the stupidity is dangerous

Again, a response to Maggie Puta
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201202130001

Here’s a little story, a true one, for Maggie. Children are not born to be prejudice. They learn it from others. Gay kids do not have shame about who they are, they learn it from others. I have a good friend; he recalls being lovingly attracted to another young man. I think they were actually doing it together and felt quite okay with all of it until someone told them this was wrong.
Maggie has never met a gay person evidently. She’s never been able to figure out at an early age who will most likely end up being gay. I’ll argue that sexuality can be fluid for some. You’ve met them, I’ve met them and I am okay with them. I don’t feel threatened by them. I actually like them, even envy them in a way. Yes there are bi sexual people. They exist and deserve our respect. For others, that is not the case. It’s just hardwired, end of story. I’m guessing when I ask my straight male friends when it first hit them that they were physically attracted to women, they will have the same story as I have, albeit with a different gender in the storyline. I’m guessing the awakening is slower in some and more pronounced in others, but is an awakening that just happens naturally. There is no politics involved. We’ve seen the result of people who are gay who try to deny this awakening and the result is not good.
So Maggie’s “opinion” doesn’t mean shit to me. What it accomplishes is stupid people believe it and that in turn causes harm. Ignorance is the enemy here. The choice I made was to be honest. No, it was not an easy choice. Yes it was the right choice.

rage against the Maggie.

Same-sex marriage advocates offend her hard-won wisdom in two ways. First, they imply that sex and love can in fact be separate from procreation, and no less valid for it. Second, and perhaps more troubling for Gallagher, the increasingly visible column of attentive, loving gay parents — gay male parents in particular — mocks her own romantic choices.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/the_making_of_gay_marriages_top_foe/singleton/

A response to the above article:

Odd but thought provoking to me. Let’s begin.

#1, gay people exist. I believe we exist for a reason, but lets just go with we exist right now. This in my view means that we should be treated like other humans. We are entitled to the same protections and responsibilities as our straight peers. If you want to get into the religious vs. civil marriage, fine. However we are a nation that affords civil benefits and responsibilities to married people. Government of our style is secular, the founders where pretty fucking adimate about this. What do we do with our LGBT population? Treat them as less than equal? How do we allow them to live their lives with dignity and pursue their American dream? Civil marriage is a bundle of rights. Why we felt it was important to afford these rights is another question. Lets assume it was to support the family structure. Marriage is seen as a good thing for society and I’d go along with that. Still not sure why on the civil level we should give special rights to married people and not single people. Seems a bit odd. Maybe we needed more babies to grow our ranks. Lord knows we do not need this today. Part of our global problems can relate back to over population. So lets assume for the moment that is okay to support families because it allows citizens to take care of themselves with less government assistance. Civil unions do about the same thing, although this would fall far short in the present set up. As my friend Steve said along time ago, “Civil Unions for everyone, if your church wants to call it marriage, fine.” Equal equals equal.

#2 Maggie doesn’t seem to take into consideration that not allowing our families the benefits afforded civil marriage causes harm. It’s like it doesn’t even factor into the equation for her. She’ll change her tune when her son comes out as gay. She has an ideological view that marriage equality is going to do harm to the “institution” of marriage by changing the norms. If marriage were about procreation, this would still not hold up. I guess it depends on what you feel is the purpose of marriage in the first place. Maggie doesn’t take into consideration there are about a zillion of us that would like to protect our relationship with our spouse and have no intention of having children in that equation. If marriage is about a couple being joined in a union, then that’s the common denominator. I’m thinking the numbers will prove me out, but the percentage of gay couple getting married is not going to affect the numbers of straight couple and their ability to populate. I’m fairly certain we will continue to over populate until the earth itself turns against us. (Another theory on mine.)

You know, reading this article, I got some of her points. I just don’t see how excluding the LGBT population from marriage does the harm she seems to think it could possibly do. She points out some things she saws has harmed the institution of marriage. I get it. But then she makes the leap that marriage equality would further do harm. That is a leap that’s is supported by nothing. I’m always taken to the example of my sister’s marriage and her children. My relationship with my spouse affects hers, how? I f you look at the whole religious, kind of marriage is to procreate thing, this still doesn’t diminish her relationship. She can still procreate. If roles are somehow important, she still has that. One thing I think the whole marriage equality debate has brought us is a reaffirmation that being in a committed relationship is a good and desired thing for those who choose this “lifestyle”. Honestly, I think my relationship affirms her relationship. I just happen to be gay, so the whole different gender thing is not an option for me.

So Maggie has her view and gay people be damned. Seems a little stupid doesn’t it, for a “thinking” person? I think they’ve done a good job of thinking up rationalizations to support their worldview.

I think I am open-minded on the topic. I’d personally be fine with civil unions, but that is separate and unequal and I am not okay with that. I’m not okay with that because of my civic beliefs in our spirit of America. Either we mean all are created equal or we do not. We actually do not, but for this subject matter, I think it is correct that we afford equal rights. It’s always funny / odd to me that the anti marriage equality people go on and on about how marriage is a good thing…. for heterosexuals. Forming a spiritual bond, promoting stability, raising kids, building strength in a family structure are all good, except for gay peeps. There is this very big disconnect. They tout the importance of marriage, but then fail to recognize, the same principles they are touting apply to same gender couples / families.

SO, let’s look at her whole premise. The demise of role definition has created some kind of faltering in the family unit. Doesn’t this mean she should be staying home washing clothes? But I digress. Mommies and daddies verses daddies and daddies has been kind of debunked, so she gives us that point, kind of. Procreation does not make a marriage, so she gives us that point. So what she is saying is that by allowing same gender marriages this will at some point in the future destroy marriage? H O W?! I see it as addition, not subtraction.

Let’s look at the right wing world Maggie has lived in. As they constantly tout their liberty and free market ideas, they are forever trying to manage or control your personal life. Who you can marry, how a woman can manage her body, how they can legislate their brand or morality. The liberals are much more hands off. In my own world, I’m sure I know what is best for people, but I’ve been trained to remember that I need to respect others right to be and that I do not always know what is best for someone else. So the righties think a bit different than I do. Is it arrogance or fear or genuine concern? Not sure it matters. It’s still them imposing their brand of whatever on “the other”. So I’m kind of thinking this is more of what it is about. I’m thinking they have "think tanked" themselves into a view that is convenient for them. Maggie was a champion of marriage and this fight came to her. Why is there a fight? Change is scary? Maybe it’s as simple as hetro privilege. Maggie had to work hard to get her worldview and keep her marriage together. So why is she concerned about my marriage? I don’t think these people really look at the numbers. The LGBT population will never be large enough to shift the drift of mankind’s reproductive habits OR what a standard nuclear family looks like. Just aint gonna happen.

Let’s go into the future without Maggie. Well, not without Maggie, but a different vision than the vision Maggie believes will be. Yep, zip forward and see the future WITH Marriage equality. More ability to get kids out of the foster care system and put them into forever homes. More same gender couples being married. The revised norm for the LGBT community is 50/50 married. Sounds reasonable. Are there more gay people in this future on a percentage basis? I doubt it; lets say it increases to 30 percent. LOL I still doubt it. Maybe the number will go down. Anyway, so what? What would this change? Maybe marriage will go back to biblical times when you can have as many spouses as you can afford. Maybe we’ll have vending machines for babies. In this future we get to decide who makes up our family.

Huh, maybe she’s right, we’ll al be so liberated that we become a hedonistic mess and we get fried with hell fire. Or maybe just this happens, we have equal rights for a tribe of people and the world keeps turning. Maybe we are moving towards a better society with our proposed marriage equality. Maybe the concept of marriage is actually strengthened. I’m going to have to actually ask my sister, but my straight, married friends don’t seen to care if Jav and I get married. They would be just as excited for us as we are for them. Maybe we grow better by getting past our fear. Seems to have worked out all right with “inter racial” marriage. (I hate saying that, to me it is just marriage.) You can’t scapegoat the gay community for all the fucking ills in your world. Trust me dog; there are bigger problems and bigger bad guys out there.

And lastly, but quite possibly, most importantly. Maggie seems to forget the love and humanity factor.

She and they can debate all they want. However they need to understand that their theory of the way it should be is harming real people in the interim. Discrimination might not have hit you yet, but it will. When it does, it will hurt. It will hurt like hell. As we type I have been separated from my spouse for a year. We’re now a bi national couple. I’ve gone there 4 times in the last year, but it’s not made anything better. In fact, it’s getting harder. Why are we separated? DOMA. I don’t have the same rights as my straight siblings. Love makes a family. The proof is in the facts. Loving couples survive the weight of inequality. We do it all the time. Just because Ms. Maggie got of too a rough start in life does not mean the rest of us get to pay for her self inflicted bumps in the road. The fact remains, tax paying, law abiding members of the family that is America are suffering under the entire hate the homos gang. They own that pain they are keeping in place for their high moral cause. I’m guessing Jesus would see things differently.

from an old boyfriend

You know what I don't quite understand about you're country is why they expect the president to solve a huge crisis which took an entire generation to manufacture and which was not even the fault of his administration. I don't think that even a totalitarian regime like China would be able to solve the situation in less a decade. Things up here are better relatively speaking since our finacial institutions are so heavily regulated that they can't do anything wierd since we still have an the old fashioned notion that the primary function of a bank is to fuction as a bank and not as a money making buisiness. It probably accounts for why none of our banks have failed.
(guess where he lives)

West cares about the wise use of Federal dollars, my ass.

Shocked, just shocked. Congressman West is getting his marching orders for big PHARMA now and spinning it against the President. Completely shocked…

Teabaggers, you need to do your homework and see who is leading you by your collective noses.
The unfunded Part D from George Bush and Big Pharma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.[25] For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the VA pays $520.
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[26][27] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

Super Happy Pride.

Congratulations New York and the timing could not be more perfect. San Fran was abuzz last night with the news. The national org for non inclusive marriage is already blathering on about spending 2 million bucks to defeat certain legislators. Class act they are. Kind of like the effort they did in Iowa against judges. Anyhoo, let's celebrate a win for equal civil marriage. On the home front in Florida, we need to get cracking on putting together a campaign and an energized effort to move forward the legislation sponsored by State Rep. Mark Pafford. The domestic partnership bill will provide responsibilities, protections and rights for same gender couples in the great State of Florida. Who's with us?

CORETTA SCOTT KING QUOTES

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

-March 31, 1998

“Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others", she would tell black civil rights leaders angered by gays and lesbians comparing their struggle to their own. She would quote her husband and say, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible."

-June 23, 1994

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

March 24, 2004

"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say "common struggle" because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

November 9, 2000

"We have to launch a campaign against homophobia in the black community."

June 8, 2001

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

April 1, 1998

do socks get raptured?

cuz i am missing some today and it's not yet 6pm..

Actually, it kind of sad / maddening to me that this is the conversation we are having regarding the rapture. Plenty of good Christian people get to endure this silliness all brought about by someone who can’t even read his own bible. Of course maybe he / they just think they are smarter than the word. I put this whole subject matter away a long time ago. Not even the angles in heaven are supposed to know when the rapture is to happen. I’m a Christian, so what do I care. I’m pretty sure we get a pass. I didn’t ask Christ spirit into my heart because I was afraid. I actually think it was a formality anyway. I think that spirit has always been there and is ever present. I have a relationship with my higher power that rocks. Best relationship eva! If you don’t like that, it’s on you. I’m willing to share what I have and you can take it or leave it. For those of us who choose to connect with a higher spirit, that’s kind of personal, like any relationship. Being honest and loving is it’s own reward. Having integrity and compassion is it’s own reward. So today, I kind of grieve that this is how we talk about such things. I grieve that there is such a divide. I’m encouraged by the many who have figured how to see the forest.

state of the state

It's been an all out assault on unions, women, immigrants, public schools, public school teachers, women's health care, Voters rights, clean water and the environment, responsible planning practices, AIDS/ HIV prevention funding and education, the disabled, workers pensions, college students, the Florida Supreme Court, Citizens Insurance, Children's Heath Services, the unemployed and JOBS (high speed rail?). It's been a potential windfall for corporations and the top tax brackets.

And this is just Florida at the state level. Never mind the assaults on the federal level. I have no real issue with the rich or corporations. This is the republicans sucking up to the rich, plain and simple. The only problem with that? Is it doesn't work for Florida or America. Money is like manure and the wealthy know this, you spread it around and it does a world of good. Who wants to pay more in taxes? no one. Will this plan work to fire the engine that is our economy? no, it won't.

Click the link above to attend our next meetup

Pafford and Sobel ROCK!

State Rep. Mark Pafford, D-West Palm Beach, has filed legislation to provide domestic partnership protections to committed couples throughout Florida.
From Pafford's statement:
Florida is the eighth most populous state in the nation with an estimated 5.5 million individuals living in communities that recognize domestic partnerships, either through registries or public employer's benefits. House Bill 337 would make partnership benefits available to all domestic partners statewide.

More than half of all Fortune 500 companies and a majority of Florida’s universities offer domestic partner benefits in order to attract and retain the best and brightest employees.

"At a time when many Florida families are facing difficult financial challenges, this bill will provide valuable protections, as well as responsibilities, to unmarried couples and will help more Floridians to take care of their loved ones," said Representative Pafford. "House Bill 337 recognizes the intrinsic value of all families, and the importance that they be recognized and protected by law.”

The Domestic Partnerships Act would grant individuals in a domestic partnership the same benefits and responsibilities currently available through marriage.

Allan Hendricks, Palm Beach County organizer of the gay rights group Equality Florida, said his organization would push for passage of the legislation.

A Senate version of the measure is sponsored by state Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood.