This is one of those “I couldn’t have said it better myself” moments… Dan Savage goes point by point showing that straight people, not gay people, have redefined marriage. Traditional marriage was about passing property (a female) from one male to another (a father to a husband). Needless to say that’s not the case any more, so we no longer have traditional marriage and no one wants to go back to it. Instead we have the union of two equals now and marriage is defined by the people in it, not externally. If it’s about anything it’s about commitment and companionship.
We’ve seen a lot of townhouses in the quest for the place for us to buy. I may have missed a few, but it seems to be 27 and counting - most of which have been in Hamilton Heights / Sugar Hill. We have seen a little in Central Harlem, but have mixed feelings about that area. Central Harlem has more and better services, but the area is much more hit-and-miss / block-by-block.
The longer we search the more we see see what really makes places valuable…
Being in a large, established, historic district like Hamilton Heights / Sugar Hill
Having a certificate of no harassment, or not needing one at all.
If you click on the blue dots you get a quick synopsis of what we thought about each place.
Senator Roland Burris (D), the man who was appointed by deposed Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, came out with the following quote a couple days ago…
My concept of marriage is a male and a female for the perpetuation of the species, for children to be born and identify the bloodline and the heritage. But I’m pretty sure, as things are moving along, that that will probably change. (Source)
So, if we take him at his word that means he opposes marriage for anyone who can’t bear a child. So, if you’re a woman over 45 Burris wants to take away your right to marry. Pretty much all marriage for the elderly is out. If you have fertility problems he feels you shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Thing is, I’m pretty sure he’d be shocked at what I just said. Apparently he’s not bright enough to understand that from a reproductive standpoint (which is the point he’s arguing) there’s no difference between an elderly straight couple and a gay couple. Actually, the gay couple is more likely to adopt an abandoned child - but of course there’s no place for that in his ideology either - if it doesn’t pop out of your uterus it’s not your ‘bloodline’, ergo not worthy of granting you marriage.
Of course this is ridiculous. Even Burris understands things are changing - too bad he can’t figure out it’s only logical that they’re changing. A bloodline argument for marriage hasn’t made sense for hundreds of years (if it made sense back then).
All I can say is thank god views like his aren’t prevalent among young people - there’s hope for the future!
Back in the day I was pretty much as conserative as they come. When I went off the college I was a member of The Young Conservatives of Texas, I was in the leadership of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, I sang in a church choir, and argued with people about things like evolution. But all that’s changed. In ways it happened quickly, in other ways it’s been a very long process.
It all started when my roommate for the summer, Nial Gaffney, an astrony major, said to me that when he looked into the stars he saw the handiwork of a god that was bigger than the god of the bible. It took me a little while to digest that, but I knew it was true. The bible puts god in a box and makes god in the image of man. The truth of the matter is that our creator is so far above us that it’s impossible to understand him/her/it. We are no more significant to our creator than grains of sand are to us.
That lead me to being a Deist. There’s actually a great deal of Deist history in the US - many of our founding fathers were Deists - Thomas Jefferson being the most notable. But that was just an accident of history since our country was founded at a time that was Deism’s zenith and that was simply because society was moving from a culture where non-believers were killed to one where they were tolerated and Deism was simply the step before atheism. When our country was founded you could be respectable and be a Deist, but you could lose everything (including your life) if you were an Atheist, so the Atheists of their day called themselves Deists.
Other changes in my belief system happened pretty quickly. If the bible wasn’t absolute truth then everything was up for reconsideration. At my heart I knew I was gay and so a year after rejecting Christiantity, I accepted myself and came out.
The process had actually started earlier - when I was in high school. The school I went to in Baltimore (Arlington Baptist School) had whole chapel services about the evils of rock music - including listening to it backwards and hearing things that praised Satan (lol). When I was in Lynchburg (at Jerry Falwell’s high school, Lynchburg Christian Academy) I had to drive with these guys from school to get to driver’s ed. They used to play Chaka Khan on the way almost every day. I got to love “I’m Every Woman” and it struck me - how could something so happy and joyous be evil? Listen to it and you’ll see what I mean…
Like almost no other song that one just puts a huge smile on your face and makes you feel like you’re having a great day. And that was supposed to be evil… Right… At that point I decided to make up my own mind as to what was good and bad, and Chaka Khan was not bad - not in the least.
So deciding that god was bigger than the god of the bible wasn’t really that hard. Deciding that my being gay wasn’t evil wasn’t all that hard either.
The question became what do I do with the conservative elements in my family? For years after I came out to my parents I hoped they’d accept me. But that never happened. When my lover died of AIDS in January of ‘95 Mom made a comment about how her mother had been there for her when her first husband died in World War II and I thought she got it, but that was quickly dispelled in our next conversation.
The bottom line was that it was bad for me to weigh myself down with my parents. It’s not good to be around people that tell you there’s something wrong with you - especially when they’re your parents (who are supposed to love you unconditionally) and they can’t just ignore the issue and interact with you without it getting brought up. Their lives revolved around Jerry Falwell’s church and that meant that their lives revolved around fighting liberalism including gay rights. I was the enemy and there was no way for me to be comfortable in their world.
At a point I just had to tell myself that they died and I needed to move on, which is what I did. There’s a song/video out lately, “Fuck You Very Much”…
In a way it resounds with my decision to separate from my parents, but it also trivializes the decision. It’s easy to say “fuck you very much, we hate what you stand for, please don’t stay in touch” to a stranger. It’s a more complicated process when it’s your parents.
When I was growing up our parents were sort of the glue that held our family together. I remember big phone bills calling all my sisters every week. That doesn’t happen any more. I didn’t really get those phone calls even before I had issues with them - not sure why. And now that I’m not really wanting to have much to do with them it’s a bit of a wedge in an already weak relationship with some of my sisters. It’s unfortunate really, but it is what it is…
Of course lately the issue is marriage. Let me put this bluntly - separate but equal is always separate, but never equal. Civil unions will not work - nothing but marriage will work, because only marriage has the full rights. Only with marriage can I finally give Dan citizenship…
But of course the fundamentalists, like my parents, want to tell gay folk like me what marriage means. Somehow they’ve forgotten that there’s a marriage contract involved that requires going down to your local government office. They equate marriage with the wedding ceremony - forgetting that Atheists get married all the time without any religious ceremony. So since I’m on a YouTube kick, let’s remind ourselves what “traditional, biblical marriage” really means…
Yes, biblical marriage really is that messy, and the fact that Christians think it’s some solid, honorable standard is laughable. For a moment let’s consider what it would be like if “traditional marriage” were actually enforced…
That’s right - no divorce, no blacks marrying whites, no women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night… Funny how Christians forget all those bits about “traditional marriage”…
The bottom line is Chaka Khan isn’t evil and neither are gay men and lesbians. Take a deep breath, sit down, and just accept it…
For the longest time I hated the term “gays” ’cause with very few exception I didn’t hear anyone other than bigots use the term, but that’s changed. Now I’m hating the term “political correctness” - people use it to put down people who believe in valuing other people and other perspectives much the same way conservatives use the term liberal - as if it’s a shameful term.
When I hear “political correctness” used to silence people it’s sadly used by gay people. It baffles me that a gay man would want an end to homophobia, they’d like marriage, not being fired from jobs, etc., but they’ll do things like tolerate racism in their midst. This happened at IML this year (the International Mr. Leather Contest in Chicago - a huge event that’s Chicago’s 4th largest conference). One of the presenters - a real veteran in the leather community made racist (anti-Asian) comments. Then later in the program the entertainer made stupid comments about East Indians. Yet those same people expect others to give them rights and treat them as equals. When I complained one person told me I was just being “politically correct”.
Well, it doesn’t work that way. If you want respect you have to start by respecting others. If you want others to be politically correct, perhaps you should be politically correct too. This is a clear two way street. I don’t care how much someone has contributed to a community - no one earns the right to be racist.
I should stop and say that intolerance of intolerance is not the same as other forms of intolerance. Think about math - the word “of” is used in cases like 2 of 3 - it stands for division - 2 of 3 = 2/3rds. So “intolerance of intolerance” is similar to saying -2 of -2, which equals a positive number, not a negative.
When you hear someone use the word poltical correctness to shut someone up - stop them. Explain how they probably want someone else to accept and value them - how can they ask that of others if they don’t demonstrate it themselves.
