Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamo
We can't guarantee that a thread will stay on track...much of that has to do with the thread-starter's involvement and powers of persuasion.
However...you did just ask the following question: Here is a test for you. If you are 40 and up, what was your view of gays back in 1980-1985?
As it turns out, during that time period I was working for a multi-state agricultural association, basically doing what I do now except for "members" rather than "clients." Obviously, the organization was (and is) ultra-conservative...to the right of the Farm Bureau. My legal secretary was a gay man who had served in Vietnam and had wounds and honors signifying his extraordinary service to this country. Fastest damn typist I've ever had (IBM typewriters in those days).
It was during that period that my current position regarding gays was formulated...again, for me it has little to do with our own individual morals and value judgements, and everything to do with folks...all folks...being able to secure the same benefits and security. See, this guy and his partner (another Viet Vet) had adopted several orphans during the sunset of our time in Southeast Asia, and had brought them back to give them a shot at life. They had more than a few problems with insurance coverage and retirement beneficiary designations back then, and always were asked a few extra questions when applying for day care, etc.
So, for every perception based on fornicating rabid sodomizers, you have folks whose perceptions are based on something else...like mine.
As to HIV and AIDS, I've obviously had to deal with the legal ramifications of it at the workplace for the past 30 years, and most certainly under the ADA when it came to be. Yup...pissed me off then that whole groups of folks were just plain stupid and brought this hell upon society...gays, Haitians, monkey-phukers, IV drug users and swingers from the 70s.
|
I only brought the 80' s era because of the radically different way gays were percieved then. I still do not consider marriage a "right". It is certainly an institution that is for the most part denied to gay people. But it was my sincere hope that "civil unions" would be the key. There is such angst on this issue that it would not suprize me if the very institution itself would be dismantled in favor of civil unions for all. Gay people want to be accepted as normal "units" of society. With regards to "minorities", the one way to become a group not classified as a minority is to increase one's population fraction. Blacks could easily do this over time by having children at an astonishing rate. But gays cannot do this. Not on a national level. They will always be a minority. Thus, they are not normal, or normalizable. But that is not what we hear in the news. To me, the gay cry for normalcy and acceptance is silly. But it is dangerous too. The only way for them to achieve this is through abnormal political power. More power than heteros will ever have. And with each concession we grant, they indeed are gaining political power not commensurate with their popluation fraction.
Granting marriage to gays is getting us closer to a situation where aour political system will become a true Democracy... something our fore-fathers never intended. Next, they will be competing with hetero partners that want to adopt children! Why not? They are married! Where does this lunacy stop? It does not stop. Not until the inmates are running the asylum.
Mike