The issue of gay marriage has been weighing heavily on my mind lately for obvious reasons. I know that this is just one blog of one million on this extremely delicate topic, but I wanted to get my conflicted feelings out there and receive feed back from all of my readers (all six or seven of you). I'm really lucky to have an amazing and diverse group of friends that always help me see things in a new way. I wish we could all meet in my living room and stay up all night talking, but since we're all so spread out this will have to do...
So, if you had asked me two weeks ago if I supported proposition 8 I would have said absolutely not. No way. Who am I to tell a couple that they can not enjoy the same union of marriage that I find so fulfilling in my own life? I don't feel like homosexuals getting married threatens what I have with Chris in anyway. To me the act of committing oneself to another in a monogamous relationship through marriage is something that can only bring about positive results. These are my personal feelings on the subject and they have remained the same.
What has changed, however, is my understanding towards those who oppose gay marriage. For many of them it's not an issue of gay rights as much as it's an issue of freedom of religion. Fear, which always sells, was used as the main tactic in getting Prop 8 to pass. I'm sure you're all as familiar with this (or more so) than I am, but in case you're not check out this blog:
http://protectingmarriage.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/six-consequences-the-coalition-has-identified-if-proposition-8-fails/
and this article, When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
And even though you can just as easily search for written rebuttals to every argument, once the seed of fear is planted it is not easily removed. So while people may not have a problem with a homosexual's right to marry they don't want to feel forced to condone that behavior in their churches at the risk of being sued or losing their tax exempt status. I can understand that. I can understand how the perceived loss of religious freedom is more threatening to someone than gay marriage.
What I do not understand is all the hate and anger directed specifically towards the LDS church: riots outside the temple, churches being vandalized, blogs being written about wanting to "stick it to those Mormon bastards." It seems so counter productive to their cause. The latest thing is this blog:
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/
urging people to write the IRS to report how the LDS church violated Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations in order to get its tax exempt status revoked. Personal feelings aside, I don't think they have a case. I'm sure that the LDS church has a legal team that would have advised against the first presidency's statement regarding prop 8 could there be any legal ramifications. But my point is, isn't this attempt just going to perpetuate the majority's initial fears that lead to the passing of prop 8 in the first place?
I totally understand why this is such a heated topic. My heart goes out to those who feel like their rights are not being recognized and that their voice isn't being heard. But I guess if it were me, I would recognize that the general population just isn't ready to change what they feel is the definition of marriage. They need another few years or so. I've no doubt that in the next decade same sex marriage will be legally recognized in the whole untied states. But in the mean time, I would perform a civil union and take out a living will. But then again I've always been a little passive. I'm a lover not a fighter.
Anyway, I'd love to hear what you all have to say on the topic. So please share, and feel free to correct me where you feel I may have mis-spoke. (You can even correct my spelling and grammatical errors.) Like I said, I learn so much from y'all.
That's How You Know
1 week ago
23 comments:
I can't really figure out why this is such a big deal to people. Do you realize that last election several other states did the same thing--passing constitutional bans of same-sex marriage--and that nobody got up in arms. Why doesn't anyone talk about how nearly every state in the country has passed legislation banning it? Why is California all of the sudden getting so much attention?
I've wondered why the church decided to get involved at all. It isn't like they needed to tell people to vote for this proposition to convince them to do it. Most of them were going to do it anyway. I think it probably comes back to the when Utah approved the 21st amendment, overturning prohibition. They probably felt they needed to get the word out, just to be sure. (Of course, to be fair, I think inadequate health care is probably more responsible for the destruction of families than gay marriage, but I digress) Certainly as a result, a lot of people have shown their true colors and it's very clear that there is still a lot of intolerance around the country.
All that said, I think you hit a lot on the nail. This is one of those interesting polemic issues where both sides believe they are not just right, but moral, whereas the other side is evil that must be destroyed. As such, we're not going to come to any useful conclusions without a great deal of emotional distance and objectivity.
Both sides make a pretty good case. On the one hand is the question of equal civil rights, but on the other is freedom of worship. So it really becomes one of those tricky issues of where my freedoms end and yours begin. In order for the one side to get everything they want, the other side has to end up with nothing. In other countries (such as the Netherlands and Canada) religious groups ultimately backed down. I don't think they ever fully accepted the decision, they just let it go. (In the Netherlands for instance, the current majority party is a Christian-based party. They've said they'd like to overturn it, but just don't think it's possible to turn back at this point). Clearly in the US, neither side is willing to back down yet, and it's just getting ugly.
I think some would argue that religious groups need to back down, but they have every right to feel the way they do (especially considering that the Bill of Rights specifically mentions that the government cannot pass any laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. The Constitution doesn't mention anyone's right to get married). Let alone, it's absurd to ask them to redefine sin, since it isn't like homosexuality is something new they've come up with. It has thousands of years of precedence as being sinful.
Those who are pro-gay marriage have a good argument, though less solid in terms of tradition and legislation. The connection to the civil rights movement of the 1960s is nice, though not perfect, since again marriage is not necessarily a right given to every citizen the same way voting is.
So in short, both sides need to chill out and come to a compromise (because if you look at history, all politics is compromise). There is no way for one side to completely win without the other backing down. I would argue that the reason Prop 8 passed is that, to a degree, the pro-gay side backed down. Religious groups were able to mobilize and gather funds better than pro-gay groups. Now there are a lot of super-rich celebrities who support gay marriage, but they simply didn't give enough. Yes on Prop 8 had a lot more funding than No. That said, I feel no need to apologize to a group of people who are willing to voice their beliefs, but not willing to put to any money on the table.
Thanks for the comment, Dave. Though I thought I read that the "no on 8" cause actually raised more money. But I could be wrong. That's interesting. And I agree with the whole compromise idea. That's what I was talking abut when I said that if it were me I would focus less on the word "marriage" and fight for all the rights of marriage but in a civil union. It's just a word. The fact is people just aren't ready to equate homosexuality to race or gender equal rights. (Poorly stated, but I'm not good with words.)
I don't believe that the "pro-gay" groups "backed down" DAVE, I believe that fear won. And the reason why everyone is upset is because in the other states where this ban was passed, gay marriage was not legal. In California it was. So it's like gay people were given a right and then it was just stripped from their hands. As a white conservative male, you wouldn't know how that feels.
And Shannon I completely agree with you on the way that the gay community has reacted to this. On one hand yes, I'm angry and hurt and frustrated that something like this could pass. However, I feel that protesting against the LDS Church (one of many churches that supported YES but not the only one) only perpatuates the hate and negative feelings. There is a protest here in New York tonight and while I may go simply to check out the chaos, I don't beleive in why they are protesting. I have very good friends who are Morman and who support me and my lifestyle, and I feel like protesting would simply be a disservice to them.
In other news--I want to see you at my Tavernacle Party on Tuesday very badly!!!!
Thanks, Brian. I would love to see you on Tuesday, especially since I know it's probably my only chance for who knows how long. I'm already working on getting a sitter which can be kind of tricky on a school night, but hopefully we can make it for at least the beginning. Let me know how the protest goes tonight and if there's any drama. :)
Ahem, BRIAN. Have we met? White, check. Male, check. Conservative, not at all. I'm sorry if you got that out of what I wrote. Thank you also for assuming that you know things about my life which, uh, you don't. As a white male living in an Arab country I have a far better idea than you do about how a lot of things feel. It's not like you live in a country where gay people have to work extra long workdays while straight people show up to work just to collect a check! How's that for equality?
I won't argue with you about pro-gay groups not "backing down." That was just a theory I was throwing out there. I believe I read that the "Yes" faction had a lot more financial backing than the "No", which seemed a bit odd to me. I was simply suggesting that people (particularly affluent people) who didn't donate more to the cause were, in a way, backing down. It was only in reference to that.
I also fully understand that they didn't have the right to marry, then the California Supreme Court gave it to them, and then a proposition was passed (by a narrow margin) which supposedly makes it so they can't get married. I think I can understand how pissed off people would be about such flip-flopping regarding any right. I was merely suggesting that I didn't understand how within the past few years similar legislation was passed in other states without any major noise (at least from the media).
Otherwise, I think we all agree that two wrongs don't make a right and that protesting against the LDS church doesn't make as sense as protesting to your elected officials (because as I also understand it, it's quite unclear what effect Prop 8 is going to have especially if the California Supreme Court again chooses to intervene).
I feel really strongly on this issue. The way I feel is pretty different from others that have posted and I hope I don't offend. I would have supported prop 8 if I lived in California. I have friends that worked HARD to see that it was passed. They understood that their kids would have been taught about gay marriage at an early age (scare tactic, maybe). It was more than that though. For many of us marriage between one man and one woman is a sacred-God mandated union. I feel that same-sex couples who are committed to eachother should have certain rights (i.e. hospital visitation,etd.) but I don't think marriage is one of those rights. I have been saddened by the lash out against the LDS church, because it isn't the only church that supported Prop 8! I also feel that it is wrong to call people who supported prop. 8 "haters" and other terrible names because of their prop. 8 support. This seems a little bullyish. I respect and love all people, regardless of their sexual orientation and choices they make. However, marriage between one man and one woman is a sacred thing to me. The people in California who feel the same as me had the right to support Prop 8 without being accused of being haters and un-Christlike as long as they expressed their support in a respectful manner. Prop 8 passed (all be it a small majority)! I don't understand why the politicians (i.e. Gov. Arnold) and the courts will not accept the vote of the people. Shannon, I agree with you I think that same-sex marriage will be legalized in more and more places as time goes by. This makes me sad.
You posted a comment on my last blog entry. To answer your question, I don't think it is ever too young to teach some kind of age-appropriate stranger danger. And then to reteach it every so often. Tyler is 4 1/2 and I think we should have done it sooner, maybe we just forgot since we have done it so much with our girls! You should do it. My kids love role-playing the whole thing!
Now, now fellas. Let's not get snarky. It's not what Shannon would want in her blog. I do think that Shannon and I have a very eclectic network of friends who see issues from different perspectives. I love to hear contributions from Dave in the Middle East and also Brian's opinion who is personally involved with this issue.
As you mentioned in your blog Dave, when a subject as heated as this is being discussed, I think we need to distance ourselves from it emotionally and try our best to understand the other perspective and where there could be possibility of compromise. Politicians use loaded language to provoke people's emotions. We shouldn't have to do that.
This issue has no doubt been difficult for me. It seems that I am a weak person because I tend to sympathize with whichever side I am currently listening to. I initially (and still to a certain extent) find the LDS church's involvement in this issue very disturbing. It is not the first time they have done this, but it is the first time they have done it (to this extent) in my lifetime.
What I hate about politics is when the idea that the ends justify the means comes into play. It doesn't matter what manipulation is used to provoke people to side with you as long as they somehow arrive at your same conclusion. The LDS church approved of political propaganda within its churches. I have heard many arguments about how the points mentioned in these pamphlets was misleading and incorrect. It's still being hotly debated and that is why I don't want to see the church involved to this extent. This can make the church look like it's playing dirty. It's costly to them. Do they really want to alienate that large sub-group of active members who sympathize with the homosexual rights issue?
I also don't see prop 8 opponents being very real about what they are asking the church to give up over a "title." I do understand the significance of the official title of "marriage" but the real issue is weighing that against the rights that could be taken away from a church that has constitutional protection. As disturbed as I am by the churches involvement, I understand what is at stake for them and can't say that I blame them for protecting themselves. Rights can't be given to everyone. If they are given to one person, they are probably being taken away from another.
My thinking on this topic has done a full 180 from my initial reaction on this subject.In the end I am at a stalemate. I honestly sympathize with both sides. I don't think homosexual marriage has a negative impact on our society. I want Homosexuals to feel accepted. I don't want them to experience any sort of persecution. I feel our society has come a long way in overcoming their prejudices. I think of the persecution a homosexual would experience back when I was a kid compared to how it is generally viewed today and really see the evolution.
I guess I'm glad that I didn't need to vote on this. At least not yet. I do believe in the principles of democracy, and putting aside my strong feelings, I have to respect the response of the collective. It's what makes our country strong, even though sometimes we disagree with it.
The compromise hasn't been found yet but I have confidence that this issue will eventually be resolved in a way that satisfies all parties involved.
I don't find any threat to my sexuality or marriage if gay marriage is allowed. The issue I have with it is those going through the pre-teen and teenage years. If there is a young man, who maybe a little more femenine then his peers, he may conclude from that trait that he is gay because society says that it is normal to be gay. I do think prop 8 should have been passed. I think that religious organizations should support civil unions and maybe start to rally for some rights for gay couples. I do feel that it is in the best interest of society to keep marriage between a man and a woman. I had an uncle that died of aids. His father (my grandfather) was a patriarch in the church in the bay area during this time. My parents and many in my family believe that there are some people who are born gay, and with same gender attraction. I think it is interesting when others say that people are not born that way. One, how would you know, two, how could someone come to such a conclusion when people are born with male and female genetalia. Is it so out there to believe that someone may be born with a sexual problem when people are born with so many physical, mental, and emotional problems etc. Well, to try to shorten the post, I agree with prop. 8 but I do think that a Christain society should provide civil union rights to those who committ to one another. Utah should repeal the second part of prop. 3, I voted against it myself because of the second part, and we should see the church support medical visitation rights, and those other rights it has said that it does not oppose.
I want to preface any comments I make as just my opinion:) So don't get angry..I hate when people are angry at me..its my people pleasing Libra passive aggresiveness:)
Anyway, I think it FEELS good to say "Let everyone love whoever they want" It makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It makes us feel like holding hands and singing "Give peace a chance".
I feel the same anxiety that I think alot of people feel "Well, I dont want anyone to be unhappy"
Guess what? People ARE free to love whoever they want.
This IS NOT about love.
I get frustrated by these debates because they are always framed by the more liberal side "why are you stopping us from loving each other?" and "Why are you intolerant?"
That puts the more conservative side on the defensive and they sound judgemental and narrow minded.
By making gay marriage legal, you are not just giving something to them. You are taking something away from us.
By making everyone special, no one is special.
As a social worker I have seen what has happened as our society has placed less and less value on the "traditional" family. I am in the trenchs every day. It is scary.
Boy, that's a long comment list! OK, my two bits. As a generation, we have been made more aware of being tolerant of people and ideas that are "different" from us in any way. "Live and let live," we have been taught. We have been brought up to respect other people's rights, regardless of race, gender, social/financial stauts, and now, sexual orientation. However, the problem is when we start dealing with the fine line between not treating others cruelly for their beliefs and background, and allowing them to turn the tables and impose their beliefs upon us. If we are required to respect their beliefs, then we should have every expectation that they should be required to respect ours. If the LDS church continues to teach against homosexuality, as of course it will, and gay marriages become legal everywhere, then it is only a matter of time before the church becomes persecuted legally for holding to that belief. And I would not be surprised if gays, who so often have suffered hate crimes against themselves, will turn around and become perpetrators of hate crimes against those who disagree with them.
I agree with Lori. This is not about love. This is about preserving religious freedoms. LDS people do not wish to harm gays. We don't hate them, we don't wish them to suffer or keep them from happiness. But if we truly believe that God prepared the traditional family of a father, mother, and children to be the best way to raise children, offering them the strengths and weaknesses, teachings and examples of each sex, someone for children of each gender to identify with, someone to prepare them to relate to members of the opposite sex with, then we cannot accept the equating of same-sex relationships with marriage. True, not all traditional marriages are happy, most are imperfect in many ways, but what the church promotes is an ideal (see this talk by Elder Jeffery R. Holland: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,8027-1-4404-2,00.html)
In short, I agree with the comment made by one of the LDS attorneys I heard on the news (I was in the other room, so I didn't see who it was): "We are not anti-gay-marriage. We are pro-marriage between a man and a woman. There is a big difference."
Oh boy. Are we really talking about this?
First, I want to say that it's very surreal to see Dave and Brian, two of the most interesting and funny people I know, lock horns in such seriousness like this. I think for everyone who has commented on this post, this is a pretty personal, emotional issue. It's become an "us-vs.-them," and from what I've read I gather everyone in this conversation is either "us" or "them." (That would be Mormon or gay, gay or Mormon. I don't care who gets to be "us" and who has to be "them.") That means we're all reading differing opinions as attacks against us personally.
Being both an us, and a them, or at least having quite a bit of my personal background, family history and moral compass grounded in each of these identities, I think I win the prize for Most Personally Affected. Hooray for me.
That might mean I should be angry at both sides, take everything personally. Instead, it means I'm not angry at either side, and I'm just sad to see it come to this.
First, my thoughts on the process questions. I do believe the No On 8 side was woefully inadequate leading up to the election, failing to address head-on the issues in their advertising, failing to mobilize a ground team that was capable of going out and introducing their families to their neighbors, their lives to strangers. Complacent gays were happy to sit back and hope someone else would contribute to the cause. Meanwhile, the Yes on 8 side, and particularly the LDS church, was very well-organized, focused in their messaging, and extremely proactive. I was surprised to see that kind of vigor from the church of my youth on a political issue, but I have to give them credit for believing in something and standing up for it. I wish they would take the same kind of principled stand on what I see as the bigger moral issues facing our country, such as torture, war, environmental degradation, poverty, inequality in access to education and health care, greed, xenophobia, nationalistic hubris disguised as patriotism, etc., but I digress.
Still on the question of tactics, I am not amused by all the anti-LDS protesting by the gays. Not because I feel it's particularly bigoted or unfair or cruel - the LDS church does deserve a lot of the (credit/blame - I'll let you choose the word) for Proposition 8 passing, so they are a fair object of (praise/ridicule) by all interested parties. What I do think is ridiculous about these protests is that they are reactionary - the same angry gays and straight allies who are taking to the streets now were nowhere to be seen in the run-up to the vote. Where were you when you could have been having sincere, open, honest conversation with your religiously conservative family members, your hesitant friends? Where were you when you could have been leading by the quiet example of your loving relationships and contributions to your community? Now that you have someone to lash out at, you're unleashing your drama queen because it's fun to walk in the street and chant. The LDS church stood up for what it believes in during the run-up to this vote; why didn't you?
Now, to the issues. Clearly, I support gay marriage. I believe that religious people's fears about it trampling their freedom of religion are off base. I understand the fears, and I recognize that intellectually and morally honest people can legitimately feel threatened by the idea of a changing definition of marriage. But religious marriage and civil marriage are two very different things. There are plenty of religious groups that currently perform same-sex marriages and embrace their gay parishioners. Isn't their freedom of religion being curtailed when the government tells them that their rites won't be recognized while other religions' will be? What if the state refused to grant legal recognition to LDS temple marriages because they were performed in private, without the watchful eye of a justice of the peace? This is an absurd hypothetical, of course, because the religious ceremony isn't what marries you in the eyes of the law; it's the wedding license you sign with the state. The same would hold true for gay marriages - in the eyes of the state you are married; it's up to the church you attend to determine whether they believe that marriage is valid in God's eyes. It's up to your church to decide whether they will perform that wedding and embrace your relationship, or try to get you to continue going to the single's ward because, come on, you're not actually married.
Then there's the semantics question, the argument that, as long as you have access to civil unions or domestic partnerships or wills or lawyers, you've got all the rights you could need and want. The first problem with that argument is that the rights and responsibilities and assumptions that go along with marriage are so many, so varied, so situationally specific, you would really have to do some serious legal scholarship to be sure that, come what may, you will be treated as legal spouses in the eyes of the law. That could be solved by a federal civil unions bill that says the nation and every state will recognize civil unions as being just like marriages - it would have to explicitly say that every assumption built into a legal marriage would be built into a legal civil union. At that point, you would essentially have two parallel tracks, and basically "marriage" would be a fundamentally religious thing while all state-sanctioned relationships would be "civil unions." Kind of yucky for the straight, nonreligious couples who were considered married before but are now just civilly united because there is no religious component to their union.
But beyond the legal issue, there is a very fundamental reason why the semantics matter. Because words matter. Because we define ourselves by the words we use, the words others use about us. Subconsciously, unconsciously, it is our language and its nuances that make us who we are, control how we think and feel. So I may have the most accepting, loving family, and I may have the best partner in the world, and we may have the most beautiful civil union ceremony, and all my family and friends may show up with their mazel tovs and their Target gift cards. But when I introduce my partner by saying, "This is Mr. X. We're civilly united," it has a built-in "we're different, separate but equal but still very separate" clause that has deep psychic effects. When I can't figure out whether to call someone my partner, spouse, husband or domestic comrade, the words I use and others use about me continue to drive a wedge between me and society at large. "Brother-in-law" means a lot more than "my brother's boyfriend." The entire family benefits by being able to clearly and neatly describe their loved ones as part of the family.
Then there's the argument that the people of California have spoken and their will must be respected. Again, this is process question, but it's my strong belief that so fundamental a change to a constitution should not be allowed by simple majority vote. Constitutions exist to draw up the plans for a functioning government whose checks and balances give the people power while also ensuring that the majority doesn't have free reign over the rights of the minority. So a small majority of California voters may have voted against gays getting married; shouldn't it tell us something that more than 48% of California voters DON'T want to see such a ban?
As usual, I'm long-winded. This is an issue where I feel great empathy for both sides, but that doesn't mean I am apathetic - it means my beliefs are complex and nuanced ... and strongly felt. Above all, my belief is that both sides would benefit from stepping back and realizing that this isn't a question of "Who is the enemy?" but rather a question of "How can I better understand my friend?"
Wow. So many great commnets. You've all exceeded my expectations. Thank you all for such thoughtful and lengthy responses and for being willing to state your feelings and opinions in such a respectful way.
I have to admit, Doug that writing this blog was in a way a passive attempt to hear your and Brian's thoughts on the topic. It's been on my mind so much lately, but I haven't actally sat down and talked with anyone directly affected by it. I agree that you, more so than anyone else I know personally, are perhaps the most affected by this issue. So thank you so much for the insight. You're brilliant.
Just for the record, I actually enjoyed Brian's comments and thought they were coming from a place of tolerance, which is what the world needs now (that, and love, sweet love). However, in one of Shannon's earlier blogs I mentioned how it's one of my pet peeves when people assume things about when they really don't know me. I take offense at statements expressing that because I'm white, I couldn't possibly understand anything.
Oh Shan, good topic. But I'm not going to comment on it now, we can talk about it sometime later. I'm not great at expressing my opinions about anything serious on blogs. Anyway, this is unrelated, but Hey, now I am paranoid and setting my blog to private. :) Send me your email address at mommymeliss@gmail.com and I'll invite you.
Sorry to monopolize the blog so much. I hope people think what I have to say is smart. In thinking about in last night, I just wanted to develop my argument a little bit more. I'll try and be brief.
I think the question needs to be phrased a bit differently. It shouldn't be a simple yes/no question, but rather "yes, with these conditions" or "no, with these conditions." That's the kind of compromise we'll ultimately have to come to, where the conditions state what rights and freedoms the other group gets. For example: Yes, same-sex marriage is allowed (but your freedom of religion will be protected in these ways...), or no, same-sex marriage is not allowed (but we will allow civil unions or recognize same-sex marriages from foreign countries, etc.)
In reading a lot of comments here it strikes me that people are more concerned with the possible consequences of gay marriage, either way it goes. It especially strikes me that a lot of people who voted yes on Prop 8 did so, as Brian noted, out of fear of those consequences, but if conditions were properly set forth beforehand which protected the rights they were afraid of losing, they would have been very willing to have voted no.
I think we put our morals aside and look objectively at what the other side has to say we can begin to consider what conditions would make a clear-cut majority (not just 52%) happy.
I agree with Dave's sentiments that there would be a much greater level of comfort if the "conditions" were clear. I don't like talking about them as conditions because it sounds like, "You'll get these rights that the rest of us already have, just as long as you know where we're drawing the line..." I do think that there are constitutional safeguards out there like freedom of association and freedom of religion that would always be interpreted by any court as giving religions the right to accept or reject any marriages according to their doctrine. The only thing governments have any say over is CIVIL marriage. It's true today that any church could refuse to perform a church-sanctioned interracial marriage. Doing so would likely hurt that church's image and might drive away members, but so be it: That is the marketplace of ideas. The same would hold true with gay marriage. That's how the Constitution works.
Call it what you will (I was actually thinking of something in terms of the Bill of Rights, that is, a guarantee of certain rights and protections). I think the main idea (as is very clear from this thread) is that this is a complicated issue, and people's feelings are more complex than a simple yes or no.
I'm sorry for assuming Dave. It did make an ass out of U and Me.
I'm wearing a bow tie today. I just thought you all should know.
Oh, and for the record, it's really trashy to refer to gay people as "gays." Not naming names, just sayin.'
Yes. It did definitely make me an ass.
Great post, and I've read all the comments. It's great to hear a diverse group who all have intelligent points.
A few days ago I also wrote a blog on this. It's a little more cheeky than Shannon's take, but it's my take on the matter if you want to read and leave any feedback.
http://wickedsassy.blogspot.com/
Brian,
Just wondering how/why referring to gay people as "gays" is considered trashy? And if so, how is one to know? For instance, through out this discussion (not specifically this one, but others like it) I've heard white people referred to as whites; Hispanic people as Hispanics; black people as blacks; and people who are members of the LDS church as Mormons. I wouldn't think to take offense to any of that, especially if the content of what was being said was not offensive. Just curious, as I feel like I go to great lengths to never offend anyone.
There's nothing wrong with "gays." Brian, you crazy.
Post a Comment