thedarksiren2 | As seen on annabelevil's journal

From:

annabelevil.livejournal.com

hey..thanks for spreading it...you spelled my name wrong
>:P

From:

thedarksiren.livejournal.com

fixed.

sorry 'bout that! Been a long, strange week. My brain is about numb. forgive a numbed sireen?~;P

From:

celestialsparks.livejournal.com

I think they're gettin' a good swift kick in the ass, b/c the poll is now 51-41, still in favor of making it illegal, but the numbers have gone up swiftly!

From:

thedarksiren.livejournal.com

YAY!

From:

andragon.livejournal.com

Those bias'd bastards

From:

thedarksiren.livejournal.com

asshats, I tell ya.~;)

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

I'm never on the winning side! What is funny about the reality of this issue. <ost of the gay people I know couldn't care less if it was "marraige" or "life partner", the just want to have the rights of a married couple. Honestly, I just wish the debate about all this shit could be over with, the partnership thing just happens and then my sis in law and Mer could be happy. Big problem is that there are far to few gay people actually willing to do anything about it. Like I told them, if they get enough people to rally, it will have to be addressed, and they aren't doing that. They need a gay Rev. Al Sharpton or something to get them all rilled up!!! Hell, I even told Shannon and Mer I would be the new gay leader, but that probably wouldn't be believable. :)

From:

thedarksiren.livejournal.com

Let's just face it, Tom...you like stirrin' shite up!~;)

It's all good though...you are certainly entitled to this opinion.

I guess my thoughts are that a person sholdn't have to *do* anything for these rights. That's kinda the point...if you love someone, then you should have the right to show it to the world no matter what your sexual affiliation, gender, race, religion, etc. You should have the rights of any other human being because, really, that's what we all are.

And you're right, it does have a lot to do with the benefits of said being married. Why shouldn't the GLBT community have these same priveledges? I mean think about it...what would you do if say, and God forbid, something happened to Jen and, because the government decided you were not "worthy" or whatever, of husband-wife priveledges, you were unable to make a decision as to whether or not she remained on life-support, knowing full well what her choice would be, and wanting to follow through with that. Additionally, what if they appointed a family member with whom she did not want to make those decisions for her (this is all hypothetical, of course. I have no idea what her family relationships are like in this regard, so no disrespect intended.)to make those decisions, and their decision opposed Jen's wishes?

It is with these scenarios in mind that I am in full support of this. It is an unfortunate relity that many of my GLBT friends do not get along with their families very well, if at all, and I know they would rather appoint someone whom they considered "family" to make such important decisions, should such an incident arise. Sure, there are many other issues that are just as viable, but that is one that stuck out for me.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

No, I don't mean to stir up anything, in fact I agree with you. My only issue is that I think marraige should actually just be marraige. That's always been a male and female thing, I don't see what the point is to cause an uproar and change that.
I do however believe that the same type of "contract", since essentially, marriage is just a contract with alot of emotion behind it, should be allowed for anyone regaurdless of gender.
What you explained details my thoughts on what could happen with Shannon and Mer very easily. It's very obvious that those two love each other as much, if not more, than any married couple, they should be allowed to have all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with that. Especially in the circumstance of any kind of terminal issue.
But they do need to fight for it, as I have told them, and my mailman (who is also in the same kind of relationship with his boyfriend). In order to make any change, you need action. Not only the action of those involved, but the supporters of such things.
I actually have a bit of a conspiracy theory going, basically, I really think that the government was who swayed this whole debate into the "marraige" front. That would be key in getting the public to have negative feelings about the issue. Most straight people I know have the attitude of "marraige is for a man and wife", however, they believe all people should be able to be in the same type of relationship as a married couple. And the same rights going along with it. By throwing the term "marraige" into it, it auctomatically will gain extra negative support by anyone who is a traditionalist. That I think is key to allow the government to keep this issue as a negative hotbed.
I think if you take the name "marraige" out of the whole thing, and just focus on what it allows, it would be passed with a majority of the public supporting it.

From:

wraptboy.livejournal.com

Ok, here are my thoughts on this issue.

GLBTetc. will always be a minority. Even if you count in all the variation you wont go over 20% of the poplulation on a good day.

In a logical system of government basic rights should be recognized whether or not they are heavily utilized. This is true because systems such as these shouldn't be set up based on any individual any more than they should on any specific religious belief.

What you are saying about gay couples having to call their marriage by a different name than straight couples is a tag. Sort of like a shop owner saying, "Ok, I'll sell to Jews, but I want them to wear a star so I can keep track of how many are coming in to my store."

Not only does it give a tage of seperateness, it also gives the strong impression of "granting" a privilage. Who's do the granting? by what authority? It shouldn't be a question, and there shouldn't be an argument if it is truly a right that two adults have to form any sort of commitment with each other. As in most political things, the scary part is it's flip side. See, if you feel you can grant a right, you also feel you have the power to take it away. When I realized this a few years back working with the mr/dd poplulation my head kindof exploded and I haven't been the same since. This is a good thing.

Those are my general sorts of feelings. My personal one is that gender is given way too much credit in this matter. One's gender does not make them more or less capable of love, commitment, childraising, money matters, or anything else that is involved in marriage. Only being one responsible adult willingly bound to another responsible adult will make a marriage work. Therefore, since gender isn't part of the issue, it shouldn't have any play in thelegal arena.

I know I'm an odd case, but think about it. Given your current argument I still couldn't get married. I couldn't marry a man because I live as one, but I couldn't marry a woman because I was born one. None of this is really relevant to my ability or inability to maintain a loving relationship.

Additionally, and sort of an aside, I think that the fact that this has been a battle has hurt many in the gay community. I think a lot of people who weren't really ready to be commited ran up there and did it anyway for political rather than personal reasons, and now they want out of it. That's very sad because not only is the damage done to them personally, it just gives fuel to the fire of the groups who want to keep gender as the basis for marriage.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

I agree with what you are saying, other than the use of the term marraige. But what I look at is what it would take to make this work. Just as many years ago women could not vote, and black people could not vote or have any rights for that matter, politically, in order to make things work, there has to be some method behind it.
We can talk about "god given" rights all we want, but in all reality, we don't define those ourselves, that is more of an idea than anything else. Hell, the fucking terrorists believe it is thier God given right to kill the infidels, even though we know just how wrong that actually is.
Though there are human rights we should have, that doesn't mean that we do. Many laws out there actually take away rights that should be automatically given in the views of one person or another.
It is because of that people need to use the system, as opposed to just fighting it. Now, the word marraige for pretty much ever has been associated with a union of a male and a female. The odds of that changing are slim to none. (not to mention since it is really nothing more than a word, it shouldn't really even matter). Hell, that word in theory should involve love, but all it really specifically defines is "union". Take a look at how many couples out there are actually married "for the kids" or other situations like that. They are still in fact, in a union, but there is no love there. However, even with the lack of love, there is still the marraige.
Honestly, it makes sense just to get the word marraige out of the whole thing. That would probably kill off more than 30% of the opposition. Most likely, you could even get some of the religious groups backing it then also, since many of them are now in support of gay rights.
The gay people need like a gay Martin Luthor King jr. or something. Someone who really understands the end result is the most important thing, and knows how to get there.
You are very correct, this battle has in fact hurt the gay population. Most people who don't even know anything about it, but still have a vote, now consider it a "gays trying to take over thing, when in fact, they don't really have a clue.
The other key here is this, someone should sue the government directly for not allowing gay unions/marraige simply because it does in fact break laws concerning discrimination against gender. Then after that one fails, more should do it, and time and time again, we should fill our court systems with lawsuits of that nature. It will become a hot button issue because it involves things being done the right way. Plus, it has to happen to preempt most of the laws coming in to ban gay marraiges.
Like I have said to many others, this can all happen, but the gay population needs to do this the right way, and at this time, they are not.
And hell, even if it is only 20% of the population, 20% has a hell of alot of voting power. And with a good rally effort, that 20% will definately grow.

From:

renwick.livejournal.com

But when they gave black people and women the right to vote they didn't call it by a different term they still called it voting. Why do we need an extra term to define marriage. Marriage is about a couple of people not man/woman in my mind.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

The reason I say call it something else is because history defines marraige as a union between man and woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. Marraige has always been a gender specific term, voting however is not.
Hell, and who are we to actually decide it doesn't need an extra term for it? Marraige is about a couple of people in your mind, however in mine, it is about a man and woman. We are 2 people who have no real stake in the issue, however we have opinions about it. Neither one of ours really matter.
What I point out are the best ways to make the issue become successful. The game must be played the right way, or else it will never succeed.

From:

renwick.livejournal.com

The game must be played the right way, or else it will never succeed.

If the people have a loud enough voice anything can succeed. Just look at MLK.

History defined voters as "white male land owners" that definition has changed and so will the definition of marriage.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

Agreed, but look at the method that was used to change it all. If just being loud would've worked, MLK would not have even been needed. He knew the right way to go about things.
He organised it, and played the game right. That was how that succeeded. The key isn't making alot of noise, or else 20 years down the road we will all just be sitting here talking about it. Talk is talk, and that is all this is.
Doesn't get anyone anywhere.
I will honestly be surprised if the definition of marraige changes. But who knows, I could be wrong.

From:

theswede.livejournal.com

Marriage has also been defined as one man and many women, or one woman and many men. The man/woman view is strictly modern western, and mostly judeo/christian (and not even consistent there).

There is no reason not to use "marriage" as a generic term; it's hardly breaking new ground. In fact, in Europe it already is used as such.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

Ok, still on the name thing. There is only 1 problem with your point. Well, maybe 2.
First, this issue isn't going on in Europe, at least in regaurds to what is being said now. And then 2, yes, there is reason not to use the term "marraige". It is what seems to cause the conservatives to not want this issue to move forward. Just the use of that word makes thier heads spin, and as long as that is an issue, it would never pass in this country. The negative PR mixed with the obvious minority this issue is dealing with would kill it all.

From:

theswede.livejournal.com

So essentially the point of your argument is that the freedom to use the term "marriage" should be given up in the interest of making the deal easier to swallow for the conservatives?

I'm sorry to hear things are that fucked up. I'd never give the name up; the principle is much more important to me than that. Freedom of expression matters. Interesting that, although we have no constitutional or legal protection of freedom of speech or expression, in practice things are in many senses worse in the US.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

Yes, I am saying that. Honestly, I think what is gained is worth much more than what is lost. In one reply I stated this, tell me your thoughts on it.
Somewhere, right now, there is someone who has been in a relationship for many years with someone thier family does not aprove of. This person is dying, in the hospital, and all they really want is to spend thier last moments with the person they love. But this is not allowed simply because that person is not legally allowed to be there without the consent of sick persons parents.
To the sick person, do you really think it matters if it is called "marraige" or not?
Hell, imagine same type of circumstances, but a child is involved. Maybe a 7 or 8 year old, that has been raised by the couple, but was considered the sick persons legal child.
That child would only be allowed to see the other person who raised that child if sick persons parents would allow it.
To that person, does wether or not it is called marraige really matter? Honestly, if you would rather have principle, instead of resolution, you may actually be worse off.
That is the point I am trying to make to everyone who is arguing the simple point of "what to call it". It doesn't matter as long as the end is reached.

From:

theswede.livejournal.com

My thoughts on that is that it's fucked up from the start; over here it has been legal for cohabitants to have those rights for many decades at least. It's a given, and the parents who don't like it would literally have to take it to court.

As for what it's called not mattering; it will, down the road. If it's not the same things in speech, it will not be the same thing in legislation and court decisions either; unless the powers that be are too toothless to argue otherwise (in which case it doesn't matter if it's called marriage or not). So, it *is* an important point.

I wouldn't settle for something else, another name, with similar legality; it will get segregated anyway, the issue will resurface until the gov't gets their sticky fingers out of religious and personal matters.

From:

kajmal.livejournal.com

'Historically', the word 'marry' is related to the words 'meet', 'mingle', 'mix' and 'match'.

It describes a union. 'Traditionally', it's a union of amorous love.

While I see your position that to call same sex unions 'marriage' is a foreign concept, and I impulsively even get slightly amused when a man refers to his 'husband', there's no -logical- reason to call it otherwise. Would the laws governing it be any different? If so, I'd like to hear your ideas.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

No difference at all in the laws governing. Personally, I think it should be called something different just because of tradition. And that's minor, if they call it marraige, I won't have much issue at all. Hell, I doubt I would even complain.
However, for the purpose of getting this passed, the big problem is the traditionalist voters, who wouldn't even have any position on it other than "yeah, why not?". Because most of them would actually turn against the idea if it is being spun as "the gays are trying to destroy American values and the sanctity of marraige". Then suddenly those same people who had no issue before, are in a fight against it. That is what is happening now. With just a little talk of this all, suddenly we have governors accross the country trying to make "gay marraige" illegal or unacknowledgeable in thier states.
The more of a negative uproar is allowed to happen, the harder it will be for this all to go through.

From:

kajmal.livejournal.com

Heh. Actually I feel the same way, and was banned from someones journal because I told them so. I just like to play devil's advocate and poke someone until I'm satisfied. :)

From:

thedarksiren.livejournal.com

One of the points

wraptboy made in all of this has to do with the Mentally retarded and Developmentally Disabled population and how it changed his perspective on things.

For hundred of years, people with MRDD were considered demons, children born of the devil, and persecuted as such. My uncle died in an institution because his father was so ashamed of his existence, and because if you were MRDD back then, you were insane and delusional, not disabled an worthy of rights and respect. He had no voice to speak with, and many people whom I care for now cannot express needs verbally either. Should we ignore such a thing?

Similarly, for hundreds of years, women were given clitorectomies (removal fo the clitoris) because it was considered a tool of the devil, and advocation of evil that caused hysteria in women. Thank God that one was resolved.

Women can vote now. yay. Nice having equal rights. But what of these individuals who do not have a voice, or who lose their right to vote (which they do have) because they didn't have the ability to get to the polls?

I am stretching things a bit, but my point is this: change is possible, and quite plausible. I agree, people don't need to make noise, they need to create a sonic boom. You speak as though it is the sole responsibility of the GLBT community...with that logic in mind, however did we get so far with the non-verbal individuals' rights? They certainly could not speak for themselves...they had back-up, a support system that changed history for those who would face similar challenges.

When I posted the poll, this was what I had in mind. If you believe that two people have the right to a relationship, to care for one another and be a family (how is that defined in all of this I wonder?)then why not allow them to utilize your voice as well as their own? We all need a support system, and what harm would be done, other than to the Christian psyche, if the term "marriage" allowed for a bond between two people, regardless of gender? It is religious pride, in my opinion, not logic, that holds the old world definitions as such.

Also, just to point it out...definitions are too vast on many words. For example, upon looking up the word "marriage" in the Merriem-Webster Dictionary (copyright 1995) this afternoon, I found the following "definition" for marriage:

n. 1: the state of being married 2: a wedding ceremony and ateendant festivities 3: a close union.

Nowhere does this *standard* dictionary mention gender in its definition. Just FYI.

BTW...thanks for stirring...this is a great debate.~8)

From:

thedarksiren.livejournal.com

*and
*attendant

grr.
~;P

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

:)
I was totally avoiding putting up the dictionary definition just because that one isn't the issue here. What is the issue is the history of the word. That is what will make this difficult to pass, and the other voters who hold that history to be what it has to be.
BTW, thanks for pointing out what MRDD meant, I was totally lost on what was meant by that.
In a way, this is kindof the sole responsibility of the GLBT, though by saying that, I don't mean they have to do it alone. If they do, they will most likely fail. They need a rally, but the rally must be done the right way. Not really about how loud it is, but where that noise is going. I'm not sure, but I would guess that is how the rights came about for the MRDD situation since I don't recall hearing of any major protests or rallys accross the country dealing with it.
Hell, as you know, my opinion of this all is that I want it to happen, which makes it more fun since I am debating people who really want the same thing, just one bit different from me.
:)
I love that. Makes for a hugely fun debate.
But again, my thing is the end result. My goal in all this is basically so that my sister in law, and my mailman, can both be in relationships recognized by the government, as a legal union.
But with the way I see this going, it would make this issue end up going on for 20 to 30 years without any real end result. That is because with the way most of this seems to be happening, it really allows time to develope many feelings negatively toward the whole issue, when truth is, most people couldn't care less about wether it happens or not. (A good example of success when alot of negative crap doesn't happen is Shaker hgts/Cleveland hgts where it basically passed for city workers). Those people can easily be turned against the issue just because people would rather not deal with anything at all, but once the PR machine starts turning, and it get's spun like a "depletion of values" issue, those same people will go against it. That is why I think the term "marraige" should be taken out of it. That one little piece of the puzzle could actually be the deciding factor for a much greater issue.

From:

ras-sinister.livejournal.com

The word "marriage" being at the center of the debate is spooking a lot of fundamentalists. It is counterproductive to talk about "gay marriage." But a marriage can be a close union of any two things in common parlance - companies in a merger, or flavors in a dish, for example. The word itself is becoming divisive, but if all were fair and good, the word marriage should be applied to any legal union.

Nobody is trying to force churches to perform gay marriages or recognize them. The papists don't even recognize second marriages without an annullment of the first. Marriage is a legal thing in addition to a religious thing, and people's religious notions are the one thing keeping the word from being applied to "civil unions."

If the GLBT community knew what was best for them, they'd stop fighting for the word "marriage" and accept a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage - it's just a word, who gives a shit if you get what you want out of it. But the same goes in the other direction. Marriage is just a word, and who cares if it is gay or straight? It won't change anyone's straight marriage if there's a gay one at the same time.

Another classic example of a debate where both ends of the spectrum are being foolish. I love being true neutral.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

You are very right, I'm glad someone seems to agree with me. Basically, who cares if it is called marraige or not. That isn't the issue, and since the word marraige became any part of the gay union issue in the government, suddenly there is this huge "anti-gay marraige" movement going around the US. Which is totally non productive for the issue.
Plus, in one of the other comments I made, what I truely do not understand is why everyone seems to be so pro calling it marraige? It almost makes me think they want it to be called marraige solely because it seems the government won't call it that. Simply causing it to become more of an issue, with more of a negative spin to it. Not actually helping the issue at all.

From:

wraptboy.livejournal.com

first, can I have your permission to post some of this discussion on my journal? just for the stirring up shit factor? ;P

also, before I say anything let me state I respect your perspective, willingness to discuss and overall passion for debate and social issues.

That said, I have to disagree about words. I think they are extremely important. We build our reality with them, we use them to shift that reality, we use them to reconstruct and express our history and memories. Words should be handled gently and with repsect as they are very powerful. I think this is particularly true when they are being applied to a group of people. First you give a group of people a name, then you decide what that means about them. Then it begins to directly affect their daily lives.

There is a space for making things sacred. Perhaps one of the most important places is the point where two people willingly connect themselves to one another. I think that society recognizing that this can be just as sacred between to men as between a man and woman (again, taking gender away from the issue) is an extremely important step in human rights.

notice I said human and not god given. you wont hear me say god given rights in this discussion as god is a whole 'nother issue. This is about how we treat each other, how we recognize one another.

Do you really think the end result justifies the means? I used to think so, but I'm not so sure anymore. I think there has to be a balance to looking a head to a goal, but still keeping your eyes open to what is happening around you that might cause you to shift your perspective in a positive way. It's about not b

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

Of course you can put them in your journal. I'd be happy to get flamed by many who disagree with my point. :)
(sarcasm)
but seriously, sure. Though I don't know how much more time I will have today to toss these ideas back and forth, over a little time, I should be able to discuss with most my thoughts. Hell, I may even get popular/infamous from it.
:)
I agree with what you say about words, but I do think in this case, the end does justify the means. As we speak, there are people out there dying who are in relationships, that have been disowned by families previously. People who have been in relationships for 10/15/20/whatever years, all they would like to do is see thier partner as they leave this place, and because thier partner is not "married" to them, or thier family does not like thier partner, they will not be allowed that final wish.
To those people, I highly doubt whatever term they use really matters. That is probably why I feel so much passion for the resolution of this issue. That is not humane at all.
Many people seem to have issue with my belief that the name "marraige" shouldn't be given to this, but at the same time, why would those same people feel so strongly that the term "marraige" be used with it? (not meaning you, you point out exactly why the term marraige should be used, most others are kindof just arguing without an explaination of why the marraige word is so important).
My thing is that the end result should happen, and happen soon. If it all hangs on the headaches caused by just one word, the whole issue is going in the wrong direction.

From:

jjjiii

Let me paraphrase what your argument sounds like to me:

I don't think we should call black people citizens, they should be called "freed men". But we should accord them all the same basic rights and protections as citizens. They're just not "real" citizens because according to the Constitution, they only count as 3/5 of a man, and you have to be a whole man in order to be a citizen. But don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are black, and I think they should have rights... but let's face it, a lot of people in this country just don't like black people, and we should forget about the semantic issue of what they're *called* and put more emphasis on them having rights.

I agree with you to a point, in that whether you call it "marriage" or something else, non-hetero couples ought to have the freedom to (for lack of a better word) marry, and that the right/freedom is more important than the name. But I think that having a different name for what non-hetero couples do is essentially "separate but equal", which doesn't fly in this country, as "separate but equal" has been determined to be inherently unequal.

The religious opposition to a *legal* gay marriage is really annoying. No one is saying that any religion would have to recognize gay marriages -- the first amendment still guarantees freedom of religion, including the freedom for your religion of choice to continue to allow only heterosexual unions. What gay marriage advocates are pushing for is the same legal rights. They can go make up their own religion if they want to have a religious institution recognize gay marriage and can't find an existing religion willing to do it. So all the religious-based arguments are pretty much moot as far as I can tell. Separation of Church and State should further make the matter a non-issue.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

Interesting, the way you put it, but no, that is not what I am saying. In fact, that is going more off the deep end than you usually do with an explaination.
And just curious, why doesn't "separate, but equal to" fly in this country. There are many circumstances where that is quite common in this country. From business dealings, to tax excemptions, to hell, let's just say there are quite a few areas where basically, the same (basically) thing is meant or allowed, but it is given a different name. Its a pretty common practice with our government.
The religious aspect sucks alot, unfortunately, there are alot of voters who make the religious aspect of it also quite important while lobbying this issue.

From:

jjjiii

With the "separate but equal" thing, I was referring specifically to the segregated south of the pre-civil rights era.

From:

lonewolf73.livejournal.com

I see. I didn't even think about that.

From:

jjjiii

Just as I wasn't thinking of whatever counter-examples you might have had in mind...

From:

wraptboy.livejournal.com

Actually, no. What he said was a perfect explaination of what I meant by tagging. Although, put Much more eloquently. Nowhere near the deep end. Stop and look at history, it's cycling, it's use of words to tear down and build up people. I understand what you are saying, but it's shortsighted.

Notice I don't hide being transgendered. I take hits for it daily, but I'm visible. People like you, who may never have met anyone like me before get to know me as a person because I'm willing to take those hits. It does not however, make the hits right.

From:

jjjiii

Even assuming that 100% of gay people were in favor of gay marriage and wanted the right, supposedly only 10% of the population is gay. Which would imply that they need a decent amount of support from the non-gay community if they want to pass a referendum or something.