How To Explain Gay Rights To Idiots

[Jingthing]

I would have no problem with the UK civil partnership legislation but I still object to the irrational insistence that marriage by definition bars same sex unions due to religious constrictions. It bans them by LEGAL constrictions. You are lucky to have the legal structure to allow what you've got. Like I said before, that can't happen that way in the US.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[endure]

A careful reading of your post 11 shows that you do not want full equality. I can't imagine Rosa Parks saying OK, the middle of the bus will be OK, we don't want to offend Massuh.

As IB, like me, is from the UK Rosa wouldn't have any problem sitting anywhere on the bus she wanted over here.

Maybe you lack a historically recent vivid consciousness of civil rights struggles then. The American gay civil rights movement is unapologetically modeled on the black civil rights movement. Many reactionary blacks are offended by this and a higher percentage than you might expect are indeed openly anti-gay; we don't care, their movement continues to inspire. There also may be a big Anglo/American cultural difference in passionate feelings about social equality, given the different models/national mythology of class consciousness.

Remembering again, the recently late, great Frank Kameny, gay civil rights pioneer:

Kameny is credited with bringing an aggressive new tone to the gay civil rights struggle.^[13] Kameny and the Mattachine Society of Washington pressed for fair and equal treatment of gay employees in the federal government by fighting security clearance denials, employment restrictions and dismissals, and working with other groups to press for equality for gay citizens.^[15] In 1968, Kameny, inspired by Stokely Carmichael's creation of the phrase "Black is Beautiful", created the slogan "Gay is Good" for the gay civil rights movement.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Frank_Kameny

On the other hand, I don't pretend to fully understand how Britain progressed so fast in gay rights considering not so long ago in general the penalties for criminalization of homosexuality there were much worse than in the states. In the US, it was mostly about ruined careers, not so much about prison sentences.

We've never had to have a black civil rights movement in the same way as the US because we've never had laws that specifically discriminated against anyone because of the colour of their skin.

One of the reasons for the quick progression of gay rights in the UK was the sympathy that the public had for the accused in the Wildeblood/Montagu/Pitt-Rivers court case. This led to the setting up of the Wolfenden Committee which make recommendations as to a change in the law which came to pass in 1967. That's the way we tend to do things in England. We're not really into 'vivid consciousness'. It tends to frighten the horses.

[Jingthing]

Like I said you were lucky for the solution but I really think it was much worse there before things changed. I was aware of the Wolfenden Committee, etc. but don't pretend to understand the cultural environment that made things change the way they did.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[endure]

I've no idea what it was like in the US but when I was at school I had a Saturday job at a tailor's shop. We had a camp gay guy who'd worked there for years. He managed to piss one of his neighbours off who reported to the police that he had a boyfriend. He did 3 months in gaol. That would be in 1963.

[Jingthing]

I've no idea what it was like in the US but when I was at school I had a Saturday job at a tailor's shop. We had a camp gay guy who'd worked there for years. He managed to piss one of his neighbours off who reported to the police that he had a boyfriend. He did 3 months in gaol. That would be in 1963.

People were in the closet because they had to be (even Liberace), and a lot of people got arrested "cottaging" etc. so that might mean jail in some places, but in general people didn't go to jail for consensual private relationships, even in states with criminalization of sodomy. In the 1950's homosexuality was linked to anti-communist witch hunts but again this meant loss of career, not prison, but on the other hand there were lots of social stigma driven suicides (still are). One of my best friends growing up turned out to have a gay father, so he moved to Greenwich Village, and jumped out of a window, this was culturally expected. A huge percentage of American gays were in Michelle Bachman style sham marriages. Basically, total oppression but jail not so much.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Blatant gays like Liberace were generally received with a kind of tolerant amusement... "Oh, he's one of those!" This is the way we used to do things in UK. Ranting we left to others.

[Ijustwannateach]

Actually, IB, your call for people to be unified is often heard in America by the more politically vocal activists- but THEIR position of unity is around such things as 'gay marriage' and legal equality!!! It all depends on whose unity you're calling for, and one of the strengths- I still believe it is a strength- of liberal political groups is their diversity. Yes, it means that we take longer to make decisions and are less unified, but on the other hand there is less overall oppression. Unity by its very nature is oppressive of the trends that are left out of the 'unification'. Personally speaking, as I mentioned above, I am not interested in 'marriage' with anyone and I would feel very doubtful about living in a community with strong 'common law' marriage trends, where I could find myself technically married and obligated without my direct consent. However, I think it is both ethical and reasonable for us gay folks to be given both the advantages- and the obligations- of a full citizen in whatever legal context we live. In the states, that means we need to ante up and join the system if we want equal recognition from it. That means if we don't like the 'common law' rules we need to do what straight people would have to do to get rid of them- legislate them away through the political process, if we can get enough support.

I'm not quite sure how the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and other religiously inclined gay persons in the US would view things, but as far as I'm concerned I want the state kept far, far away from the church. As the infographic and JT point out, marriage is a civil contract in the US. That means that we citizens are being discriminated against, as the civil issue does NOT need to refer to any religious history about marriage being 'between a man and a woman'- that's a personal prejudice, whether held by gay or straight individual.

And, on the issue of those advantages, here's an article that came up yesterday:

[Finlaco]

“Isanbirder - First, the whole religious bit is a gigantic red herring in this discussion. I mentioned it because I believe it, and because all our Western laws are influenced by the religious concept of marriage”

Isanbirder – I think like may Christians you chose to believe the marriage as we know it today is based on Christian values, but it’s not – Many Christians are like a jackdaw to a shiny object when they see a good value/moral and adopt it as a Christian value (irrespective of their bible of Church law) – Take a look at your bible and you will see that a Christian based marriage is one of oppression when the woman becomes the chattel of her husband, if on her marriage night she’s not a virgin, she can be returned to her father to be put to death, when the concept of it she is old enough to bleed she’s old enough to be sold to her new husband (the age of consent was opposed by Christains), where the concept of marital rape isn’t recognised etc...

Marriage came before institutionalised religions – I’m from Ireland and our traditions recognised marriage before the Christian religion was invented and incidentally woman had more rights then, than they did during Ireland pre 1980’s when ‘we’ based our laws on Christian values of marriage – Thankfully now we have made many changes so we no longer base our laws on Christian values of marriage, eg, marital rape, divorce, woman submits and obeys her husband, etc..

[tombkk]

We are supposed to unify with people who insist that the LEGAL definition of marriage must be directly linked to religion, specifically to Christian religion? No, thank you. The struggle I am familiar with is based on secular civil rights under the law, leaving religions to deal with their own issues amongst themselves. I am sorry you're angry. Would you prefer I not tell you my truthful reaction to your rhetoric (see again your RELIGIOUS definition of marriage in post 11)?

I agree with you that the legal rights of couples should be equal regardless of whether they are straight or gay, and that all has to be independent of religion. That's why I am against the term "Marriage" which is burdened by religion, as also Finlaco just pointed out in this thread.

Civil rights can only be implemented through a civil partnership law. We are talking about the legal aspects here, not the religious/marriage aspects (which some may find romantic).

Again, I am thinking internationally. In your particular country, religion may play a bigger role, that's why you want to use the term "marriage". I do not think that your country's shortcomings apply to the world in general.

On this particular forum, can you open your mind to a world perspective? Let's drop the religiously-burdened word "marriage" and concentrate on legal rights.

Edited December 28, 2011 by tombkk

[Jingthing]

Tom, reading your post it is clear to me either you didn't bother to really read my posts and/or don't begin to understand the gist of them.

Civil rights can only be implemented through a civil partnership law.

Only? Hilarious. That is absurd and wrong. I think we can't even have a conversation if we can't agree on elementary assumptions. Edited December 28, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Blatant gays like Liberace were generally received with a kind of tolerant amusement... "Oh, he's one of those!" This is the way we used to do things in UK. Ranting we left to others.

In closeted times, the dick-less gays rule ... In other words, gays who don't project actual sexuality, just camp.

Yes, the UK is culturally superior. Is that what makes you happy to hear? Glad to pander.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

We are supposed to unify with people who insist that the LEGAL definition of marriage must be directly linked to religion, specifically to Christian religion? No, thank you. The struggle I am familiar with is based on secular civil rights under the law, leaving religions to deal with their own issues amongst themselves. I am sorry you're angry. Would you prefer I not tell you my truthful reaction to your rhetoric (see again your RELIGIOUS definition of marriage in post 11)?

I agree with you that the legal rights of couples should be equal regardless of whether they are straight or gay, and that all has to be independent of religion. That's why I am against the term "Marriage" which is burdened by religion, as also Finlaco just pointed out in this thread.

Civil rights can only be implemented through a civil partnership law. We are talking about the legal aspects here, not the religious/marriage aspects (which some may find romantic).

Again, I am thinking internationally. In your particular country, religion may play a bigger role, that's why you want to use the term "marriage". I do not think that your country's shortcomings apply to the world in general.

On this particular forum, can you open your mind to a world perspective? Let's drop the religiously-burdened word "marriage" and concentrate on legal rights.

I agree with you, Tom. Who was it said on this thread, "Religion is a gigantic red herring"? I did.

[tombkk]

Tom, reading your post it is clear to me either you didn't bother to really read my posts and/or don't begin to understand the gist of them.

Civil rights can only be implemented through a civil partnership law.

Only? Hilarious. That is absurd and wrong. I think we can't even have a conversation if we can't agree on elementary assumptions.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Jingthing]

Tom, reading your post it is clear to me either you didn't bother to really read my posts and/or don't begin to understand the gist of them.

Civil rights can only be implemented through a civil partnership law.

Only? Hilarious. That is absurd and wrong. I think we can't even have a conversation if we can't agree on elementary assumptions.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I agree you are wrong. It isn't even debatable. Of course gay civil rights can be effected by changing civil marriage laws. As in can be, that is a way, not the only way ... and also of course dependent on the specific legislative structure and culture of the jurisdiction we are talking about.

Can't really talk with someone who can't grasp basics like that. It's actually easier debating with overt anti-gay enemies, at least they understand the basics. Cheerio.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[aussiebebe]

I don't understand what this thread is about after the second page, but I read the infographic 'How to explain...' and just wanted to comment that I thought it was thoughtfully put together. I'm a huge fan of British comedy and read about Matt Lucas (Little Britain) being among the first to enter into a civil partnership in the UK; after which he divorced and his ex tragically took his own life. I'd never bother to explain gay rights, my take is simple; 'Fine, gays can be just as sad as the rest of us!'

[tombkk]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I agree you are wrong. It isn't even debatable. Of course gay civil rights can be effected by changing civil marriage laws. As in can be, that is a way, not the only way ... and also of course dependent on the specific legislative structure and culture of the jurisdiction we are talking about.

Can't really talk with someone who can't grasp basics like that. It's actually easier debating with overt anti-gay enemies, at least they understand the basics. Cheerio.

Sorry to hear that you are not even interested in what I was saying, because it just didn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion. EOD for me.

[Jingthing]

Sorry to hear that you are not even interested in what I was saying, because it just didn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion. EOD for me.

Not a matter of opinion really. You are advocating an absurd, illogical falsehood.

EOD? I love it.

Equal

Opportunity and

Diverisity

[tombkk]

EOD for me.

EOD?

End Of Discussion.

[ProThaiExpat]

I swore to myself that I would not post again in Thaivisa as so many attack the individual for his comments rather than attack the ideas espoused.

I think Jingthing once swore off posting as well, for a time.

I was very heavily into the subject matter of same sex "marriage" a couple of years ago and while I am heavily in favor of legal solutions and legalistic logic, I learned there is a "political" approach that can carry the day, even when the law cannot.

Clearly, all that have posted are in favor of gays being able to couple legally and equally as do straights now.

The hang up comes when the word 'marriage' gets involved. For a long time, my solution to what appears to be the main thrust of this thread was to allow religions to have the right to use the word "marriage" to indicate their ceremonies coupling individuals and to apply their own dogma to whom they choose to join.

When the "state" becomes involved in coupling, as they do now in what they call "marriage" and use that term in more than a thousand legal ways in most states, clearly that word would have to be changed under this approach. For now, the term civil union seems to fit. Under this approach, all coupling by any person to another as licensed by the state would be called civil unions and then religionists would be free to go to the church of their choice, after being civilly joined, and have a marriage ceremony. There are enough welcoming religions that should satisfy religious minded gays to get "married" as well. Both religious joinders and civil officials joinder ceremonies would continue as now.

I can see that this approach might lead to some irrelevant bigotry when a gay couple satisfied with a civil ceremony by a government official would be attacked socially because they were not really "married", however, straight couples would likewise be stigmatized, however over time, my guess is that the word marriage would transmute to include all joinders, once "permitted" by a civil union license,and would be referred to as a marriage, whether followed by a religious ceremony or a civil one.

I think this would be termed a "political solution", the legalistic approach would be to not allow religions to pre-empt the word marriage and have a court to order the word marriage as presently on the books to mean a joinder of any two people regardless of sex, religion etc.

[isanbirder]

Excellent post, PTE, my sentiments exactly (or almost exactly). The only question I would have is that I doubt whether it would ever be possible to change the word "marriage" back to "civil union" to fit your scenario.

Nice to see the situation set out so clearly.

[Jingthing]

Yes, there are legal methods. There are political methods. There are methods that involve the word marriage. There are methods that don't involve the word marriage. The core of the incredulity I have expressed and maintain is the ridiculous assertion that only methods that don't involve the word marriage are meaningful or valid options.

Is that CLEAR enough for you?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Happy New Year, Jingthing. I shall continue to remain ridiculous!

[ProThaiExpat]

In the years I have monitored this issue in the U.S, we have seen a marked change in attitudes by many, particularly among the young. Thus I don't give up hope. It matters not if Obama "evolves" to our position before or after the next election, hopefully he will win in either case. As a "lame duck" president he will not have the political restraints he has now, particularly if he can carry the house of representatives.

Jingthing, don't give up hope, look what happened to the meaning of the word "gay" over the past fifty years!!!

What worries me is the Supreme Court. Both Scalia and Thomas will require explicit language in the constitution before they will find gays are entitled to be treated as their straight neighbors and we know that our forefathers believed in a 'living" constitution to be interpreted in a contemporary way.

Hopefully, a swing vote member will vote the right way when the equal rights of gays are under consideration.

DOMA is the big hurdle and it will only go down when the House of Representatives is purged of some of the intolerant and obdurate Republicans. The courts may be our savior as it was in the inter-racial marriage issue in 1947 by the California Supreme Court followed by the US Supreme Court 17 years later. Judge Walker in San Francisco did such a great job of trying the issues and making a great legal record before he came down with his decision regarding the unconstitutional Prop 8 as violate of equal protection that the Supremes may not have much wiggle room to hold otherwise.

[Jingthing]

If we get Obama for four more years, and even more so Clinton in 2016, there will be at least one additional friendly supreme court pick. That's the path for the US and no I have not given up hope. It is only a matter of timing now for full FEDERAL marriage equality which is the gold standard for equal gay civil rights in every regard. In the next five years, or fifty, that is the direction.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

I don't really care about the terminology as I do not reside in either the UK nor the US. (Though the concept of procreation being the purpose of marriage ended about the same time that a marriage could be ended when children were not conceived.) I want the rights and that is all. When and if the discussion comes in Thailand it certainly will not have the same overtones that it has in the West.

Since women's rights are decades behind the West here in Thailand, I assume that gay rights won't progress that quickly here.

[Jingthing]

...

I want the rights and that is all.

...

Yes, exactly, and sometimes the struggle for that involves the word marriage (or its translation) and sometimes it does not.

[tombkk]

...

I want the rights and that is all.

...

Yes, exactly, and sometimes the struggle for that involves the word marriage (or its translation) and sometimes it does not.

Newflash: Jingthing wizensed up and suddenly understands that the word marriage is not always necessary!

Miracles never cease to happen. Happy New Year!

[Jingthing]

...

I want the rights and that is all.

...

Yes, exactly, and sometimes the struggle for that involves the word marriage (or its translation) and sometimes it does not.

Newflash: Jingthing wizensed up and suddenly understands that the word marriage is not always necessary!

Miracles never cease to happen. Happy New Year!

I never said that and you know it. It was you who said progress for civil rights could ONLY be made without use of the word marriage, or are you going to change that story now as well?

[tombkk]

...

I want the rights and that is all.

...

Yes, exactly, and sometimes the struggle for that involves the word marriage (or its translation) and sometimes it does not.

Newflash: Jingthing wizensed up and suddenly understands that the word marriage is not always necessary!

Miracles never cease to happen. Happy New Year!

I never said that and you know it. It was you who said progress for civil rights could ONLY be made without use of the word marriage, or are you going to change that story now as well?

JT, I said that the terminology doesn't matter but did say that you - as the expert about the US - said that it matters in the US, and I conceded that you are the expert about that country. You attacked me ad hominem for even suggesting that the the terminology might be limited to your country only. Please read your own postings for reference.

Edit: I also said that I don't like the word "marriage" because of the religious burden it carries.

Edited January 1, 2012 by tombkk

[Jingthing]

You are just twisting things around. You clearly insist that religion and marriage are necessarily linked, and they are not. You play the USA card when it pleases you. Face the reality, we have different positions and in my view your insistence that religion and marriage MUST be linked and also that progress for civil rights must NOT involve the word marriage are obviously totally wrong, and yes, ridiculously irrational.

Yes, I know what I just said is strong. What you are asserting is objectively wrong, objectively falsehoods. Not opinion.

As someone who has cared about equal rights for gays all my life, I actually wouldn't want allies with as muddled views as yours on my side. Some of your rhetoric supports our enemies.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Jingthing