Thousands March For Equality In Washington
In case you were not aware, today is National Coming Out Day and the event is being marked by a large Gay Rights rally in Washington DC (check out C Span for live coverage). Thousands of people have marched through the streets of Washington and are now at the US Capitol building.
This is one of the largest gay rights events in many years and the speakers are encouraging everyone to support the basic right of everyone to live and love without being discriminated against.
Today it is possible for someone to be fired simply because they are gay. It is possible for someone to be denied the right to visit a loved one because they are not allowed to marry. It is possible for brave men and women who have fought and in s0me cases bled for their country to be thrown out of the service just because they love someone.
GLBT people are just that… PEOPLE. They are the same as everybody else. They get up every morning and get ready for work, they drive to their offices, they work their jobs and they go home to their loved ones. They eat, they drink, they breathe, they live, they love. There is nothing different about them and yet under the laws of this country they are often treated as less than equal.
Perhaps Shylock said it best, and I offer his thoughts, with slight modifications:
I am a Gay Man. Hath not a Gay Man eyes? Hath he not hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Straight man is ? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?
Gay men and women are just like everyone else and they deserve the same rights. They are old and young, they are Republicans and Democrats, they are Christians and Jews and Muslims, they are religious and non religious, they work next to you in your job, they ride next to you on the bus, they are your waiters and your doctors, they are your teachers and your lawyers, they are your brothers and your sisters.
They neither ask for or need your approval or your blessing in how they live their lives, any more than you ask for or need theirs. They simply ask for the same rights that ALL citizens of this great nation deserve.
I know that our readers have varied views on the broad issue of gay rights but I think that everyone should be willing to stand up for freedom.
117 Responses to “Thousands March For Equality In Washington”
are you for real? You actually said “I agree as long as the gay person does not have the right to wear opposite sex clothing, make-up ect..as some sort of “right” in the work place or harass people with sexual advances and sexual proclivity is disclosed during the hiring process.”
Really? You really said those things? The sick part is that you believe those things. Wow. So only certain people can wear make-up. What is opposite clothing, because I wear jeans and a t-shirt a lot? And do you think it's ok for straight people to make sexual advances at work? And really, you should disclose personal business in the hiring process? Come on, what planet do you live on? Maybe you need an education, Being gay has less to do with “having sex” than with who you are in your heart. When people meet they can be attracted to someone else because of their common interests, because of the sound of their voice, because of the way they tilt their head when they laugh, because of their personality, and for many other reasons. Sex comes much later in relationships. People spend time together and get to know each other to see if they are compatible. It usually has nothing to do with SEX. This goes for straight people as well as gay people. Sex is a personal and intimate part of a relationship and usually happens after compatibility is affirmed. If all you think about is the sex when you think about any two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together then I think you are the deviant one.
First of all there is no such thing as “gay” people. People are usually inducted into their sexual “preference' [a misnomer] at an early age, certainly by the time puberty hits. Sexualit yis malleable up to a given age around puberty. Sexual “choice” [again a misnomer] comes about as a result of the first few orgasmic experiences and associative conditioning of a stimulus and the reward [the orgasm].
Promoting a deviation from male/female sexual unions is promoting deviant sexuality. Like father time says, you may practice whatever you like but do not foist it on the entire population by trying to legitimize it through an institution that has always been between a man and a woman. This confuses youngsters who already have enough on their plates trying to find an identity by adulthood. Let them have the freedom to be raised in a mileu where the chances of them being inducted into normal male/female sex are higher and not diluted by normalizing that which is not.
This whole push for gay marriage is a de facto push for “legitimizing” deviant sexuality. And while were on that subject, polygamy has been recognized however in marriage in various cultures; why aren't people who are into GLBT unions throwing themselves behind american polygamy too?
People are people. Deviant sex is not a minority group.
Crapola.
There are just as many that disagree with you that you can present I assure you. By the way. Psychology is not a proven Science. It is still subjective.
I don't see you taking debate.
So you think that ALL straight people who have anal intercourse should be stripped of their right to ever get married. All straight people who participate in any so-called “abnormal” sexual acts should be STRIPPED of their right to ever get married? Straight people do some pretty funky stuff when nobody is looking. Are you going to institute the “bedroom police?”
So the bedroom police will go to every home in america and ask if they participate in anything that “you” deem abnormal? Then they will take a way the marriage certificate of 75% of ALL americans because they did the dirty in a way you didn't approve of. Wow you've got it all figured out haven't you?
The premise of the document is that ALL PEOPLE have certain inalienable rights, and WE ARE all created EQUAL! Even if you don't like it!
No Dorian. It is not legitimized, I thought this was clear in my wording, but apparently not. Please take note that I am working very hard here. Mistakes can occur.
It is “legalized” for the purpose of granting certain rights to those oppressed by their own choices. Which is quite generous I would say. Though it leaves the door open to repeal and closes the door against say folks that wish to marry their pet goat or whatever.
Any person engaging in anal sex should be de-legitimized. It is an abnormal use of the body's elimination system.. We're talking about preserving norms for youngsters to aspire to. And Father Time is right, that is up to the majority to decide. Sexuality's origins are for procreation of the species. It is therefore an abnormality to use the sexual organs for anything other than procreation. Of course people do all sorts of weird things with their bodies, deviant things that organs and parts are not originated for. We do not however, give these practices the stamp of normalcy.
I've often heard the “argument” that once blacks weren't considered to be able to marry whites by the majority. Apples and oranges. Scientifically speaking the unions of dark and light skinned people is a good idea to promote genetic diversity. Misusing the sexual organs is misusing the sexual organs and elimination organs. A guy on another website talked about anal plugs that older gay men have to wear to keep feces from leaking out of ruptured sphincters from stretching from anal sex over the years. There's a problem, infections, more susceptibility to disease. It's not what nature designed folks.
Try again..
“Psychology is not a proven Science. It is still subjective.”
Please tell that to Silhouette who just came to your rescue with trying to support your deviant sexuality bit.
By the way, Silhouette, most of the debate was about whether rights (not just necessarily marriage) should be denied to gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation, whether gays and lesbianbs should have “the same equality as everybody else.”
Tnahk you
“Psychology is not a proven Science. It is still subjective.”
Father_Time's opinion, on the other hand, IS science and therefore not subjective.
This thread would be pretty hilarious if F_T's non-arguments weren't actually being used to form policy. Father_Time says “wah wah I think this therefore you're wrong, 'cause I said so!” then sticks his fingers in his ears and refuses to even listen to any of the excellent arguments being made by the other commenters here. Then he has the audacity to pretend HE's the one who is arguing in good faith, and others just prefer not to debate. Give it up, F_T, your arguments are truly remarkable in their lack of sophistication or even internal consistency. “Because I think it's immoral” is not a political argument, and really, it's kind of incredible that you think other people will be convinced by such self-centered I-am-the-king-of-everything logic.
“If all you think about is the sex when you think about any two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together then I think you are the deviant one.”
Points for this quote from dorothygail (love that handle, by the way).
Ha! Sil, the “butt-sex-is-gross” argument is, I think, the funniest of all anti-gay arguments. Probably the stupidest…
As for disclosure, yes, why keep it secret? Straight people don't. Besides you have to disclose this for insurance purposes and other benefits. What's the problem?
As far as clothing, I feel the employer and other public venues should retain the right of imposing dress codes on their property or for people paid to work in their behalf. What’s wrong with this?
I don’t think that I should have the right to come to work wearing just a jock strap and bow tie in hopes of luring in miss love of my life. Why should gay people even want this right? However, some may want the right to wear women’s clothing at work and I say that they should NOT have such rights.
I really don’t see any of this as unreasonable.
It wasn't a “gross” argument roro, it was an argument against unhealthy use of human body parts. Unhealthy. Don't put words into my mouth.
********
“By the way, Silhouette, most of the debate was about whether rights (not just necessarily marriage) should be denied to gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation, whether gays and lesbianbs should have “the same equality as everybody else.”~DE Rodriguez
****
There are no such things as “gay” or “lesbian” or “bi” people. There are only people who practic hetero or deviant from hetero sexuality. Did you fail biology or do you remember a discussion there about sexual organs and their purpose?
HI there: Just a TMV moderator here. This discussion appears to have become a back and forth about Father Time rather than about the article. I'd ask commenters to go back to the article, any aspect of it, rather than to Father Time, so the thread doesnt become hijacked. I'd just remind too that there ought be no personal attacks here. You can debate, teach, learn, discuss all without that aspect. Thanks for your cooperation.
Dr.E
Now I see the big picture. You are proud that you killed people who have different beliefs than you. That answers a lot of questions for the rest of us. Thanks for giving us a better understanding of the mentality of someone who can so easily HATE someone else for being different.
By the way, your killing communists did not give me the rights that I was born with. And your hate will not be enough to stop honest, decent, hard working, loving, tax paying, law abiding citizens from being able to get married. It is legal in many states now, and I will work hard to make sure that before I leave this place it will be legal everywhere. I would rather love my neighbor than kill him.
Father Time,
In reading through your comments, I understand that you oppose certain gay rights on the basis that you believe homosexuality is immoral and should not be legitimized.
However, I'm having trouble understanding how you arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral. Your repeated arguments that homosexuality is immoral are adjoined with arguments stating that homosexuality is abnormal. But is “abnormal” behavior the basis in which society judges something as being “immoral”?
There are plenty of behaviors and activities that humans have/do that would be considered outside the norm.
Is it “normal” to go sky-diving out of a plane, which originally was invented for transportation and not for extreme sports?
Is it “normal” to consume alcohol, a substance that doesn't naturally grow out of the ground or come from animals?
Is it “normal” for people to marry in their 50's and 60's instead of the more conventional ages of 20's and 30's?
All of the behaviors and activities that I have listed above could be described as “abnormal.” Should they also be considered “immoral”?
Many people resort to the “homosexuality is immoral because it abnormal” argument as if were a logical argument who no other explanation necessary. However, I find this argument to be extremely, illogical, because if we were to argue that anything that is “abnormal” must therefore be “immoral”, we would (for the sake of consistency) have to argue that any behavior or activity that deviates from the “norm” be considered immoral.
Are you prepared to make that argument?
There is a difference between debate and bullying.
Scientifically speaking, a man's penis evolved it's size and shape to fit into a woman's vagina to come to a climax, eject semen which the sperm therein proceed to swim through a woman's cervix to find a ripe ovum to fertilze and produce a new life which is a combination of the mother's and father's DNA. Sexual reproduction promotes the diversity of species by constantly introducing potentially mutated genes into a given population instead of a simple organism that buds off or clones an exact replica of itself.
A penis and a vagina are for reproduction. Any other use of them does occur but must not be “taught” [via legitimizing through a condoned institituion like marriage or any other overt public promotion] to formative minds as legitimate or normal use of those organs. Period,
you're right, it's much better to have a happy family where daddy is screwing his secretary, and mommy is on antidepressants, and the priest is touching you behind closed doors. Nothing deviant about that.
I truly resent roro80's assaults here on this blog. I have conducted myself honorably and decently yet some privileged people are allowed to denigrate me and my legitimate political opinions with impunity.
Though I am liberal on practically all political issues, I would tend to agree that The Moderate Voice is far more Liberal than Conservative. The injustice demonstrated within this politically liberal biased does NOT ADD TO THE DEBATE. Not to mention roro80’s ability to make vulgar comments were those that disagree with base Blog bias cannot.
I seek and expect justice from the moderators of this blog.
I wonder if all of the psychiatrists, and psychology majors in college feel the same way about psychology not being a proven science. Doctors sure prescribe a lot of pills for being a not proven science.
Yes, if they were legitimate they would agree. The very first thing my psych 101 professor told us before every theory [THEORY] on human behavior was “this is a theory, not a proven fact”.
There is a reason people call it the “art” of psychology. Not the “science” of psychology. The biochemists handle that department…as well as their current tools allow..
Silhouette, 'll ignore your condescending remarks about failing biology for now.
Perhaps it might be more credible and objective to present both sides of the Homosexuality and Choice argument, and the inconclusiveness of the research, don't you think so?.
The following from an essay by Air Force Colonel Om Prakash at the National War College and published by the Department of Defense
Numbers refers to his sources, available, along with the entire article, at http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition…
“As the debate reignites on DADT [Don't Ask, Don't tell], it isnecessary to consider whether homosexuality is a choice. Traditionally, courts have
protected immutable characteristics, and Americans writ large are demonstrably more accepting of characteristics
that an individual cannot change. Contrasting this, many opponents of lifting the ban assume that homosexuality
is a choice and use this as the basis of many arguments.
Unfortunately, research has not yet yielded a definitive answer to this question. Both sides of the
debate are armed with ultimately inconclusive scientific studies. What follows is a brief overview of several studies that have
attempted to settle the dispute.
Several studies in the early 1990s examined the sexual preferences of identical twins and fraternal twins in the hopes of finding a
genetic linkage to sexual orientation. Since identical twins have 100 percent of nuclear genetic material in common and fraternal
twins have only 50 percent in common, if a high percentage of identical twins share a characteristic (such as green eyes) while a
lower percentage of nonidentical twins share that trait, it suggests there is a genetic basis.
Conversely, if identical and nonidentical twins share a characteristic at equal rates (such as preference for the color red), it suggests there
is not a genetic basis. With homosexuality, a number of twin studies attempted this type of isolation, and while early studies seemed to
indicate a genetic linkage, follow-on studies found the error rate too high based on sample selection.23 Repeat studies showed a genetic
linkage, if it existed, was only moderately heritable and not in the simple Mendelian model.24 In a different approach, in 1993 Dean
Hammer and others initially found a strong genetic linkage in male homosexuality dubbed by the press as the “gay gene.”25 Their studies
involved examining the X chromosome of homosexual men (homosexual brothers and their family members). Yet follow-on studies
in 2005 and a complete analysis of the entire genome found a weaker correlation.26 Even anthropomorphic differences in homosexuals
such as left-handedness, spatial processing, and hypothalamus size27 that seem to argue for a genetic linkage can also be explained by
prenatal differentiation through pathways yet to be elucidated.28 Though these scientific studies give compelling evidence that there
is some biological basis to sexual orientation, possibly genetic, and perhaps something early in development or even prenatal, the exact
mechanism is yet to be identified. Anecdotal data is also compelling, as illustrated by statements from homosexual
Ultimately, it is probable that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of multiple factors, some genetic and some developmental, and that elements of
free choice exist only to the same degree that they do for heterosexuals ignoring powerful biological urges.”
Silhouette, 'll ignore your condescending remarks about failing biology for now.
Perhaps it might be more credible and objective to present both sides of the Homosexuality and Choice argument, and the inconclusiveness of the research, don't you think so?.
The following from an essay by Air Force Colonel Om Prakash at the National War College and published by the Department of Defense
Numbers refers to his sources, available, along with the entire article, at http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition…
“As the debate reignites on DADT [Don't Ask, Don't tell], it isnecessary to consider whether homosexuality is a choice. Traditionally, courts have
protected immutable characteristics, and Americans writ large are demonstrably more accepting of characteristics
that an individual cannot change. Contrasting this, many opponents of lifting the ban assume that homosexuality
is a choice and use this as the basis of many arguments.
Unfortunately, research has not yet yielded a definitive answer to this question. Both sides of the
debate are armed with ultimately inconclusive scientific studies. What follows is a brief overview of several studies that have
attempted to settle the dispute.
Several studies in the early 1990s examined the sexual preferences of identical twins and fraternal twins in the hopes of finding a
genetic linkage to sexual orientation. Since identical twins have 100 percent of nuclear genetic material in common and fraternal
twins have only 50 percent in common, if a high percentage of identical twins share a characteristic (such as green eyes) while a
lower percentage of nonidentical twins share that trait, it suggests there is a genetic basis.
Conversely, if identical and nonidentical twins share a characteristic at equal rates (such as preference for the color red), it suggests there
is not a genetic basis. With homosexuality, a number of twin studies attempted this type of isolation, and while early studies seemed to
indicate a genetic linkage, follow-on studies found the error rate too high based on sample selection.23 Repeat studies showed a genetic
linkage, if it existed, was only moderately heritable and not in the simple Mendelian model.24 In a different approach, in 1993 Dean
Hammer and others initially found a strong genetic linkage in male homosexuality dubbed by the press as the “gay gene.”25 Their studies
involved examining the X chromosome of homosexual men (homosexual brothers and their family members). Yet follow-on studies
in 2005 and a complete analysis of the entire genome found a weaker correlation.26 Even anthropomorphic differences in homosexuals
such as left-handedness, spatial processing, and hypothalamus size27 that seem to argue for a genetic linkage can also be explained by
prenatal differentiation through pathways yet to be elucidated.28 Though these scientific studies give compelling evidence that there
is some biological basis to sexual orientation, possibly genetic, and perhaps something early in development or even prenatal, the exact
mechanism is yet to be identified. Anecdotal data is also compelling, as illustrated by statements from homosexual
Ultimately, it is probable that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of multiple factors, some genetic and some developmental, and that elements of
free choice exist only to the same degree that they do for heterosexuals ignoring powerful biological urges.”
Do you have a clue at all? Are you aware just how many people spank their own monkey daily, or how many straight folks get “really kinky?”
“It is therefore an abnormality to use the sexual organs for anything other than procreation.” REALLY?
If I was 75 years old would I still allowed, under your rules to have sex? You need to go read your bible some more and pray a little, for a brain.
Do you have a clue at all? Are you aware just how many people spank their own monkey daily, or how many straight folks get “really kinky?”
“It is therefore an abnormality to use the sexual organs for anything other than procreation.” REALLY?
If I was 75 years old would I still allowed, under your rules to have sex? You need to go read your bible some more and pray a little, for a brain.
Perhaps reading comprehension is the issue here?
I said, again, that deviant use of the sexual organs and other organs occur but..
**listen carefully now** THEY MUST NOT BE LEGITIMIZED AS A NORMAL USE.
Perhaps reading comprehension is the issue here?
I said, again, that deviant use of the sexual organs and other organs occur but..
**listen carefully now** THEY MUST NOT BE LEGITIMIZED AS A NORMAL USE.
I don't recall on my marriage licence there being any space to fill in how healthy or unhealthy my habits are.
I don't recall on my marriage licence there being any space to fill in how healthy or unhealthy my habits are.
Thanks, I'm here all week. and toto too.
Thanks, I'm here all week. and toto too.
You know it would probably push father time right over the edge if he stopped typing for a minute, sat real still to listen to hear what his “straight” neighbors are doing in the bedroom next door. He'd freak out if he knew how “abnormal” Frank and Sylvia get every Sunday night.
From our most recent conversation here on TMV: “Continue to “call out” whenever you like. Consider yourself invited.” http://themoderatevoice.com/48881/thugs-pick-on…
Also, this is truly laughable. Somehow *I* am the “privileged one”? You are making horribly offensive remarks that do true damage to large swaths of the population, and I point out that your arguments are not only hurtful and offensive, but also quite poorly conceived, and for this you seek “justice”? If you are going to come on here and spread your hate, I am going to call out the fact that that is exactly what you are doing.
Ohmygod. The last time I checked, about two hours ago, there were, like, 5 comments on this post. Now there are 78.
“I seek and expect justice from the moderators of this blog.”
So does that gay sailor that I referred you to in the Washington Post article.
You asked, “Were there any crimes committed?” Did you even read it?
dear Father Time and all commenters: see my comment to all commenters above. It stands just as I wrote it.
As you FT and others here know, the mix of religious ideals, military ideals, human rights ideals, personal beliefs, and sexuality at ANY time at ANY forum online… means extra diligence to discuss without insulting co-commenters. There's a discipline to it when people may disagree with what each other believe, but it can be done by giving your arguments and giving facts. Most people at TMV do just that, with a bit of wavering around the edges from time to time.
That people attack each other on occasion before gathering themselves and pulling back has nothing to do with any site being lib or cons or black or green. It's human nature. I'm more impressed that so many with strong feelings and strong minds keep a civil heart when writing about matters that they cherish or are repelled by.
I'd just ask all to take a step back and avoid flinging food. It is almost guaranteed to allow deeper and more interesting debate when readers dont have to stop every two seconds to scroll and scroll past the same old food fight.
Thanks,
dr.e
FROM MODERATOR
DEAR Father Time AND ALL COMMENTERS: see my comment to all commenters above. It stands just as I wrote it.
As you FT and others here know, the mix of religious ideals, military ideals, human rights ideals, personal beliefs, and sexuality at ANY time at ANY forum online… means extra diligence to discuss without insulting co-commenters. There's a discipline to it when people may disagree with what each other believe, but it can be done by giving your arguments and giving facts. Most people at TMV do just that, with a bit of wavering around the edges from time to time.
That people attack each other on occasion before gathering themselves and pulling back has nothing to do with any site being lib or cons or black or green. It's human nature. I'm more impressed that so many with strong feelings and strong minds keep a civil heart when writing about matters that they cherish or are repelled by here at TMV.
I'd just ask all to take a step back and avoid flinging food. It is almost guaranteed to allow deeper and more interesting debate when readers dont have to stop every two seconds to scroll and scroll past the same old food fight.
Thanks,
dr.e
Yes, felons are a group, and felons have human rights.
But law-abiding Americans who have committed no crime, broken no law, don't have full human rights, and shouldn't have any, in your apparent view, because of their sexuality.
As to the not declaring deviant use of organs on a marriage license. Gay sex implies the deviant use of organs. It is inherant in the word “gay”. So “gay” marriage means “deviant use of the sex organs” marriage…literally. We're talking about formative minds looking onto the legitimizing process in society.
Amazing number of comments but I agree we need to get back on the basic subject, not on the comments of one or two posters.
You sound just like the communists you bragged about killing a few minutes ago. Dictate every little aspect of life to others. Wow, you must be a communist. So sorry, this is America. I am free to wear what I want, work where I want, and love who I want. And if I work beside a guy in a dress It wouldn't bother me at all. I know how to “live and let live.”
I wonder if the same people who are so worried about “formative minds” being exposed to “deviant sex,” also have similar concerns about those formative minds being exposed to hating and despising other human beings because of their sexual orientation?
Yes Kathy and you are most welcomed.
F_T, you are not being forced to “accept” anything. No one is forcing you to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple, or invite them into your home. No one is forcing you to become a gay rights activist or march in a gay rights parade. No one is forcing you to live your life by someone else's notion of right or wrong.
It's rather *you* who is trying to force gay and lesbian Americans to accept *your* prejudices and allow *their* lives and *their* choices to be determined by *your* prejudices.
“There is no proof what-so-ever that people are born “gay”. It is a choice”
See the extensive comment that disputes your certitude.
And when there are no male swordfish in a tank full of females, a female can spontaneously grow a tail and male genitalia and reproduce as if she had always beed a male. That too is a fact of nature. We are not talking about biology lessons here. We are talking about peoples feelings, emotions, common interests and shared lives. This is about people deciding for themselves who they love and want to call “family.”
Stay on subject please. I leaned biology a long time ago.
.
Why is same-sex marriage immoral? In what does the immorality reside?