Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only "agenda" I worry about is that there will be a push to have all churches everywhere perform marriages, and some of the in-your-face gay and lesbian activists won't stop until that happens, which means having to listen to this stuff for the rest of our lives. I am pro gay marriage in a civil sense, but don't want religious institutions strong armed into performing ceremonies that they are doctrinally opposed to.

This argument irritates the hell out of me. What you're basically saying is that the political should remain divested of the church, right? If only the churches listened as well. It's a two-way street my friend. Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen. Right?

Not the pp, but your comment doesn't make much sense.

You're telling me you don't see religious influence in politics???? Are you really that dense?

Yes, I see that. It's been that way since the Constitution was drafted really. Still not understanding: "Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen."

Is this your incredibly convoluted way of saying that churches should be forced to marry gays?

No, it's my direct way of pointing out that religious institutions are hypocritical. Practice what they preach perhaps? But no, they want to be political but don't want the political to influence religion.

I can tell by your "off-ness" that you are an atheist. We can end it here.

NP here. Are atheists not worth having a discussion with?

Churches are free to do as they please, if it pertains to their congregation. They can ban people by rave, only allow those of a certain gender to hold positions of power, etc. They can't be forced to marry anyone. They can be forced to follow employment law when they hire and serve people outside of their congregation. The government does not have the power to force them to marry anyone or recognize a marriage. Divorce is legal, but the Catholic Church doesn't always recognize it, right? Has the government stepped in to make them change their marriage doctrine?

OP - do you newly identify as a 'gay girl' or lesbian? This defensiveness is what I sounded like 20y ago when I was first starting to identify as gay and coming out.

fast forward 20y and I am not 'somewhat' happy - I am really happy. I have a great wife (of more than a decade), 2 wonderful kids, a fabulous job, and a supportive family.

There is no gay agenda. The agenda is whatever you make it - for some it is advocacy, for some it is family life, for some it is just having a fun. Make your agenda - YOUR agenda - not a gay one.

Our neighborhood most definitely has a gay agenda. It is to get our lesbian neighbors to let us hold and take care of their darling infant as often as possible. .

I am not making light of your dilemma, OP. I am just pointing out that the world is rapidly changing and those who want to deny personhood and basic human rights to gays are being left behind. They are done. I am sure this is threatening to them, but it's reality. We are evolving.

And for the posters who say homophobia is exclusively associated with religion, that's simply not true. I have vehemently atheist relatives who are vehemently homophobic. Religion didn't enter into it.

My current lesbian agenda includes the following:
-get toddler DS to stop waking up at night
-reduce DS's hitting
-laundry
-dishes
-staying awake at work
-stop joking with DW that she's just my roommate because it's too close to the truth since we've had a baby!

Hetero DH here. This sounds pretty much like my agenda when DS was a toddler too. Heck, it still sounds like my agenda now, a few years later.

Oh, on the political front, part of my agenda is to fully support the right of anyone who wants in to join this wedded/parental bliss thing. Come join the exhaustion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another conservative here--the anti gay agenda is mainly religious and sorry to say..lots of Dems are religious and anti gay--look at the state of California. Look at the African American community..lots of dems there and this community is notorious for not being accepting who aren't straight (this is where the terms on the down low came from) As a true conservative I think everyone minds their own business and as little of government infringing on that as possible. I also think the world is changing. It used to be your only exposure to gay lifestyle was on cable (sex shows and I mean the hard core stuff not "L word" and coverage of the "gay pride" parade and sorry guys in leather with long mustache it was hard to take that seriously. Now more gay people are out and just living their lives and surprise most people are completely fine with that. My aunt came out and she said she wished she did it sooner as no one in the family had any negative thought on it. The worry was actually in her own mind. She is a lot happier living openly.

I am black and I take GREAT offense to this position. How many black people do you know who are "anti-gay"? Being on the "down low" has nothing to do with being homophobic, but rather the inability for the man to accept his sexuality (this happens across all races). Please stop perpetuating the "blacks don't like gay people" crap.

The down-low phenomenon refers to the propensity of the gay African American male to take a wife and girlfriends either as a product of bisexuality or of an attempt to hide his sexuality from society. While this certainly transcends racial lines, the "down low" in this case does refer to the African American male, and it is seen as a function of the relative disapproval of gay and lesbian lifestyles in black culture. This is a known issue, and the vernacular originated in African American parlance, and while it may now be used outside of those racial boundaries, it has roots there and that's what, generally speaking, it refers to.

BTW, I am not black, but a good friend is a researcher (he is black) and this is his field; he holds a PhD and has devoted his life to reversing the issue of anti-gay sentiment within the black community. I am really surprised that you'd say it's not an issue.

Oh Dear Lord, now the anti-gay sentiment only exist in the Black community. Really! I guess you would be surprised that white men, Asian men, Latino men have not had beards in their community. In your mind, only the Black community have men who have taken a wife or girlfriend in an attempt to hide ones sexuality. It's no more of an issue in the Black community than it is in your non-Black community.

Where did you get that from what I said? I mentioned that there IS a strong anti gay sentiment within the black community - it is a black culture sub issue that many advocacy groups within the AA culture are struggling with / struggling to change. That doesn't mean that there is no anti-gay sentiment elsewhere. There are many, many cultures where anti-gay sentiment is rampant. But someone upthread said this is not a black issue and i'm pointing out that, according to my gay black friend who has carved out a career in trying to reverse the cultural sentiment, it absolutely is an issue in black culture.

Why are you relying on hearsay from a third-party. Why don't you address the anti-gay sentiment in your own community before trying to address what somebody told you about anti-gay sentiment in another's community.

When published work by a PhD in the subject is considered hearsay, I'll feel insulted by your argument. You have no idea what I've done to address the anti-gay sentiment in my community. and to PP upthread, I don't have "one black friend." I have dozens of black friends. Who gives a shit? It's not relevant to this discussion but the ONE black friend who happens to be published on this is. Now, PP right above saying why fight about this is the only one who is right on this thread. Sorry, OP, for derailing. I don't think you have an agenda. My cousin (we were so close growing up she's more like a sister) is gay. She struggled for a long time with her identity, how our family would take it, how everyone would take it. She's gay and Catholic, not an easy combination. She's the kindest person I know. I hate to hear of anyone's struggle in this area, as I know that she struggles also. I remember when all of that stupid chick fil a stuff was happening, how bad it made her feel. Not that that dumbass owner said what he said or donated to what he donated, but that so many people would drive out of their way to "support" that, and thereby say "we also think you gays are morally wrong, etc." F that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another conservative here--the anti gay agenda is mainly religious and sorry to say..lots of Dems are religious and anti gay--look at the state of California. Look at the African American community..lots of dems there and this community is notorious for not being accepting who aren't straight (this is where the terms on the down low came from) As a true conservative I think everyone minds their own business and as little of government infringing on that as possible. I also think the world is changing. It used to be your only exposure to gay lifestyle was on cable (sex shows and I mean the hard core stuff not "L word" and coverage of the "gay pride" parade and sorry guys in leather with long mustache it was hard to take that seriously. Now more gay people are out and just living their lives and surprise most people are completely fine with that. My aunt came out and she said she wished she did it sooner as no one in the family had any negative thought on it. The worry was actually in her own mind. She is a lot happier living openly.

I am black and I take GREAT offense to this position. How many black people do you know who are "anti-gay"? Being on the "down low" has nothing to do with being homophobic, but rather the inability for the man to accept his sexuality (this happens across all races). Please stop perpetuating the "blacks don't like gay people" crap.

The down-low phenomenon refers to the propensity of the gay African American male to take a wife and girlfriends either as a product of bisexuality or of an attempt to hide his sexuality from society. While this certainly transcends racial lines, the "down low" in this case does refer to the African American male, and it is seen as a function of the relative disapproval of gay and lesbian lifestyles in black culture. This is a known issue, and the vernacular originated in African American parlance, and while it may now be used outside of those racial boundaries, it has roots there and that's what, generally speaking, it refers to.

BTW, I am not black, but a good friend is a researcher (he is black) and this is his field; he holds a PhD and has devoted his life to reversing the issue of anti-gay sentiment within the black community. I am really surprised that you'd say it's not an issue.

Oh Dear Lord, now the anti-gay sentiment only exist in the Black community. Really! I guess you would be surprised that white men, Asian men, Latino men have not had beards in their community. In your mind, only the Black community have men who have taken a wife or girlfriend in an attempt to hide ones sexuality. It's no more of an issue in the Black community than it is in your non-Black community.

Where did you get that from what I said? I mentioned that there IS a strong anti gay sentiment within the black community - it is a black culture sub issue that many advocacy groups within the AA culture are struggling with / struggling to change. That doesn't mean that there is no anti-gay sentiment elsewhere. There are many, many cultures where anti-gay sentiment is rampant. But someone upthread said this is not a black issue and i'm pointing out that, according to my gay black friend who has carved out a career in trying to reverse the cultural sentiment, it absolutely is an issue in black culture.

Why are you relying on hearsay from a third-party. Why don't you address the anti-gay sentiment in your own community before trying to address what somebody told you about anti-gay sentiment in another's community.

I'll never understand why people just want to fight about crap. Way to take the op and make it all about you, people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another conservative here--the anti gay agenda is mainly religious and sorry to say..lots of Dems are religious and anti gay--look at the state of California. Look at the African American community..lots of dems there and this community is notorious for not being accepting who aren't straight (this is where the terms on the down low came from) As a true conservative I think everyone minds their own business and as little of government infringing on that as possible. I also think the world is changing. It used to be your only exposure to gay lifestyle was on cable (sex shows and I mean the hard core stuff not "L word" and coverage of the "gay pride" parade and sorry guys in leather with long mustache it was hard to take that seriously. Now more gay people are out and just living their lives and surprise most people are completely fine with that. My aunt came out and she said she wished she did it sooner as no one in the family had any negative thought on it. The worry was actually in her own mind. She is a lot happier living openly.

I am black and I take GREAT offense to this position. How many black people do you know who are "anti-gay"? Being on the "down low" has nothing to do with being homophobic, but rather the inability for the man to accept his sexuality (this happens across all races). Please stop perpetuating the "blacks don't like gay people" crap.

The down-low phenomenon refers to the propensity of the gay African American male to take a wife and girlfriends either as a product of bisexuality or of an attempt to hide his sexuality from society. While this certainly transcends racial lines, the "down low" in this case does refer to the African American male, and it is seen as a function of the relative disapproval of gay and lesbian lifestyles in black culture. This is a known issue, and the vernacular originated in African American parlance, and while it may now be used outside of those racial boundaries, it has roots there and that's what, generally speaking, it refers to.

BTW, I am not black, but a good friend is a researcher (he is black) and this is his field; he holds a PhD and has devoted his life to reversing the issue of anti-gay sentiment within the black community. I am really surprised that you'd say it's not an issue.

Oh Dear Lord, now the anti-gay sentiment only exist in the Black community. Really! I guess you would be surprised that white men, Asian men, Latino men have not had beards in their community. In your mind, only the Black community have men who have taken a wife or girlfriend in an attempt to hide ones sexuality. It's no more of an issue in the Black community than it is in your non-Black community.

Where did you get that from what I said? I mentioned that there IS a strong anti gay sentiment within the black community - it is a black culture sub issue that many advocacy groups within the AA culture are struggling with / struggling to change. That doesn't mean that there is no anti-gay sentiment elsewhere. There are many, many cultures where anti-gay sentiment is rampant. But someone upthread said this is not a black issue and i'm pointing out that, according to my gay black friend who has carved out a career in trying to reverse the cultural sentiment, it absolutely is an issue in black culture.

No one has said this isn't a "black issue". In fact, you are the one who even brought race into the discussion. In your attempt to show how "informed" you are through third-party information, you bit off more than you can chew. One black friend does not make you (or him for that matter) the authority on the AA community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only "agenda" I worry about is that there will be a push to have all churches everywhere perform marriages, and some of the in-your-face gay and lesbian activists won't stop until that happens, which means having to listen to this stuff for the rest of our lives. I am pro gay marriage in a civil sense, but don't want religious institutions strong armed into performing ceremonies that they are doctrinally opposed to.

This argument irritates the hell out of me. What you're basically saying is that the political should remain divested of the church, right? If only the churches listened as well. It's a two-way street my friend. Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen. Right?

Not the pp, but your comment doesn't make much sense.

You're telling me you don't see religious influence in politics???? Are you really that dense?

Yes, I see that. It's been that way since the Constitution was drafted really. Still not understanding: "Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen."

Is this your incredibly convoluted way of saying that churches should be forced to marry gays?

No, it's my direct way of pointing out that religious institutions are hypocritical. Practice what they preach perhaps? But no, they want to be political but don't want the political to influence religion.

I can tell by your "off-ness" that you are an atheist. We can end it here.

I don't know what "off-ness" is but you're wrong. You can completely believe in God without buying into the institutions. What a weird response you gave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another conservative here--the anti gay agenda is mainly religious and sorry to say..lots of Dems are religious and anti gay--look at the state of California. Look at the African American community..lots of dems there and this community is notorious for not being accepting who aren't straight (this is where the terms on the down low came from) As a true conservative I think everyone minds their own business and as little of government infringing on that as possible. I also think the world is changing. It used to be your only exposure to gay lifestyle was on cable (sex shows and I mean the hard core stuff not "L word" and coverage of the "gay pride" parade and sorry guys in leather with long mustache it was hard to take that seriously. Now more gay people are out and just living their lives and surprise most people are completely fine with that. My aunt came out and she said she wished she did it sooner as no one in the family had any negative thought on it. The worry was actually in her own mind. She is a lot happier living openly.

I am black and I take GREAT offense to this position. How many black people do you know who are "anti-gay"? Being on the "down low" has nothing to do with being homophobic, but rather the inability for the man to accept his sexuality (this happens across all races). Please stop perpetuating the "blacks don't like gay people" crap.

The down-low phenomenon refers to the propensity of the gay African American male to take a wife and girlfriends either as a product of bisexuality or of an attempt to hide his sexuality from society. While this certainly transcends racial lines, the "down low" in this case does refer to the African American male, and it is seen as a function of the relative disapproval of gay and lesbian lifestyles in black culture. This is a known issue, and the vernacular originated in African American parlance, and while it may now be used outside of those racial boundaries, it has roots there and that's what, generally speaking, it refers to.

BTW, I am not black, but a good friend is a researcher (he is black) and this is his field; he holds a PhD and has devoted his life to reversing the issue of anti-gay sentiment within the black community. I am really surprised that you'd say it's not an issue.

Oh Dear Lord, now the anti-gay sentiment only exist in the Black community. Really! I guess you would be surprised that white men, Asian men, Latino men have not had beards in their community. In your mind, only the Black community have men who have taken a wife or girlfriend in an attempt to hide ones sexuality. It's no more of an issue in the Black community than it is in your non-Black community.

Where did you get that from what I said? I mentioned that there IS a strong anti gay sentiment within the black community - it is a black culture sub issue that many advocacy groups within the AA culture are struggling with / struggling to change. That doesn't mean that there is no anti-gay sentiment elsewhere. There are many, many cultures where anti-gay sentiment is rampant. But someone upthread said this is not a black issue and i'm pointing out that, according to my gay black friend who has carved out a career in trying to reverse the cultural sentiment, it absolutely is an issue in black culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-gay sentiment is directly correlated to religiosity. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of it stemming from anything else.

So, to the extent that a community is "churchy", there will be corresponding anti-gay bias.

I don't think anyone on this thread said that anti-gay bigotry was the sole province of a particular race. Bigotry doesn't abide by racial lines.

What does this even mean?

I think she is talking about those communities in the likes of places like Lynchburg, VA populated by the Falwells and Robertsons.

Anonymous wrote:Anti-gay sentiment is directly correlated to religiosity. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of it stemming from anything else.

So, to the extent that a community is "churchy", there will be corresponding anti-gay bias.

I don't think anyone on this thread said that anti-gay bigotry was the sole province of a particular race. Bigotry doesn't abide by racial lines.

What does this even mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only "agenda" I worry about is that there will be a push to have all churches everywhere perform marriages, and some of the in-your-face gay and lesbian activists won't stop until that happens, which means having to listen to this stuff for the rest of our lives. I am pro gay marriage in a civil sense, but don't want religious institutions strong armed into performing ceremonies that they are doctrinally opposed to.

This argument irritates the hell out of me. What you're basically saying is that the political should remain divested of the church, right? If only the churches listened as well. It's a two-way street my friend. Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen. Right?

Not the pp, but your comment doesn't make much sense.

You're telling me you don't see religious influence in politics???? Are you really that dense?

Yes, I see that. It's been that way since the Constitution was drafted really. Still not understanding: "Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen."

Is this your incredibly convoluted way of saying that churches should be forced to marry gays?

No, it's my direct way of pointing out that religious institutions are hypocritical. Practice what they preach perhaps? But no, they want to be political but don't want the political to influence religion.

I can tell by your "off-ness" that you are an atheist. We can end it here.

Anti-gay sentiment is directly correlated to religiosity. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of it stemming from anything else.

So, to the extent that a community is "churchy", there will be corresponding anti-gay bias.

I don't think anyone on this thread said that anti-gay bigotry was the sole province of a particular race. Bigotry doesn't abide by racial lines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only "agenda" I worry about is that there will be a push to have all churches everywhere perform marriages, and some of the in-your-face gay and lesbian activists won't stop until that happens, which means having to listen to this stuff for the rest of our lives. I am pro gay marriage in a civil sense, but don't want religious institutions strong armed into performing ceremonies that they are doctrinally opposed to.

This argument irritates the hell out of me. What you're basically saying is that the political should remain divested of the church, right? If only the churches listened as well. It's a two-way street my friend. Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen. Right?

Not the pp, but your comment doesn't make much sense.

You're telling me you don't see religious influence in politics???? Are you really that dense?

Yes, I see that. It's been that way since the Constitution was drafted really. Still not understanding: "Once religious institutions became political (which has really been forever) it's an invitation for the reverse to happen."

Is this your incredibly convoluted way of saying that churches should be forced to marry gays?

No, it's my direct way of pointing out that religious institutions are hypocritical. Practice what they preach perhaps? But no, they want to be political but don't want the political to influence religion.