Help me understand.............

This article had a point I wanted to discuss...I'll link you then isolate what I want to discuss...

LINK

Excerpt:

Advocates like Trantalis say gays should focus less on marriage and more on simply building coalitions with straight politicians and others who can be allies in the political process. "We have to really blend in and show others that the LGBT people are no different than real, ordinary, commonplace people," he said. "We go to the same jobs, the same schools, and have the same God."

But such calls for joining the mainstream won't please everyone in the gay community, many of whom feel that they should not have to look and act like everyone else just to enjoy rights that an increasing number of courts are saying are inherently theirs."

My question...what exactly do those in the gay community mean by "look and act lik everyone else" They to me...DO look and act like everyone else. Do they honestly think that you HAVE to be overtly flamboyant and act a certain way to "keep it real"...what exactly does a gay person ACT like? or LOOK like? Have they SEEN what some teenagers look like these days? LOL....

This to me is part of the problem...I don't get the comment above. I do however get what the Trantalis is saying. Maybe..."stop making a spectacle of yourself and LIVE...be what you are...a human being who leads what amounts to a normal life, and contributes to society"

Does anyone have input?

Like every special interest group, whether it's gay rights, religion, politics, animal rights or pick your own, the lunatic fringe is what always gets the media attention.  We have to educate ourselves without relying on the media and their little 30 second bits of "news" or we will continue to be misinformed and therefor afraid of what we do not understand.

rwbeagles

My question...what exactly do those in the gay community mean by "look and act lik everyone else" They to me...DO look and act like everyone else. Do they honestly think that you HAVE to be overtly flamboyant and act a certain way to "keep it real"...what exactly does a gay person ACT like? or LOOK like? Have they SEEN what some teenagers look like these days? LOL....

Perhaps his theory is that if gay people would just blend in with the straight people, some of the fear would go away and strides could be made in legal issues ???  There is still a lot of hate in the world and allowing yourself to really be who you are can get you in trouble.  If we would all just dress alike and not be loud...we could sneak in without being noticed  LOL !

I don't really get it either. 

But you DO blend in tho? that's what I do not get.

A black man is "black" the minute he walks into a room...a person in a wheelchair is "handicapped" when come in...a gay person is simply somebody that came in...so I guess I do not get this blending in stuff, when you already do? The only thing different about a gay person is their choice of mate in life....and you do not always know that about people...right when you meet them or simply pass them on the street. I worked with people I didn't know were married for YEARS lol. Some people are simple private....while other rabbit on so much about their conquests that it borders on inappropriate.

I guess I just don't understand fundamentally what exactly a gay person does or says in the course of a public outing, ora day on the job, that causes them to stand out so much more than a teenager dressed like a goth, a group of LOUD young women or men, or a man in a tacky suit...LOL.

I do think that familiarity breeds blase'-ness which isn't always a bad thing. This is why desegregation had some success...at first it was a hot mess of hate and nonsense but now when you see a black or minority person MOST times, it doesn't shock you...right? LOL.

I dunno...confusing issue!

Perhaps the woman who gets a "mans" haircut?  I do know several gay couples, and in one, both women are lovely and look like women.  In another both are as manly as a woman can be......buzz cut, mens clothing, the works.  In another, the "woman" is lovely, and the other gal is masculine, again, buzz cut, etc.  Maybe that's what is meant by "fitting in"?

Someone said that this is a legal issue.  Bingo.  The lightbulb flicked on.  For me, there isa difficulty  separating what I see as a spiritual commitment and the legal thing.  To ME, marriage isn't a legal thing.  I'm sure I'm wrong and I'm sure you all will tell me that, but that's my deal.

glenmar

Perhaps the woman who gets a "mans" haircut? 

My step-mother has a "man's" haircut and she has been married to my father for 20 years.  (She's had that same haircut since I was, hmmm... 9 or 10?)  So I guess gays fit in afterall.... or maybe she fits into the gay community better? 

These are the sort of things that make me shrug and shake my head.

So "marriage" is a religious term and "civil union" is a legal term.  Then maybe we should change all the laws where "marriage" is mentioned and replace it with "civil union" to make it legally binding as opposed to binding in the religious sense?  IMO, either marriage is used in laws with a legal connotation and should be maintained, or it should change universally.... maybe.

I actually wouldn't mind a bit if my marriage were termed a civil union. In fact the legal ties to my husband are the reason why we "married" each other at all...to make sure the kids had a relatively simple path to inherit..share his last name, help us out on tax issues, property issues, etc. All the spiritual esoteric monagamous bond stuff was a done deal marriage or no.

So I'm good with all being civil unions...not everyone has a religious ceremony at all anyways...many just to the registrar's office. We'd have left it there if not for family wishing otherwise...so we did it as non religious as we could with one of his frat bros getting ordained online to do it.

glenmar

Perhaps the woman who gets a "mans" haircut? 

and I'll say again have you SEEN some of the youth today? I mean gender lines have been being crossed over and back again for so long I hardly notice anymore, since back when POISON was wearing their eyeliner and glittery lipgloss lol. THAT is what needs to happen IMO.

Laws...will not affect that one single iota IMO. Just like laws after all this time will not affect the person who frowns at my brown self everytime I snuggle the white dh in public. Asking for that sort of thing is asking the moon imo...do what you can with the laws etc...but don't expect that it will lead to some amazing acceptance...that only comes with time and familiarity IMO. And indeed...it may NEVER come, as far as everyone in the USA.

Dang it.  I just was trying to answer Gina's question.  I remember years ago an employer making a comment about blacks should try to assimilate themselves...in other words, give up the fro's and "look" like everyone else.  A bit hard to do when your skin is so dark, but.......

My first marriage was a "civil union".  My second is a true marriage in the spiritual (and I don't mean religious) sense.

I'm terribly sorry that you find my comments so offensive.

I know a lot of gay people, like the article is referring to, who are open and obvious. I also know gays, like Gina describes, who walk into a room looking like everyone else. I see this as a personal choice as to how individuals choose to publicly represent themselves. Gay, straight or somewhere in between, this is something we all do. I think the article was suggesting that society would be more accepting of homosexuality if they were less obvious or more mainstream. It is sad but true. It's just not gays however. I know people who have a lot of tats and/or piercings can also have a tough time being accepted. People are prejudged by their behaviour and appearance all the time. Doesn't make it right.

The good thing is, cultural evolution (in the scheme of things) happens very quickly. What is unacceptable, radical and even frightening today will become mainstream soon enough. It was not so long ago that a woman having a child out of wedlock was something to be ashamed of and had major social and personal consequences. Today, they are referred to as 'baby mamas' - no big deal.

As for marriage vs civil unions, somehow saying you are "civilly unionized" just doesn't roll off the tongue. LOL!     

glenmar

Someone said that this is a legal issue.  Bingo.  The lightbulb flicked on.  For me, there isa difficulty  separating what I see as a spiritual commitment and the legal thing.  To ME, marriage isn't a legal thing.  I'm sure I'm wrong and I'm sure you all will tell me that, but that's my deal.

Nonono, I think TONS of people agree with you. It's that M-word issue popping up again. Those people I know who feel that homosexuals should not be "married" (not that they shouldn't be committed, or have equal rights) also don't think of "marriage" as a legal matter.

I too would be happy to see all unions classified as "civil unions." Those who choose can get officially "married" in the church/organization of their choice. But equal rights for all, please! 

And ya know what?  I have NEVER said we shouldn't have equal rights for all. I do believe that, but, dang it, I'm hung up on the M words. 

  I'm sorry that I ever entered this thread because I don't appreciate having every post ripped apart by others who don't agree.  I tried to honestly and openly "help me understand".

Glenda I'm sorry you feel that way and I hope you didn't see my comment as an attack. I simply meant that what you are expressing is a belief that I've heard from a large number of people - people who want homosexuals to have equal rights, people who have homosexual friends or family members, and people who are caring, tolerant human beings. There are a LOT of people "hung up on the M word," regardless of their feelings about homosexuals or homosexuality. I think this is in large part because "marriage" it has a deep religious/spiritual context for many people above and beyond any legally binding contract that also validates and gives rights to the couple in question. And their viewpoint (as yours!) is no less valid than anyone else's.

That's why I think we need to disentangle the religious and legal aspects of sexual unions of whatever sort. That way homosexuals will have their equal rights for committed partnerships, religious people will have the ability to have a religious "marriage" in whichever way/form/church they choose, and social peace will once again reign.

glenmar

And ya know what?  I have NEVER said we shouldn't have equal rights for all. I do believe that, but, dang it, I'm hung up on the M words. 

  I'm sorry that I ever entered this thread because I don't appreciate having every post ripped apart by others who don't agree.  I tried to honestly and openly "help me understand".

Glenda, you are absolutley right.  You stated in your first post that you thought we should all have equal rights.  I have never once thought otherwise.  I hope I didn't say anything to offend.  I was not offended by any of your statements.

This word "marriage" seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people.  Like I said before I don't care what it's called....as long as it provides the same treatment.  But, in the course of making laws that affect all citizens of this entire country.....if the laws are going to be the same, why shouldn't the name for it be the same? 

That is seriously what confuses me. 

PurplePets22

That is seriously what confuses me. 

It confuses me too b/c I don't think prop. 8 has ever been about "marriage" in the religious/spiritual/church-and-pastor sense.  So whether or not one defines marriage as man/woman shouldn't even matter here b/c the STATE recognizes civil unions.  Really makes me wonder if the outcome would have been different, had the proposal been worded ever so slightly differently.  Maybe the state in a general sense should not have been using the word marriage to begin with.