DISPATCHES

Reader Feedback on "A Dream Deferred"

APB - yes, feelings get hurt. Black people, their feelings were hurt. They had to sit on the back of the bus or not be allowed on at all. They couldn't go to the same schools! It was an insult to their pride. You can't trivialize a civil rights movement by simply saying their feelings are hurt they should cry and get over it. That's the thing! You CAN go around changing societal definitions as things progress! There's no real answer to this that we're going to convince each other of... it boils down to conservative values to liberal values. Personally I feel our society should evolve. This is the 21st century and we should act accordingly. We cannot allow government to legislate against something that, when you break it down, is really a religious definition than that of a secular one. Let the religious definition stay. If Catholics and Lutherans and Baptists and Jews and Muslims decide that marriage is between a man and a woman before God then that's fine. But here we're talking about a separation of church and state at the most fundamental level. The real agenda is to try and push western religious values upon those whom they don't apply. As the word "marriage" is just a word -- and not one that's owned by anyone really what rationale is there to allow them to call it marriage other than it might hurt YOUR feelings? Or make YOUR life uncomfortable because what it's doing is legitimizing homosexuality in the eyes of the government and placing them on an equal level as heterosexuals? Here's a radical idea: ALL unions. Gay, Straight, Bi, whatever. All of them are civil unions. Marriage, no longer a term used in government. I mean, really, when it comes to its use in government all marriage is, is a legal contract between two people. Is that a good idea, or would it hurt heterosexual feelings to not be allowed to be "married?"
--WBB
10/31

PDQ - you're reframing the argument to suit your needs. I can take each reason against gay marriage you've listed and apply it to other civil rights causes that have since been changed. Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals by definition. Women are different from men by definition. Blacks are different from whites are different from asians by definition. The fact is, this is a larger picture issue where it boils down to people are people. The point is, just like sex, just like age, just like religion, sexuality should be taken -out- of the equation. The point is, majority rules until and unless it becomes an ethical argument. Blacks weren't a majority when civil rights were granted to them. The same goes for women. That's what civil rights are about, minority rights in the face of majority oppression. I'm not saying that gays are oppressed, -per se- but a double-standard still is a form of segregation.
--WBB
10/31

WBB - Although I would argue that our society is certainly not any more "mature" now than it was 100 years ago, in fact we've become far more childish. (Political Correctness, sueing for everything, no personal responsibility, etc). Homosexuality, as PDQ put it, is by definition DIFFERENT. You can call it biased or whatever you like, but it is what it is and thats, different. I never said that people do not deserve the same standard of rights, but you can't go around changing society definition because it hurts someones feelings. Its not a matter of logic, its a matter human society which is certainly not logical. It has nothing to do with one lifestyle being better or worse than the other, its a matter of difference. Take religion for example, we have Catholics, Baptist, Lutheran, Protestant, Mormon, those I mentioned all worship the "same God" and are all "Christian Religions" by definition becuse of their core beliefs. They are separated by differences and therefore called different names. So, when applying to Mariage, you would have marriage being that of a man/woman, and then a union of a man/man would be called something new, and that of a woman/woman something new as well. Be creative! All of those would fall under Union, as the religions I listed fall under Christian.
--APB
10/31

Ok WBB then why should government give tax breaks to poor people, people with kids, etc. etc. etc. After all everyone is the same and should be treated the same. Why should I pay not only more taxes but a higher tax rate because I make more money? The government doesn't give me anything extra. I am the same as everyone else aren't I? People aren't the same!!!!!! Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals by definition. I am not saying they should be persecuted or anything but there is no rule that says that they have to be treated exactly the same. Different rights are given to different classes of people based on age, education, income, nationality, etc. The discussion is not about how you treat people personally as individuals but how the government treats a class of people. The government treats different classes of people differently in a whole host of ways. That behavior is governed by the will of the majority and as long as it is not persecution then I think the majority should get to decide. Denying someone marriage rights, almost all of which can be simulated through explicit contract, does not count as persecution in my book and therefore the majority should decide.
--PDQ
10/29

Think of it this way. Regardless of what it happening now, same-sex marriage will be here to stay... eventually. Personally, I'm not gay, perhaps bisexual to an extent. Basically I think men and women alike, are beautiful and I've gotten to know and love people of both genders. I don't care, and I dont think other people should care either. Remember back in the day (now being only eighteen, I cant's really use that phrase). Now remember when tattoos, piercings weren't excepted in "real" jobs. Men didn't wear earrings, no visable tattoos, women barely had one maybe two sets of earlobe rings? Look at it nowadays! Granted, yes, there are still some places where they have dress codes. But just as it took time for piercings and tattoos to become an everyday thing, same-sex marriage will do the very same. Just give it time. I understand paitience is not a virtue of most people, but I guarentee... in time... It will be as common and everyday as McDonald's. WATCH!
--MMW
10/29

ApB - I can -kinda- see your point but I think the logic is flawed. Or, more pointedly, it is biased still. Look, I'm neither gay nor religious so really the argument has nothing to do with me and I'm just a third party looking at the situation. However I can't take it when someone (in this case, you) wants to separate straight people from gay people with labels such as "they" and "them" as if they're some kind of social outcast. I don't know where you're from but homosexuality, in our society, is here to stay. It's not going anywhere. In fact it's always been here -- it's just that now our society has matured to the point where our government must get involved. If you can call homosexuals people, then what's holding you back from acknowledging that any person, regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexuality does not deserve the exact same standard of rights down to the very definition of the words those rights represent? You're advocating a double-standard and as soon as a double-standard is legislated upon us then some form of segregation, whether it's legal or societal has been given clout! It's been backed up by our laws! That cannot be! We are granted certain inalienable rights. Over the last two hundred and thirtyish years, the definitions of those rights (civil liberties to race, sex) have changed. What's the big deal for adding another one? Your argument that people don't want "alternative" lifestyles taught to their children is crazy when placed against the backdrop of the gay-marriage movement! Whether they're marrying or not (legally, or otherwise) our children are going to have to see this in society! If you've ever been to NYC and have walked through Greenwich Village or Chelsea, you know that it cannot be avoided! Children live and are raised in these neighborhoods. Proximity or availability isn't going to create more homosexuals, it's just going to allow the ones who -are- gay to freely be gay! Once people didn't want their "races" dating or marrying other races. I'm a product of a mixed-race marriage. Some people once thought it was wrong. I think gays have -every- right to fight the fabric of society, and to settle for anything less than what everyone else is deserved -- down to the redefninition of the word marriage -- would be a grand injustice towards civil rights in America. By implementing something that in anyway sets gays apart from straight people is still wrong. People once argued that black-only and white-only water fountains were fine. After all, it's still water, right? They both get the same exact thing -- refreshment, rehydration, etc -- so what's the big deal of a second water fountain? Your logic falls in the same vein and I cannot stand by and allow you to rationalize "unions" versus "marriage" that way.
--WBB
10/29

You ask who gets to decide and deride the notion that the majority would get that privilege. But you seem to forget that we live in a democracy and in fact the majority does get to decide, period. The constitution lays out a limited set of inviolable rights that cannot be overridden by the majority. Marriage rights are not one of those. Thus the majority gets to decide whether you like it or not.
--PDQ
10/28

WBB- The "big deal" , from what I can see, is that marriage is so deeply rooted in society, religion, and moral beliefs, as being between husband and wife or man and woman. If you break it all down, then yes, it probably does come down to bigotry and/or what you would call homophobia in the end, in a way. It is not the same as "granting" freedom to people based on their skin color or whatever. Freedom, in the constitution, is not actually something that is "granted by the government" but is a "God given right". It was bigotry that denied that freedom to certian people, mainly black, at one point in our history. As far as mariage is concerned, the "rights" granted by the government to married people (tax benefits, next of kin, etc), should be granted to whomever wants them, gay couples, close friends, whatever. But to put a union of love between two people of the same sex under the same label as two people of opposite sex is just plain silly. It is simply not the same thing and should not be reffered to as such. You may call it bigotry or homophobia if you'd like, for some people that may be the case, but that put aside, it is simply not the same thing. Yes, its stil the union of 2 people, but in one union there is a husband and a wife, and in the other, there is a union of two of the same, why should both be called by the same name? For the gay rights movement, I believe they want it called the same thing because they have this obsession with trying to make people think the way they do. The very thing they accuse "homophobes" of doing to them, is the tactic they have been using to move thier agenda. When it is not met, they cry discrimination. Just as people don't want religion taught in schools because of so many different beliefs, people don't want "alternative" lifestyles taught to their children either. This is a very complicated issue, it hits many people at their core values. You can see it right here amonst the few that have argued it so far. At this point in time, it would be more effective for gay couples to fight for rights instead of fighting the fabric of society. That is, in fact what they are doing, if they were fighting for rights they would not still be fighting!
--ApB
10/28

Beautifully argued, WBB. And ApB, thank *you* for reminding me that sarcasm doesn't always read well online. I should have taken a page from your book and remembered with whom I was dealing.
--DML
10/28

ApB - I think the gaping hole in your argument is inability to acknowledge that cultures and their societal definitions change. Let's take the United States Constitution for example. Clause 3 of Section Two of Article I of the Constitution clearly states this -- Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. -- important definition in there should be the phrase "the whole Number of free Persons." In 1776, a black person was defined as one half a free person. Hell, the definition of FREE has changed. So, that being said, in the name of civil rights, why is it the definition of "marriage" must stay the same? Because of the accepted majority's religious definition? Yes, yes, we'll all agree that even dictionaries define marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman, but definitions CHANGE, and why not the definition of the word "marriage?" How will gay people "marrying" and acquiring "marriage licenses" going to affect a heterosexual's world in any way that can't be in one way or another defined as bigotry, or homophobia? If they can be granted equal rights, then I turn your argument back upon you. What's the big deal over a word?
--WBB
10/28

Thanks DML for giving me a much-needed reminder of who I'm dealing with here! :-) LOL
--ApB
10/28

You know, ApB, you might want to pull it back a little bit, or some people (not me, you understand, but some of those crazy faggiage-advocating liberals) might start thinking you're quite the closet case...
--DML
10/27

noble? That's it. I don't read Nerve for this kind of shit.
--MLS
10/27

Actually, MLS, it is YOU that have personally decided to take my, made up word "faggiage", as derogatory, and clearly demonstrated my point! Its all about your own feelings and not others. And actually no, I'm not spending much time being concerned about your feelings, you see, YOUR feelings are YOURS and it is YOU who are in control of them, not I. You decide to take things the way you have. My made up word, faggiage, was just that MLS, MADE UP. It was YOU that decided to be offended by it and take it as derogatory. You see, words by themselves mean nothing, it is people who inject meaning to them, and most people on this planet inject the union of a man and woman into the word MARRIAGE. Just as you are unable to see faggiage as anything other than offensive and derogatory, many others are unable to see the word MARRIAGE as anything other than what they have. So, you have unknowingly proved my point! Thank you very much for your understanding. Sorry to hear though that you may decide to turn Republican. That was never an intention of mine. Even though I tend at this moment to agree with what the Republicans represent and see the Democratic candidate as somewhat of an "empty suit, I like to think of myself as independant. But, if you did vote republican this election, however, you would be doing something rather noble.
--ApB
10/27

if you can explain any possible meaning of "faggiage" that is NOT derogatory, i'll become a republican here and now. until then please don't hide the bigoted opinions you are apparently so proud of behind such a pathetic mask. and don't call me "you liberals". what, you mean you're not worried about *my* feelings?
--mls
10/26

Wow, AKF, you apparantly completely missed my point. I never said that homosexual's should not be given the same rights as hetero! In fact I said that the SHOULD. Wow, you Libs sure enjoy putting words in people's mouth. I simply said, and I'll say it again, HOMOSEXUAL couples wishing to "legalize" their union SHOULD be granted the SAME "rights" as HETERO couples. My ONLY problem with it is calling it "MARRIAGE". Thats it. Maybe some day you will wake up and see that you are the one who is disregarding feelings, not I. It is you that wish to deny people, like me, their feelings because you think my way of thinking is wrong. Its the same as the whole "Boy Scouts" admitting gays argument. They should not have to admit homosexuals. That is THEIR choice weather you agree with it or not. If a homosexual or anyone else doesn't like that choice, they should go out and start an organization of their own instead of disgregarding people's feelings that they don't agree with. Nobody is preventing them from that. Comparing this to legal rights of women to vote and such is ridiculous, its apples and oranges. The gay "rights" movement is not interested in "rights". Can't you see that? If they were they would be seeking the observation CIVIL UNIONS from the Government. From there they could go and be joined by whatever religion would do it and then call it whatever the hell they like, Marriage, Faggiage, whatever. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way as I'm sure you will suggest. The gay rights movement is seeking to shove down MY, and EVERYONE else's throat who does not agree with their lifestyle, the idea that their lifestyle is just as "normal" as everyone elses. Sorry, but that is just NEVER going to happen. Don't you see? Everyone is different, and everyone is NEVER going to think that same way! It would be like some group coming out and insisting that having an incest fetish is "normal" and should be accepted. Everyone is different and what one person thinks is "normal" is not always what the next person thinks. Just keep it to yourself. You don't see "heterosexual parades" do you? We don't wear our sexuality on our sleaves constantly or define our life by our orientation
--ApB
10/26

Beliefs and rights are 2 different things, and I don't think anyone should be expected to respect the former if they interfere with the latter. Miscegenation was, until shamefully recently, "believed" to be wrong by a "significant number" of people. Nonetheless, anti-miscegenation laws, because they violated the rights of interracial couples, were finally struck down, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that they shouldn't have been, ApB. Slavery was endorsed by all of the southern states, which later did everything they could via the Jim Crow laws to thwart the intentions of the Emancipation Proclamation. Was that OK? A "significant number" of people "believed" it was. The idea that women were weak, inferior to men, and undeserving of the vote was "entrenched" in society up to and even beyond 1920, when the constitution was finally amended to afford half of America's population their civil rights. Should women not have gotten the vote, since giving it to them made their opposition feel bad? The argument that a minority should not be allowed the same civil rights as the majority just because a "significant number" of people oppose it is flawed. There are plenty of precedents in American history of the majority being flat out wrong and bigoted; it is the role of the courts to be more progressive than the majority in such cases. And I have a hard time buying your argument that heterosexuals are somehow being harmed by the disregard of homosexuals for their feelings. Heterosexuals' rights are not oppressed right now, nor would they be if gays were allowed to marry. Some straight people might feel upset about it because of religious beliefs, or just plain bigotry, but sorry, that's not a good enough reason to deny 10% of the population equal civil rights.
--AKF
10/26

Gay marriage isn't an attack on Heterosexual marriage and civil unions are discriminatory. Why should gay couples have any thing less then what heterosexuals do? Because we have the sane genetalia? Thats logical!! The argument that we should keep marriage locked off to gays because it is "so intrenched in society and religion" is ridiculous. Lots of things that are bad for our society are deeply intrenched in it, like intolerance and prejudice. There are plenty of heterosexual marriages that I find pretty stupid and revolting (Hi Britney!) but its not really my bussiness and who I marry is none of yours. It certainly doen't infringe on your rights. Nobodys forcing you to come to the weddings and personally approve of them after all.
--AN
10/26

Actually, there is at least one opponent to same-sex "marriage" on this site! While I agree that its nobody's business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms, I don't agree with alternative lifestyles being put forth as the same as a heterosexual lifeslyle. That is not to say that it is less meaningful in any way, it is simply saying that it is a different choice and should therefore not be called the same thing, ie. marriage. I have no problem at all with civil unions, and granting the same legal rights to gay couples as straight couples. I simply have a problem with the label of "marriage". The societal definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman, for the majority, forever. I do not think it is right to extend the definition to include relationships that a significant number of people do not agree with. Is that "right"? Maybe, maybe not, one could also argue that what other people think shouldn't matter. It should not, but in this case it does, it is so intrenched in society and religion that it does matter. Just as homosexual rights should be observed and accepted, so should they of heterosexuals as well. I think that is what is being missed by the gay-rights movement. In their strive to legitimatize their lifestyle, they are ignoring the beliefs and feelings of others, whos rights and beliefs should be as respected as their own. Breaks down to this, just call it something else besides "marriage" and you'll find a lot less opposition.
--ApB
10/26

As an urban Canadian I don't think I'll ever understand the angst about this issue. I tend to agree with Trudeau: "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." Really, Canada hasn't fallen into the abyss - crime isn't higher, the economy still chugs along, and even het marriage rates keep on steady. But hey, the opponents of Same-Sex aren't on this site are they?
--JRB
10/26

send feedback on "A Dream Deferred"

back to "A Dream Deferred"