OPINION: "What Exactly Is the Gay Community 'Proud' Of?"

the

OPINION: "What Exactly Is the Gay Community 'Proud' Of?"

Details: By Greggory Moore; | Wednesday, 18 May 2011 00:35

5:01am | The title of this piece is not mine — hence the quotation marks — but is taken from a
comment made by "Dave" in response to the post about this month's print edition of the Long Beach Post, which has a cover story I wrote called "Gay Long Beach: A Work in Progress."

Dave's reference is, of course, to the LGBT Pride Parade occurring Sunday. And since Dave — who calls himself "a political liberal and an atheist[,] so don't start yelling at me for my outdated [V]ictorian morals" — says he's "not being sarcastic" and really "want[s] to know," I thought I'd take a shot, one straight-atheist-liberal to another.

The subtext of your question, Dave, is: Why should someone be proud of one's sexual preference — or skin color, gender, etc.? And I hear you. These things are not achievements, not something like winning an Olympic medal or graduating summa cum laude. Being gay is not something you do. And so what's to be proud of? Gays didn't do anything; they didn't achieve gayness.

Then again, being American is not something you do, either. But say you're not proud to be an American, and most Americans look at you like you're a traitor. So don't pretend you're puzzled by people's pride in simply being, because in these United States that sort of pride is the status quo.

But that's not really what "gay pride" is all about. What it's really about is that for pretty much the entirety of recorded history — right up to 2011 and beyond — in pretty much every place in the world, individuals who are attracted to others of their same gender have been shamed.

(That's not quite right: shaming is the least of it. They've been beaten and tortured and murdered. But we don't even need to go there to make the point. We'll stick with "shamed.")

If you were shamed for a part of your very identity — especially if it's a part that you did not self-determine — what would you do? Would you be cowed by the shaming and emotionally castrate yourself? Personally, I would hope that this is exactly what you would not do.

So let's say you personify my hope, and society's shaming does not cow you. Even so, it probably could not but affect you. How? An understandable reaction would be to rebel against it, to reject it, to go to the opposite pole. Society tells you to be ashamed? Screw that! You're not gonna be ashamed of being [fill-in-the-blank] — you're proud of it!

In 1968, James Brown encapsulated this type of reaction — in his case, to the shaming (and much worse) done to the black community by white society — in one of his classic songs: "Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!" Today you can hear the gay community's similar reaction to the shaming (etc.) still being suffered at the hands of straight society (such as by way of Proposition 8 — but we'll get to your question about gay marriage in a sec) in chants like, "We're here, we're queer — get used to it!"

No doubt there are members of the LGBT community who could have answered your question with more experience and eloquence than I. Nonetheless, I figured I'd walk you through why, even from the outside, the question of gay pride is not so mystifying.

Dave goes on to ask: "Why is it a sin (as suggested in the Post article) to have voted for Prop 8? … I just don't understand all of the fuss over trying to re-define the word 'marriage.' Why not simply ask for a law that gives gay couples all of the rights as married couples[?]"

While again admitting that I'm not the best person to explain this, the answer to this one is also straightforward enough that perhaps I won't screw it up too badly.

First of all, Dave, your premise is flawed. The gay-marriage issue is not about redefining the word; it's about stopping government from treating individuals differently depending on whether the person with whom they wish to join in romantic union is of the same or the opposite gender.

And that's exactly what our government does. By being in the marriage business (and let's not kid ourselves: in our society, governmental recognition of romantic unions carries far more practical weight than does that of any religious sect) and withholding marriage from gay couples, the government is denying equal legal treatment to the LGBT community.

Dave, when you say, "It seems to me that the fight ought to be focused on rights rather than on what word to use," both I and the LGBT community couldn't agree with you more. In fact, that's exactly what the fight is about. It's the only thing that the fight is about. We don't care whether (e.g.) the Pope sanctifies same-sex unions as "marriages"; we ask only that our government stop discriminating against them.

In other words, if marriage did not have the force of law, the gay-marriage issue would be a non-issue. But marriage does have the force of law. Maybe it shouldn't, but that ship has sailed. And since it does, equal treatment under the law must be made to mean equal treatment under the law, not "Group A gets designation M and the rights that go with it, but Group B does not."

Dave, whether or not Long Beach is gayer than you think, they're here (and always have been), they're damn well not going to act ashamed, and they demand equal rights. And that's just the way it should be.

If there's a catchy slogan that links these points together, I haven't heard it. But if you head down to Ocean Boulevard Sunday morning, you just might.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Long Beach Post or the official policies of the Long Beach Post.

Follow @LongBeachPost on Twitter for latest updates and breaking news.

Share this Story:

Add a Comment:

blog comments powered by DISQUS back to top

Archived Comments (52)

Friends

Well said.

Fisch

True, Gays do not "achieve" Gayness, but they definitely achieve FABULOUSNESS! (See you all at the parade on Sunday...)

DTLB

nailed it

from3itsgood

Incredible! I do not understand how deviant lifestyles are being propped up as something to be proud of. No matter what anyone says you have a choice to engage in sexual acts whethere it be hetero- or homo- sexual. Whether it be with animals or with children, it is al a choice. It is insane to ask the government to endorse your choice when it is of a deviant nature. Never has a society been completly willing to except homosexuality, not at any point in time, but in fact heterosexuality has no opponents! Never has ad ever will, thus making homosexuality deviant!

Eagle Eye

I see after your ONE good article about the homeless person, you're back to your normal stupidity. Take a bow!

And just for the record, Prop 8 was EXACTLY about defining marriage. You can't cry "inequality", especially when you are not equal in the first place! Two people of the same sex together will NEVER be the same as a father/mother, husband/wife, which is the base of a family unit.

But as with almost all liberals Greggory, you totally miss reality, yet on political correctness you score a 10. Gee whiz, what are the qualifications to be a writer at LB Post anyways? Can I apply, and start posting all MY opinions all over the place like this???

Eagle Eye

I see after your ONE good article about the homeless person, you're back to your normal stupidity. Take a bow!

But as with almost all liberals Greggory, you totally miss reality, yet on political correctness you score a 10.

Percy

Well said indeed. As you say, "gay pride" is just the absence of "gay shame".

Jon

Whatever, just have your parades on private property. That goes for all exclusionary parades. I say enough celebrating our differences and instead remind everyone what we have in common.

lolin@Eagle

Are you really that prejudice that you have no other definition of family? You're a sad case eagle, and the reason so much prejudice still exists is because of your exact mindset. Maybe you should move east, at least then you'll feel at home with other hate mongers - Utah & Arizona are great for peeps like you! Have a great day, and go with science! :)

A Kincaid

"from3itsgood" probably only sounds like a deviant lifestyle, but he seems comfortable classifying anything other than hetero relations as deviant. How about deviant practices between heteros or celebate LGBTs? Is there a hierarchy of deviance? He threw in bestiality and pedophilia - is this all equivalent? I am also curious about his phrase, "Never has a society been completly (sp) willing to except (accept?, or was that a Freudian slip, as we used to say?) homosexuality...." It sounds like he recognizes degrees of acceptance, which pretty much characterizes present day America, per recent polling.

Sander

Thanks so much for writing this, Greggory. I must say, though, that I cannot remember when I made a choice about my sexual orientation. I've always been attracted to people of the opposite sex. I suspect that the same is true for people who find themselves attracted to people of the same sex. As to 'deviant' behavior, let's seek a bit of clarification. According to Webster, deviant means "deviating especially from an accepted norm." The reality is that accepted norms change. They must. They can't be static, or society will die. Remember when women were chattel, with no more rights than a chair? Remember when rich plantation owners bought and sold human beings? Remember when 'good' neighborhoods didn't allow 'those' people to move in? These were all accepted norms, and any divergence from them was deviant. Norms change with the times. Today, there is no legal, moral, or ethical defense for discrimination of any kind, for any reason. We're not talking about criminal acts. I didn't choose to fall in love with my wife. I chose to marry her, though. If someone feels that same love for another, I can't think of a single reason why our government should deny that choice to anyone simply because the expression of that love makes some people feel uncomfortable.

Earnie

A homosexual is what I am, and what I have always been. You don't have to accept it, and you don't have to accept me. I will be me regardless of your views.

YupIm12

I suppose I should be upset by being called "deviant" by some upstanding folks who feel the need to cast stones when their OWN houses aren't in order.

If deviant means straying from prejudice, divorce, bullying, voting on the rights of a minority, or religious sect who believes it's their way or the highway...I CHOOSE DEVIANCE, because I respect myself enough to honor my differences and accept others for theirs. I'll save the stone for building the garden instead of smashing a window.

MuffinLB

Sexual orientation shouldn't define who you are. It's what you do in life and how you treat others--gay or straight--that matters. So, it shouldn't be about who you sleep with, but if you can sleep at all with yourself at the end of the day. And, honestly, do you really think someone "chooses" to be gay? If so, then that would mean they choose to be ridiculed, choose to be "deviant, and choose to be shunned by family, friends and society. I often wonder if those who hate homosexuals are closeted homosexuals themselves.

Jim S.

I'm gay! :)

Hey, Ernie

Clearest comment is by Ernie,

Ernie is who is and he is true to who he is. In a few words,he said it all.

Only Shakespeare was more succint when he wrote, "To thine own self be true."

Pam

To 3itsgood and Eagle Eye...wow! I'd say that anyone having a relationship with either one of you is in a deviant relationship! Really, you two should move to Iran. You'd love it there! There's no gays in Iran! But there sure a plenty in Long Beach and I can't wait to see my gay friends in the parade. I'd feel sorry for those guys (3itsgood and Eagle Eye), but I'm lacking in compassion for deviants!

africamaid

I am a straight man, I suffer from some homophobia, do to my experiences as a child, understand, but I agree with what you wrote, I am a great advocate of interracial rights and I would not vote for Prop 8. I think it would help eliminate promiscuity and make it really PROUD to be gay and in a nice relationship. Marriage is about love and commitment and passion, between whoever. Peace.

gay jesus

apaprently FROM3ITS GOOD must consistently "choose" not to have sex with animals. I guess I'm lucky; as a gay man I never have that urge. In fact, my only choiceis give in to my same -sex attraction, or don't. Women aren't an option - trust me.

As to JON: parades on private property? Please name ONE PARADE in the whole country that isn't on public streets. Question: Are you opposed to the christmas parade? St Patrick's day parade? Veteran's day Parade? Exclusionary all - at least as much as pride (which anyone can march in, not just gay people). If not, then you're a hypocrite - and not very selfaware or good at critical thinking either.

DSE

"Deviant" is a word spoken and written by someone who postures superiority while hiding a personal insecurity. Gays are not different in sexual behavior than anyone else other than a preference for the same sex as a partner and different from heterosexuals in not engaging statistically so often and in such numbers with such violence as rape, pederasty, and animal molestation. So yes, the gay person deviates from the abnormal sexual behavior that heterosexuals do. Gays also deviate by not placing sex of any nature in a religious ethic, which is, biblically speaking, obscene

Misshayse

Proud is the polar opposite of ashamed. That's the point. We are gay and not ashamed. We are gay and strong. We are gay and proud.

John B. Greet

"The gay-marriage issue is...about stopping government from treating individuals differently depending on whether the person with whom they wish to join in romantic union is of the same or the opposite gender." Precisely right, Greggory. On this we are in full agreement. If the government extends rights and priveleges to one group of consenting adults through marriage, then it cannot withhold those same rights and priveleges from another group of consenting adults who also seek to be married...not and remain compliant with the Constitution. Government involvement in the institution of marriage is the key. Government simply cannot lawfully discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or preference and that is precisely what we did, through government, by amending our State Constitution by enacting Prop 8. Prop 8 was as clear cut and recent an example of de Tocqueville's concept of the tyranny of the majority as any we have seen in California in quite some time. The courts should overturn it and, if they do not, the people, themselves, should abolish it for the blatantly discriminatory piece of crap that it is. Straight marriage is not diminished or undermined in any way or to any degree by the existence of gay marriage. Straights accomplish diminishing and undermining their own marriages in significant numbers all be themselves without trying to blame our LGBT community for it. I understand and respect all of the religious arguments against gay marriage. These would be more pertinent if we lived in a theocracy and if all of our civil laws were based upon one single set of religious beliefs. But this is not the case. We live, thankfully, in a Constitutional Republic wherein equal protection under the law is a right guaranteed to all and which cannot be withheld based upon sexual orientation or preference. So let's all stop stop descriminating on that basis, shall we?

John Greet: I love your sentiments, but if we truly live in a "constitutional repblic" where everyone has equal protetions, why does the tax code favor such things like home ownership and having children? Is the childless renter truly getting equal protection? why are churches tax exempt, but not, say, book clubs? Every time the governemtn prints or spends a dollar they express a preference, and "equal portection" becomes more and more a chimera.

Eagle Eye @ lolin

So typical for the gay crowd and other liberal special interest groups to throw the "race" and "hate" card. All you succeed in doing when you do that, is proving to the rest of us that you are not intellectually honest, and cannot stand by your issue in any kind of substantative way.

And yes, the definition of family is a husband and wife (ie PARENTS) and their children. There's no "hate" or "racism" involved in stating truths. The only "hate" involved is those whom hate the truth itself, and want to lash out at the rest of the world, and attempt to coerce others to follow them and their worship of lies.

Eagle Eye

Time and time again, the gay crowd blatantly shows it's disingenuousness and dishonesty. You blatantly engage in the same tactics that you condemn others for. You blatantly mis-characterize others, AFTER you play the victim at others mis-characterizing you.

Another example is your classic "I didn't choose to be this way". If you get to make that argument, so does everyone else, and that includes pedophiles. Allow me to demonstrate how this sounds, using your own words -

And, honestly, do you really think someone "chooses" to be pedophile? If so, then that would mean they choose to be ridiculed, choose to be "deviant, and choose to be shunned by family, friends and society. I often wonder if those who hate pedophilesare closeted pedophiles themselves.

Eagle Eye

and now we see some more gay comments by someone named "gay jesus"..... that is a blatant insult and disrespect to others, while you are SUPPOSEDLY making a case of acceptance, tolerance and respect.

Again I submit that gays (like ALL liberals), are the LEAST tolerant of any group. If you don't think and believe as THEY do, they cannot stand it. Again, what specific right is being denied to gays???? If THAT was actually the issue, we'd hear this mysterious denied right mentioned, at least ONCE.

It's not about rights, and it's not about "tolerance", it's about a WAR in which liberals/gays want everyone to submit to THEIR world view and culture. Are there Christians, independents, conservatives, etc that are intolerant? Sure. But these groups are all HIGHLY tolerant as a whole. It is liberals and gays, that are completely INTOLERANT, as well as completely dishonest (not to mention appaulingly obnoxious).

Eagle Eye

Wow Greet, no pro-police rant?! Hold up, let me mark my calendar.

As for your opinions on Prop 8 and government "intrustion", allow me to educate you (I'm sure that's not possible, because you don't have an open eye/mind, but I'll state the truth and reality anyways) -

The PRIVILEGES afforded married couples were put in place for one reason - to promote family values. It's not setup to persecute any others, only to ASSIST those out there trying to start families. These privileges were set with the intention to assist and protect those with children (and also those who were planning to have children - ie getting ready).

Now if you are against the idea of supporting and protecting FAMILIES (ie parents with children), then please state that openly.

If you are NOT against that, I'd join you if you want to say that people without children, whether straight couples or two same gender people, should not get extra privileges.

why not simply get the government out of the marriage business altogether? No marriage licenses, no civil unions. If people want to get "married" in a church or anywhere else, let them, but there's no need to "legitimate" it. That would also clear out our Court system and throw divorce lawyers out of work. Of course the big losers in this scheme would be women, as the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world is from men to women in divorce proceedings, but haven't they lately been clamoring for their independence?

Beagle Eye: when did all this business about protecting families occur? if that was the framers intent they should have written it into the constitution. As they didn't, your out of luck. The only thing the government should do is write laws that protect life and property, and then enforce them. Protecting and assisting famlies is society job, not the government's.

Sander

Eagle Eye, your definition of 'family' is incorrect, at least according to Webster: Definition of FAMILY
1
: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household
2
a : a group of persons of common ancestry : clan b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race
3
a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship b : the staff of a high official (as the President)
4
: a group of things related by common characteristics: as a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b : a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5
a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family b : spouse and children
6
a : a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera b in livestock breeding (1) : the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2) : an identifiable strain within a breed
7
: a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8
: a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area

Eagle Eye

Just as immature it is to say "Beagle eye", your ability of analysis and understanding seems to be on the same level.

John B. Greet

@ Eagle Eye: I'll apologize in advance for the verbosity, but I feel compelled to address some of your comments point by point: 1. A gay married couple can most assuredly be "the same" as a straight married couple in all of the ways that matter most in this context (commitment, respect, dedication, sincerity, and passion.) 2. Being gay, in and of itself, in *no way* prevents a person from being able to raise and nurture a child in a constructive and productive manner or to be a part of a family that serves that same purpose. 3. When you presume to judge -solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation- any person's ability to raise a child or to be a part of a healthy family, you are, most assuredly pre-judging them...you are, indeed, practicing "prejudice." 4. If you would care to look up the term "parent" in any common dictionary you may care to use, you will not see a definition that includes "husband" or "wife." What you will see are terms like "mother", "father", "protector", "protector", and "one who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child." None of these definitions precludes any male or female who happens to be gay from being the parent of a child. 5. You have committed a grave and entirely despicable rhetorical error in attempting to juxtapose the term "gay" with the term "pedophile." You appear to do this for the very same reason that many others do so, as either a direct or indirect attempt to demonize people who choose to identify themselves as gay. Consider this conclusion from a recent scientific article from UC Davis: "The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children." (Herek, M. Ph.D, 2007 - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) Whether or not some men and women "choose" to be gay is a debate for another time, but you really should read up on the current scientific research before presuming to perpetuate that tired, and blatantly erroneous, juxtaposition between homosexuality and pedophilia, particularly when your sole purpose for doing so appears to be to demonize those in our society who identify themselves as gay. 6. Not all gays are politically liberal. In my experience the single group of people that have proven the least tolerant, on virtually any topic, are...wait for it...those who are the least intolerant and their intolerance seems to have far less to do with their respective political beliefs and far more to do with their lack of a personal capacity for...say it with me...tolerance. 7. I would say that *some* "liberals/gays want everyone to submit to THEIR world view and culture" just as *some* people of almost any other sexual orientation or political persuasion also want the same thing. Thus it cannot possibly be a person's sexual orientation or political persuasion that brings this out in some people but, rather, intolerant and prejudicial they make a conscious choice to be. 8. Did you really state, on the one hand: "It is liberals and gays, that are completely INTOLERANT, as well as completely dishonest (not to mention appaulingly (sic) obnoxious)" and, on the other, attempt to take exception when someone suggests that you are intolerant and prejudiced? Really? 9. While I appreciate your apparent need to try to educate me, you would have more success if you could cite your source for the following comment: "The PRIVILEGES afforded married couples were put in place for one reason - to promote family values." Once you have done that, if you can, then please define for me what some of these "family values" are that you feel a person's sexual orientation, alone, prevents him or her from possessing, modelling, or passing on to others. 9. Then, if you can, please explain to me what it is about a person's sexual orientation, alone, that should exempt him or her from being among those who deserve assistance in trying to start families, those with children, and those who are planning to have children. Is it your belief that because a man is gay he cannot sire a child? Is it your belief that because a woman is a lesbian she cannot give birth? 10. I most certainly am not against the idea of supporting and protecting families (e.g. parents with children), that's why i want marriage rights, preveliges and protections extended to *all* consenting adults who would choose to marry one another and raise a family, rather than limiting them to only the small sub-grouping of people that you happen to prefer. Thanks!

kathy ryan

John: I was talking to a woman who works in adoptions. She worked with homosextuals as long as there was just one man living in the home. It didn't matter to her what went on outside the home. The woman told me a sad story about a little girl, 8 years old, who was adopted by a single gay man. Every day, the little girl came home from school; she would ask the adopted dad, why her mom does not come and pick her up from school. Children know a mother gave them birth, especially at 8 years old. You are trying to compare apples and oranges and it won't ever work. Nature is hard to dispell. Are we supposed to indoctrinate 8 year olds, when they know the realities of life already, just from human nature? He asked the person I spoke to for help in solving the problem. Of course, these are hard questions to answer, so why do people put their own selves first? All children have a right to be born into a mother/father relationship...what happens in their life is sometimes out of their control, but that doesn't make it any less a hardship for the child to comprehend and accept. There is a special bond between a mother and child that cannot be replaced by anyone.

DLB

@Eagle Eye - The more crap you say about us Gays, the harder we are going to fight you and make your life miserable so bring it on.

Eagle Eye

Actually DLB, your crowd has already been militantly fighting for your agenda, so what is new about what you are saying? I'm simply trying to lead the way for others to stop being held prisoner to all your PC 'we're victims' bs, and exposing the hypocrisy in all of your ways. The more people stop playing into all of your crowd's passive-aggressive tactics, the more we can cut through the fake to get to the real.

I don't mind giving people engaging in homosexuality rights, freedom and protection. I don't think people should be hated nor persecuted. At the same time, I DO mind having gay culture being forced onto the rest of society.

Eagle Eye

Greet, thanks for your opinions, but like so much of today's liberalist views, these elitist "I'm more evolved" artificial constructs are not based in reality. Again, it's one thing to ask for rights and to be left alone, but when you attempt to concoct these artificial communities based on nothing but peer pressure to cater to special interest groups, it's simply indefensible.

I could take you at your own reasoning, and shoot down the glaring flaws in it, but it doesn't even need to be entertained/humored, nor should it be. When you say "two same gender people can be the same as...", you have just strayed from reality into the twilight zone. That is exactly the problem with society today. All of this artificial, politically-correct-minded phoniness has taken all of the soul out of our society, and turned us all into fake robots who cannot be real, and/or tell the truth. You liberals are trying to brainwash this generation to believe that everything in the past was flawed and terrible, and that young people today need your enlightened ways of thinking, in order to be happy. It's complete crap. If things were so terrible in times past, why was all of the music of those times about deep love, passion and commitment?! While the music of today is about nothing but sex and narcissistic ideals.

As for your logic, it doesn't hold up, and you know it. That's why you try to have it both ways, and when people call you out on your double-standards, you look away to avoid the 800 pound gorilla, and just keep babbling. One second you guys are trying to argue that you are 'born this way', in order to make justifications for your agenda, and when that reasoning is given back to you, now all the sudden you want to change the subject, and cry the victim. (gee, how typical)

Again if you get to claim that you were born a certain way, then others get the same right. WHERE IS ALL YOUR TALK OF EQUALITY NOW?!?!?! Exactly, it's complete bs.

The same way you argue that people are born a certain way, but then when it suits you, you THEN want to say that people can be anything that they want. This is you and your crowd trying to have it both ways, and it's disingenuous.

If a man supposedly is 'born homosexual', then you can't say that he is also 'born to be a father'. Because a father is a man that is born to be a mate to a woman.

Shame

if we are going to celebrate wickedness and immorality, why don't we have huge KKK or al Qaeda marches

Sander

Eagle-Eye, I can't seem to find a definition of 'family' that fits your model. Where does your definition come from?

Zoll

All: Eagle Eye has a crystal ball and knows everything. Don't bother presenting him with any information (fact or opinion). In his mind, he is ALWAYS right, and you are ALWAYS wrong.

teacher

Interesting article. However, why do I need to know ANYONE'S sexual preference? I don't get it. That seems like a personal thing, and kind of inappropriate to make it known to the public. What if I belonged to a shamed group of people who like it doggie style? Do I make flags to hang on my porch, or have a parade? Has society slipped so far that we categorize people by who they like to have sex with? Aren't there other group-affiliation needs that can be met in more appropriate ways? I mean, I like bowling, or I like sewing, or I like old movies, or something. But not, I belong to a group of people who like to have sex with my own gender. TMI, dude. Keep that to yourself, just like any hetero person would. We don't need to know, and as long as gays keep forcing it into the public eye, they'll have to deal with the negative consequences.

John B. Greet

@ Eagle Eye: It must be difficult for you to live with any appreciable degree of contentment while possessed of so tightly closed a mind. Like so many who argue as you have, here, you pick and choose from among the many reaonable things people say, ignore the context in which they say them, and then presume to offer insults and lecture them on how wrong they are in not sharing your particular world view. All of your presumptuous and prejudicial commentary concerning gays nothwithstanding, the true bottom line is quite simply this: So long as government extends rights and priveleges, through marriage, to one set of legal and consenting adults, it cannot then withhold those rights and priveleges, through marriage, from another set of legal and consenting adults. To do so is patently counter-constitutional. All Prop 8 accomplished was to deprive an entire segment of legal and consenting adults in our society of certain rights and priveleges that are enjoyed by other legal and consenting adults. This is wrong. Prop 8 should be abolished.

Eagle Eye

That is dead on the money teacher. It's one thing to demand protection from persecution. It's completely another to push a sub-culture and attempt to force everyone to like/accept it.

Good to see people speaking up/out against this blatant agenda.

Eagle Eye

Greet, are you taking drugs? Seriously. I just outlined the complete hypocrisy of the gay agenda argument, which you ignored for the second time, and somehow you attempt to throw out the "narrow-minded" card?! Well hey, that's ok, since you can't address anything, I'll address that - HOW am I being narrow-minded? By not pretending that a gay person would make a great parent?

Allow me to put reality in front of your face again - According to YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, a person is "born to be gay". Going by YOUR argument, then how do you THEN make the leap that a person that is born to be gay, THE SAME as a person whom is not? The people who are born to be with the opposite sex are the people who form father-mother family units.

See, you can't have it both ways.

Just stop it already. The intellectual dishonesty is glaring at this point. If you would like though, I can continue to shine the light. Your call. cheers

John B. Greet

@ Eagle Eye: You really should consider changing the pseudonym you choose to hide behind. You are not seeing nearly so clearly as that noble bird of prey you are attempting (quite in vain) to emulate. You persist in ignoring the context of my comments. Rather than waste your time offering insults that are entirely wasted upon me, please consider reviewing what I have actually said here. A gay married couple can most assuredly be "the same" as a straight married couple in all of the ways that matter most in this context (commitment, respect, dedication, sincerity, and passion.) There is nothing...nothing...about a persons sexual preference that will de facto preclude him or her from being a loving, caring, and nurturing parent. You seem to be arguing that all children should have both a mother and a father (assuming those are positive and constructive versions of those two parental roles), and I would agree. However, just because Bobby happens to have two mommies, does not mean that he does not also have other adult male father-figures in his life that can more than sufficiently serve his needs in that regard. Quite the same for Sally who may have to daddy's. How is Sally any worse off if she has a positive female role-model in her life that may be an aunt or a cousin or an older sister? The simple answer is she is not. It simply suits your prejudicial sociological construct to assert that she is. Try for just one moment, too look beyond your prejudice. There are so many loving and deeply committed gay couples in our state who only want to be enjoy rights, priveleges, and protections *under the law* that are equal to those of straight couples. The US Constitution and all reasonable applications of common decency say that they should. So why must you persist in presuming that they should not?

Eagle Eye

Greet, it's not "prejudice" to apply logic equally.

enjoy your day

Eagle Eye

and yeah Greet, I'm hiding from you big guy. *wink

JPDumont

HH brings up the critical point (to me anyway) that "marriage" is a term with both governmental and religious implications. (Separation of church and state, anyone?) I say just call it something else in government circles and leave "marriage" to religion. Then, the LGBT community can get the rights they want, and the religious folk can maintain their claim to this institution called marriage. I dunno, is this too practical?

As far as parenting goes, I'd rather have Mitchell and Cam (from 'Modern Family') raising a kid than Phillip and Nancy Garrido. But all things being equal, go with the man and woman.

John B. Greet

@ Eagle Eye: When you state: "You can't cry "inequality", especially when you are not equal in the first place!" You are practicing prejudice. When you state: "Two people of the same sex together will NEVER be the same as a father/mother, husband/wife, which is the base of a family unit" you are practicing prejudice, not to mention errors of fact. When you state: "So typical for the gay crowd and other liberal special interest groups to throw the "race" and "hate" card" you are practicing both prejudice and ignorance. When you state: "Time and time again, the gay crowd blatantly shows it's disingenuousness and dishonesty. You blatantly engage in the same tactics that you condemn others for. You blatantly mis-characterize others, AFTER you play the victim at others mis-characterizing you" you are practiving prejudice. So much of what you have posted here is filled with prejudice. You can attempt to disguise and excuse your prejudice as logic evenly applied but it is prejudice all the same. Perhaps you have very good reasons for hiding behind your pseudonym while displaying your prejudices so publicly. I do not really know. I think you should consider, however, what it might be about what you are saying and how you are saying it that causes you to decline to append your own true name to your words.

Eagle Eye

Greet, last post for ya bud... if you think it's "prejudice" to state plain facts, then you obviously have trouble seeing the nose on your face.

Perhaps you think that cats and dogs are equal? Or maybe perhaps animals and plants are equal? Or maybe even animals and humans are equal??

I submit, if you weren't so intellectually dishonest to begin with, you wouldn't have such a hard time grasping the obvious - and thus, that is the problem with liberalism/PCness - it's fake, it's phony, and it ATTEMPTS to be mentally superior, when in reality, it's sheer idiocy.

enjoy your day

John B. Greet

Since Eagle Eye has (allegedly) seen fit to depart without allowing me an opportunity to rebut his latest comment directly, I will attempt to do so for the general readership and then allow the matter to drop. People like Eagle Eye are quite adept at spouting some of the most foolish and prejudicial ideas about others and then allege that this should somehow be acceptable because they claim their comments have a basis in logic...even when there is precious little of logic to be found in what they are saying. Many people just like Eagle Eye feel strongly that the only "proper" purpose for a marriage is to create and raise a family. This absurd argument completely ignores the many "straight" couples who are married but choose to never have, or are unable to have, children. Are these unions any *less* a marriage for the lack of the presence of a child? Hardly. Nor do I think people like Eagle Eye would claim that they are. So much for his "logic." People like Eagle Eye likewise feel that the only sort of family that government and society should recognize is that which includes a man and a woman in the roles of father and mother. It is on this basis that they then object to a government recognition of same-sex marriage. "If two men are married -they say- which of them can be the mother? Neither can give birth." "If two women are married -the argument goes- which of them can be the father? Neither can sire a child." It is in such a way that people who harbor such prejudices against those in our LGBT community -who desire to be married- choose to construct their logically flawed paradigms. As I think most reasonable and honest adults will acknowledge, there is far more required of being a nurturing mother, or mother figure, than simply providing a womb and there is far more required of being a loving and guiding father, or father figure, than merely depositing sperm. Are "straight" marriages that are throroughly dysfunctional and which provide neither safety, nor health, nor nurturing for a child born into those homes any *more* legitimate solely by virtue of the fact that the mother and the father created a child together? Hardly. Nor do I think people like Eagle Eye would say that they were. Again, so much for their "logic." In every sense that truly matters, once a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, all of the qualities that can make parents so important to the health and well-being of a child have *nothing* to do with anatomy and *everything* to do with a human being's ability to offer love, understanding, support, caring, and protection to the child in question. No "straight" male or female has a monopoly on those essential qualities that can make a person a good parent. It simply suits the ignorant and prejudicial world view of people like Eagle Eye to believe so. Likewise, the ingredients of a happy and healthy home -with child or without- have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with love, respect, honor, sacrifice, and commitment. They have *everything* to do with the human philosophical heart and soul and *nothing* to do with physiology. Perhaps if Eagle Eye's real "eyes" and his true heart were just a little more open, and he could see for himself the many, many loving, committed and healthy LGBT families *with and without children* I have seen, he might just reconsider his position. I will hope that one day he does so. "Straight" marriage is to no degree eroded or diminshed by the existence of gay marriage. Those "straight" marriages that do so, erode and diminsh *themselves* without needing, or receiving, any help from anyone else. If the argument is a religious one, fine. Argue on religious grounds all day, if you like, but do not require our secular government to adhere to any one set of religious guidelines or another, because that would take our constitutional republic and make of it a theocracy that none of us, least of all Eagle Eye, would very much want to live in. For those who doubt this, observe for even a brief moment the various theocracies that currently exist around the world, and then tell anyone who would care to listen that you would really care to live in such a place. In this greatest of nations, run by this government, all are free to believe as they choose, or to not believe, as they choose, and still enjoy the same rights, priveleges and protections under the law that everyone else does. Everyone, that is, except members of California's LGBT community, who only ask to be able to marry one another if they want to...just as their "straight" counterparts are able to do. To again allow them to, Eagle Eye, would be "logical." To continue to prohibit them from doing so would be...something else entirely. Thanks very much, all, for your patience and your kind attention.

Mr. GunRights

I believe we should continue the fight for the right to bear arms without prejudice. I am for gun rights and consider myself a 2A guy. Gun Rights yea!!! Oh wait! This is for Gay Rights. Sorry wrong place

Johnny Utah

Eagle, good points.
As for that whole gay pride junk
most of my gay associates don't even attend this parade. They think it's stupid since they are born with it. I am going to agree. It's kind of like Mexicans. Any excuse to party.