Ah, okay. Well, you probably admit it’s hard for outsiders to see wheter someone is sarcastic or spreading their ridiculous opinions.
Take that quote of Bush’ where he stated that he don’t know any gay among his family or friends. Am I suppose to take that seriously?
Ah, okay. Well, you probably admit it’s hard for outsiders to see wheter someone is sarcastic or spreading their ridiculous opinions.
I got it. Next time, to be sure, you can use the sarcasm smiley
I got the sarcasm, too, but I think there is a language barrier.
Thanks, Leo for sticking up for what’s right in my opinion!
I must get the One wheel many spokes book.
Also, Leo, thanks for all the videos of the skills that are online. I have been using them to guide me since I don’t have other unicyclists around to watch! Great resource and excellent riding!
I think it’s very cool that a picture you took is in Lars’ book.
It should surprise no one here that the more I find out about Lars the more I admire and support him. I don’t think social activism and faith are in any way mutually exclusive. Jesus and Buddha are prime examples of that.
Exactly the teachings of Christ (and Buddha) are of compassion, which makes it really hard for me to see how anyone who claims to be Chritian could say “God Hates Fags”, or try to keep the governement from acknowleding gay marraige.
I found this comment somewhere between endearingly naive and mildly disturbing.
I was quite amused by the unspoken assumption that all gay people are male - and the surprised reaction to digigal1 turning out to be female. (Perhaps the “gal” at the end of her name provides a clue to the observant?)
Why the “technically”? Why the need for a definition? Maybe it’s just a dialect thing, and I’m worrying too much.
Homosexual: from “homo” meaning “the same”, not “homo”, meaning man. Correct pronunciation should therefore be “hommo” rather than “hoe-mo” - a common mistake. Similar words: homonym, homogenous, etc.
Over here (UK) “gay” is usually used as a general term for male or female homosexuals, although some groups claim to cater for “gay and lesbian” people, implying a difference.
“Lesbian” literally means a person from the Greek island of Lesbos (pronounced “lez boss”, not “lez bows”!) because at one time in ancient history, the women of that island were believed to have the generally good sense to manage without men. (Elsewhere in the ancient Greek world, male homosexuality was fashionable for a period. At the time of Socrates and Plato, it was considered the norm among the upper classes.
Either way, in 2005, with us having the good luck to live in one of the most diverse and open societies in history - in a very small window of opportunity that has been gradually opening since WW2, and will no doubt slam shut within 50 years, if that, it’s a pity that people feel the need to categorise other people so neatly.
None of which has anything to do with unicycling…
I too was a little surprised about the assumption that a gay person must be male, but then I know that Tyler is only 11 (right?) and kids are supposed to be naive about sexuality at that age
There’s a riddle to illustrate this gender bias, I’ll see if I can re-tell it correctly.
A man and his son were in a bad car accident, and had to be taken to the emergency room. When the son came in for surgery, the surgeon exclaimed “But that’s my son!”. How is this possible?
Because the surgeon was his mother
Quite right, I didn’t feel the need to look too far into Tyler’s reaction. When I was his age, I used to call my brother a fag. My father asked me, what would you call him if he were a girl? I said without any hint of comedy, “faggette.”
Re-reading this thread, and thinking of this countries current social climate - I decided to go to Lars’s website and see how his trip on the Coker was going.
First I went to www.onewheel.org where I found a link to his current ride http://www.straightintogayamerica.com/ .
On that site, there is a link to “tour updates” which is: http://larsclausen.blogspot.com/
After reading some of his notes, and the reactions he has received, I came across This:
"The man at the next table is eating his Chinese lunch with his daughter and is excited about my unicycle. When I ask him my question, he answers simply, “Homosexuality is a sin. I’m a Christian.” When I ask about rights for people, and give specific examples such as whether a partner should have the right to be listed as next of kin, he looks puzzled, and then answers, “You know, I couldn’t care less.”
The roots of Christianity were, at one time, compassion, humility, non-judgmentalism and caring. If these have been replaced by hard-heartedness, and arrogance then those roots have surely withered and the tree itself is soon to die.
Lars is one courageous soul, doing what few have the guts to do…put his life aside and have compassion for others.
If there were a constitutional ammendment that said citizens have the right to marry whoever they choose (barring immediate family members I hope), I’m sure we wouldn’t have this current controversy.
Not that this would likely have been in the Constitution. At the time there was still lack of general understanding of what the boundaries of a “human being” were (aka white).
It was silly of whoever to suggest that Lars was neutral on the topic of gay marriage if he was doing a ride about it. Well, maybe not, but I’ve read his book and it was obvious to me. People who are opposed are not usually interested in collecting information about it. Instead they mostly continue the familiar argument: Bible, Bible, Bible. No real facts beyond that, just scare tactics.
Here’s my suggestion at a possible “solution.” Call it something else. Marriage, as it is traditionally understood by Western cultures in general, produces a husband and a wife. Many gay couples also refer to themselves as husbands and wives, but that can get confusing. In a gay wedding you don’t really have a bride and a groom. Regardless on the choice of clothing, you have two of one and none of the other.
My presumption is that the basis of the argument is about legal rights, such as next of kin, taxes, etc. What if you could have the same rights with a different legal name for your union? You could still call yourselves “married,” as many gay couples I know do even though they aren’t. Anyway, it’s an idea. You heard it here first, but if it gets taken up in a big way, I’m sure somebody gay will get the credit for it…
Tyler, Tyler, Tyler. Another blunder for Mr. 99 percentile. I think I may have figured this out. Tyler’s 11, and SCHOOL’S OUT! His brain must be in summer mode. Ah, summer. Those were the days!
I highly recommend Lars’ book, One Whee, Many Spokes. At first I wondered how a book about a unicycle trip of thousands of miles could be interesting. It was. It is a great story about human rights and American shame (treatment of native peoples). It is also a great story about the wonderful people you meet when you travel on an odd, slow vehicle. Read it.
I’m keeping track. I still can’t think of any examples of me being hurt, damaged, or inconvenienced by someone else’s gayness.
And to think all this time, I thought this was a thread about Happy Marriages. I was willing to be interviewed.
This would just be one more example of the mixing of Church and State. It’s already a problem with the State requiring a License to Marry. Personally I say let Gays marry so they can deal with all the same legal issues that the rest of use have to deal with. I think the biggest problem people have with Gays marrying, is it isn’t a “legal” issue, it is a religious issue. Marriage wasn’t a government institution, it was a religious. So for the state to decide what a marriage is, is kind of screwed up. If the government wants to create a union that gives gays the same rights/responcibilities that married people have, fine, just don’t require churches to perform/recognize them as a marriage. If some Churches choose to, that should be up to them and the mebers of that denomination, not Big Brother. Freedom of religion, seperation of Church and State etc… That said I could care less what they do. Just tired of BB telling me what I can and can’t do.
I’m not sure what this license is for. If you need a license to get married, wouldn’t it make some kind of sense to have a license to have kids? Some minimal aptitude? (I don’t consider having kids to be a religious issue; it’s more a biological one)
But the marriage license is probably something to do with registering the fact that you are creating a legal union. With this legal union you get the legal considerations that are denied to gay couples. The big ones are the various tax advantages you get if married, and many rights having to do with hospitalization, next of kin, etc. If you are not legally married, regardless of your age, you cannot make medical decisions for your partner who may develop alzheimers, or be in a coma, etc. This is the problem as it exists today. Two people have lived together for 50 years, and one is sick. But the partner is banned from any legal input as to how to care for the sick one, and a direct relative, though they may not have seen the person in over 50 years, has all the rights.
These are the issues gay couples are campaigning for, as I understand it. This is why the “different label” theory may be workable.
I agree completely. Some churches will reject it, as they already do, while others may be more flexible.
But I don’t know that marriage is even a religious thing; it’s more of a family-making thing (with or without kids). Your church determines the nature of your wedding, to a certain extent, though you can also get married elsewhere if you want, under your own terms. And your church provides its own set of rules about what it considers marriage to be. But I think the concept of marriage predates the concept of church by thousands of years, depending what church you go to of course…
For most of the gay people I know that is a fine solution, but only as a first step. Certainly having the legal right to inheritance, medical decisions, etc is desired. But calling “it something else” always ends with “it” being of second class stature.
What if calling it something else had been the solution to anti-miscegenation laws? Would that be acceptable?
My relationship of 10 years has outlasted several straight friends’ marriages. Several others are on the rocks after that amount of time. But my girlfriend (a sophomoric term, especially for a couple of 40-somethings, but I think “partner” sounds stilted) and I are still in love and happy.
This issue bothers me more as I get older. We had to spend $600 to get some basic legal protections that every married person enjoys fee free.
I would be thrilled if even “civil union” were legal in New York. But Raphael’s right, what if two atheists got “married” at the courthouse, but everyone said they weren’t married because it wasn’t church-sanctioned? All the rights and responsibilities, but not the same status.
Here’s a weird tidbit. I work for the State of New York. According to the NYS Comptroller, if I get married in Vermont and come back to my house/job/life in New York, I get no rights or recognition. But if I’m willing to go to Canada to get married, and come back to NY, my wife will receive my NYS pension when I die… HUH??
Anyway, I wish people could just get over it. Who says the translator of your bible even got the nuance of every single gay-damning passage right? It was thousands of years ago. I went to a Franciscan college and the friars told us how words in the bible can have many meanings.
I still fail to understand how gay marriages are deemed illegal in the name of religion when your country advocates freedom of religion.
I’ve given up on posting much on unicyclist.com, but i glanced at it today and this thread caught my eye:
Tyler, maybe when it comes to political threads you should just avoid posting or read a bit on the subject beforehand (note: i didn’t say ask your parents). You have done many blunders, such as accusing me of being a Bush supporter after I attack democrats, assuming “gay” means male, etc. it’s fine to harbor opinions, but statements like yours just reflect ignorance. Remember, “Liberals” CLAIM to be open-minded, yet in fact they are often just as close minded, if not more so, than reactionaries. You aren’t open-minded until you are ready to re-examine your opinions objectively, something you haven’t truly shown.
I have gay parents, who’ve been together for 19 years. My parents played a major organizing role in the dyke march in multiple cities for many years. I know plenty of gay couples, and with the exception of their homosexuality and openness to strange clothing (neon pink matching jogging suits?! I don’t care about your sexuality, that’s just ugly!), they’re about the same as straight couples. The only, non surprising difference I notice is militant femenism in the lesbian couples I know, where as women in straight relationships aren’t as consistently femenist.
The thing is if you’re going to call it something else, jsut call it somethign elseo fro everyone. In some coutires, such as France, Chruch marirages aren’t recognized legally anyway. A couple is free to marry in the church of their choice but must also be married by a civil official. I think we need to adapt a similar policy. Legal marriage should include anyone who wishes to be legally bound to another person should be allowed to. Churches can marry whoever they so desire to or not to. Some churches already allow gay marriages. The fact that the government doesn’t recognize them is ludacris.
But you know what. It will happen eventually, and luckily peole like Lars are out trying to help it happen faster by spreading his true Christian values: understanding and compassion.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they’re officially “deemed illegal in the name of religion”, though in some places they may be.
While this country professes to offer freedom of religion the people that run this country have their own religions (usually Christianity) that influence them in making the laws.
A country’s laws are only as religiously objective as the people that run it. Currently most of the politicians are Christian, so it’s Christianity that seeps into the laws.
As for the “what to call it” scenario, I believe that “marriage” should be reserved for those who go through a religious ceremony and “civil union” for those who wish to be granted the governmental benefits of what is currently marriage.
They should be completely separate things, though you can combine the two ceremonies, as is currently the case most of the time. In the current state of affairs religious marriage and governmental benefits are far too closely intertwines, as can be seen with this entire thread and the “gay marriage” debate.