trainer was brought in to speak to the children:

        “[There's] a lot of variation in nature. Evolution comes up with some pretty funny ways for animals to reproduce. It turns out that there are not just two options.”-

        Are there?... No. You are born male or female. What you chose to act like after that is your choice and nothing more... a choice, not a natural selection of another gender. That is BS and should not be in our schools.

  10. Jeff Berndt profile image89
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    "Arguing that certain rights should be limited to a certain class of people is profoundly antithetical to American ideals, which is why these types of arguments eventually die off."
    You nailed it, Live. Alas, reactionary people with nothing better to do will spend a lot of time and resources on stopping rights being extended to people who aren't like themselves.

    Someone recently claimed that most Americans support marriage equality. I don't think that's strictly true. Probably most Americans realize that it's a nonissue and are fine with gays getting married if they want to--but they aren't going to pick up a sign and demonstrate for it, either. They've got other fish to fry. Therefore, they don't turn out and vote down the ballot initiatives designed to assign 2nd-class status to gay people. My theory is that the anti-equality ballot measures succeed because homophobic conservatives are more motivated to keep the gays down than the average joe is motivated to ensure gays' equality under the law.

    Also, there are a lot more homophobic conservative activists than there are gay rights activists (even if the gay folks are pretty loud). This is an example of the tyranny of the mob, and this is why our courts have the power to strike down laws that create classes of citizens. Thank goodness for our (small-r) republican government.

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you. However, the gap is actually diminishing. I think NY's passing of the law is a great example. Without Cuomo's and Bloomberg's heavy lobbying, it might have not passed, either. I think more and more straight people are open and passionately in favor of equality, when in the past it was only the anti-equality side that was really passionate. I think that trend will continue, too, as more and more people find the anti-equality's reasoning specious.

  11. Jeff Berndt profile image89
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    So if a boy decides to join the girls in his kindergarten class and play dolls with them, he should be told, "No, Johnny, you're a boy, you should play trucks with the other boys?" Or if a girl wants to play trucks with the boys, she should be told, "No, Suzy, you're a girl, you should play dolls with the other girls?"

    What a crock. Nobody is trying to nullify differences in gender. They are trying to make all options available to all students, and let the kids figure themselves out for themselves.

    I know it's a far cry from the mythical gender-segregated 1950s paternalistic utopia that the radical right wants us to "return" to, where a woman's place was in the home, barefoot and pregnant, and any dad who stays home to raise the kids is no real man at all. Change can be frightening. Little girls being allowed to play with trucks isn't all that scary, mate. It really isn't.

    I thought you liked stuff like personal freedom and individual liberty?

  12. kateperez profile image68
    kateperezposted 6 years ago

    Without really reading all those replies, I've had a thought recently:

    Christian Americans don't want the government to restrict their religion.  Fair enough.

    Black Americans don't want to have limited opportunity.  Fair enough

    Tea Party Americans want the Constitution upheld. Fair enough.

    Labor Unions want to control the Government.  More power to them!

    Gays want to be happy like heterosexuals! Christians who are up in arms about their faith being squelched say: "NO WAY!!!"  As long as we get to have our rights, why can't they have their rights?  This is a FREE COUNTRY where everyone has the opportunity to be happy, make decisions that don't harm others.

    I don't get it.  Why is it that only Christian heterosexual Americans are allowed to have their rights?  How can someone who says that the government is too much in control WANTS the government to be in control of gays/lesbians?

    I am straight, but I certainly do not have the authority to tell another human being what they can and cannot be, who they can and cannot love, and whether they want to be married or not.  How is it MY place to restrict other people?  It is NOT our right as Americans to tell other Americans what they can and cannot do (within the reasonable things like no stealing, no killing, etc...)

  13. theirishobserver. profile image58
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Ballroom,perhaps he should try a ball-park he would have more room smile

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Iprefer my ball park to be 100% cotton

 
working