Whenever someone brings up feminism I just off. I think it is completely stupid. Men and women are NOT equal! Why do men run on average faster than women? Why have they made a separate category for men in gymnastics?...cause women are better at it and would consistently beat them.ice_radon

These take into biological differences and are not the topic of debate. You're bringing up indisputable differences... disputable differences are tied to societal gender norms, like a man/woman in the same job who get vastly different pay(i believe it's still 71 cents female to every male a dollar earns). That's what women are debating as feminists, not whether or not we have seperate groups at the olympics.

[QUOTE="peppersfan2"][QUOTE="dmc333"]

How many women are efficient as men when it comes to things like construction?

dmc333

Their are many women who are skilled enough to work in construction. How bout we base things on an idividuals ability rather than saying you cant do this job because your a woman and might get hurt.

I did not say there are not any women that are efficient as men. I asked how many...

3... but, actually that's a bad comparison. Use a more equal profession, like teaching. How many women get 'tracked' into administration vs. men? More women are teachers, but more men hold upper tier management.

Peppers, I was a women studies major until the seperatists turned me off to it. I think you're issue is much like mine was... being turned off by the extremes. Many women fall into their own sexism and gender stereotypes that they rail men for. Changing semantics isn't going to change anything, especially when 'man' is an umbrella term for 'humans'. I see it as all encompassing and don't need to change it to fit my politics.

Wow. I think I know who's not getting my vote when another gay rights related thing comes up. LittleHands134

Who, the Queer Anarchists? Someone also mentioned being at a peaceful protests and how this should have been one. I think the inclusion of the word 'anarchist' into the equation eliminates any chance of organization.

Small faction groups like this are pretty few and far between in the gay community. Most people I know, in Maine which is the furthest from california that you can get, we're organizing marches and rallies. We're not tp'ing our local St. Patricks. And 99.99% of the other reactions to Prop 8 in the US are like us, not this **** in Michigan.

I fully believe that you can't use the masters tool to dismantle his house, meaning sometimes the fight has to be taken to the streets and not the courts.. but what does this do but freak out a bible study? It accomplishes nothing. Maybe that's why the mainstream hasn't picked it up, to give the participants what they want--attention. Bury them on a side bar.

Someone mentioned that christian people would be treated different if they did this. Well, let us point to Fred Phelps, of Kansas, and his "God Hates **** protesters who actually took to protesting the funerals of dead iraqi war soliders to get their anti gay message out. Thankfully, though, a counter group of motorcyclists, the Freedom Riders, are there to shield the mouners from having to see their hate. They do this alot, but you only hear about it if they're in your city.

[QUOTE="RadBooley"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="RadBooley"]

There's more to relationships and love than just sex and having parts that fit well, y'know. Stop letting that be the only thing used to define "normal" sexual orientation.

I don't see why people don't get that if two people love each other, they should be able to marry, regardless of gender.

RadBooley

The whole point of marriage is to start a family.

Says who?

Well? Anything? I'm waiting.

*raises hand*

I'll answer. The whole point of marriage was actually a transfer of property, from the father in law to the son in law with the vessel of transfer being the bond with the daughter. Procreation can exist outside of the bonds of marriage, not just within. Gay marriage was also prevelant in Greece, ancient Asian countries and widely known amongst the ancient Samauri in Japan. It wasn't until Christianity began to really take hold of the world that it was truly taboo.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="I_pWnzz_YoU"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"]

[QUOTE="I_pWnzz_YoU"]A relationship between a man and a women is the way it's supposed to be. I don't mind a little girl-on-girl, but yeah...Heterosexuality FTW!!I_pWnzz_YoU

But that's why homosexuals are what they are... they don't want a relationship with the opposite sex.

Thats what I'm saying. When a man is with a women you get a feeling, like you want that very moment to last forever. You just want to stop time and stay with her forever. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I don't see how two people from the same sex can get that same experience.

But they do though. You may not understand it, but it doesn't mean they don't feel the same love.

Maybe it's just because I'm a horndog or because I appreciate women too much :lol: I can't stop homosexuality from happening, I just have reason to believe that a man loving a women is the natural way of things.

Pwnzz... Judy Garland or Madonna for the males... Probably Ellen for the females... All have cult like followings amongst gays. Though I think there's something in our charter that invokes Liberace somehere... And I whole heartedly share your appreciation of women.

I would say your reaction to male/male relationships or rules of attraction, is probably the second biggest comment against gays that I've heard. The first, of course, being the bible. Now, a little something to ponder over... Homophobia, the irrational fear of homosexuals(which I'm not calling you one, trust me) is rooted in sexism. Because they see the male in the female role of the 'reciever.' Yup, that's that mental image that gives you the icks. So, many guys are squeamish about gay males because they see the male as being female. Best way to degrade a male, call him a b*tch or a f$g... that'll get them to react, right? And what are you doing, you're equating them to females. Then you get into the big discussion about gender roles and societal norms. But, in essence, it's how we view the male/female differences that's the true root of the issue. A bit of a diatribe? A smidge... But, maybe something to give you pause.

And your right in saying that a man and a woman is the norm. But, there are always exceptions of the norm. The average family has approx. 2.1 kids(don't ask me about the .1). But we know that there are families with more and less. Just as there are exceptions with sexuality--Actually I believe it was Kinsey who said it was fluid. And, in that, you have the norm of heterosexuality and the exceptions of homosexuality and bisexuality.

I found this thread searching for the answer as to whether or not gay marriages performed between jun-nov. 4 would be nulified by Prop 8. I never thought, in a million years, I would find one of the most open minded discussions on a website that I go to for cheats and walkthroughs. But, I was so honestly moved by the discussion here that I decided to register.

From the bible quoter and Scalia(blech) believing law student(I think you were a student, from you quoting a prof) to the Canadian and poster who has a gay cousin, I found one of the most honest and real discussions on the issue. Thank you. From the bottom of this femme lesbians heart. Thank you. It's hard, when discussing gay rights, to find a dialogue free of blantant homophobia and Leviticus/Corinthians/Romans quoting. This thread was not, to a large degree, filled with hate. If it weren't 24 pages long, I would have read them all.. I think I got through 2/3's of it. But, what I did read was an honest exchange of perspective and not regurgitated talking points. So, again, I thank you.

From where I sit, again being a lesbian, the vote on 8 was disappointing. The vote in Arkansas to not allow any non married persons to adopt, just to make sure that gays couldn't adopt because they can't marry, was beyond that. I think what you'll see in this country, perhaps on the back of Prop 8, will be a push for the 1,049 rights and responsibilities attached to marriage on a federal level will be not a push to have the institute change(which, c'mon it's a religious one) but go the route of changing the semantics of 'marriage.' Because, honestly, we're fighting over a word and all of those rights attached to it. So, give up the fight for the word and, instead, change the language. Change the federal language to be something akin to 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts'... because, when you get that piece of paper that allows you those 1,049 rights, you are entering a CIVIL union. The marriage aspect has more to do with the pomp and circumstance then the law. We've forgotten that over time and I would be a dilluted person to believe that religious institutes and their followers will ever drop their percieved ownership of the word. Because, at the end of the day, it's those rights that we're fighting for, not use of a word.

So, even those who don't think my relationship is equal to theirs, thank you for your honesty. Our opinions and experiences will probably never converge, but at least the dialogue is being had. And, in this forum, I've found one of the most civil ones out there on our beloved internets. ;)

-Shannon