Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fort Worth Gay Central?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 19 October 2006 - 02:55 PM

State leads nation in gay parentsThe Associated Press
HOUSTON - Despite Texas' conservative reputation, gay couples living here are more likely to have children than in almost any other place in the country, according to a study based on the most recent U.S. Census data and published in The Gay and Lesbian Atlas.

The study found that San Antonio has the highest percentage of gay couples raising children in the nation. Houston is fourth, and the Fort Worth-Arlington area is fifth.

One explanation is that minority same-sex couples are more likely to have children than white same-sex couples, said Gary J. Gates, who co-authored the Atlas study. Texas has a large Hispanic population, which might partially explain why its gay couples are more likely to have children, he said.

Another possible explanation is that compared with their heterosexual counterparts, gay and lesbian couples tend to be "urban pioneers." They are more likely to live in racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods that have more college-educated residents, older housing, higher crime rates or higher property values, according to research in the Atlas.

Nationally, about 25 percent of gay couples have children living in their homes. And generally, same-sex couples and their children live in areas where other people also have kids, Gates said.

The children of gay couples consist of two groups: those born from a parent's previous heterosexual relationship and those whose parents started families through adoption or reproduction technology, such as artificial insemination.

Experts say there have been "gayby booms" in the last 25 years.

The first came in the 1980s, when lesbian couples took advantage of new reproductive technology to have children.

The second came during the 1990s, when gay men began to adopt, said Beth Teper, executive director of the San Francisco-based organization Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere.

The study looked at children who are being raised by at least one biological parent, as well as children who were adopted by same-sex couples.

Mitchell Katine, a lawyer who helped overturn the state's sodomy law, said there is a clear difference between the state's conservative politics and its more liberal social practices.

However, there are still obstacles facing gay couples looking to adopt, Katine said.

Many gay couples looking to adopt avoid going through the more conservative courts of Harris County, Katine said.

He went through a San Antonio judge to adopt his children.



#2 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 19 October 2006 - 02:57 PM

I was suprised that Dallas was not in the top 5.

#3 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 19 October 2006 - 03:07 PM

The nice gay couple that lived across the street from me when I lived in FW each had children. I was suprised that FW had so many gay families considering that for a city its size, it has no gayborhood and for a "cultural city" no real gay presence. Austin is always said to be so liberal and open-minded, but Dallas, IMO, is the gayest city in the state. There's a very visable gay community here, and the gayborhood is one of the most vibrant areas of the city. I guess FW gays are more laid back, like FW.

#4 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 October 2006 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 19 2006, 04:07 PM) View Post

The nice gay couple that lived across the street from me when I lived in FW each had children. I was suprised that FW had so many gay families considering that for a city its size, it has no gayborhood and for a "cultural city" no real gay presence. Austin is always said to be so liberal and open-minded, but Dallas, IMO, is the gayest city in the state. There's a very visable gay community here, and the gayborhood is one of the most vibrant areas of the city. I guess FW gays are more laid back, like FW.


Although there are a few clubs scattered about the medical district, Oak Lawn is only about 25 miles east. However, if you have settled down and are raising kids you probably don't have a lot of time for "clubbing". You'll have to give FW props for being first to pass gay anti-discrimination laws a few years back. I don't know if you have seen the Dallas visitor's web site but Big D is touting its diversity.
http://www.glbtdallas.com/index2.php

#5 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 19 October 2006 - 08:17 PM

By vibrant neighborhood, I didn't necessarily just mean clubbing. I meant shops, restuarants, and a diverse mix of people and housing and not to mention some of the best people watching in the metroplex. The Halloween festival on CedarSprings is a must every year. It draws a diverse mix of people and families as does the pride parade. Someone told me FW was the first city in the state to pass an anti-discrimination suit that included gays. I see that it's true (google). And FW should be commended for that.

#6 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 October 2006 - 09:41 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 19 2006, 09:17 PM) View Post

By vibrant neighborhood, I didn't necessarily just mean clubbing. I meant shops, restuarants, and a diverse mix of people and housing and not to mention some of the best people watching in the metroplex. The Halloween festival on CedarSprings is a must every year. It draws a diverse mix of people and families as does the pride parade. Someone told me FW was the first city in the state to pass an anti-discrimination suit that included gays. I see that it's true (google). And FW should be commended for that.


OK - other than that... is there any organized plan for the Saturday tour? If so, email me @ jeff715@sbcglobal.net. cool.gif

#7 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:05 AM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Oct 19 2006, 11:30 PM) View Post

"Gayborhood?" I must admit, this is the first time I've heard that term (though I know there are "gay neighborhoods," I've never heard them given a name). Are there "bi-borhoods" too?


That's probably because FW doesn't have one. I think the term probably started within the gay community just as slang to describe the "gay" area or areas of a city (I understand Oakcliff is the new gayborhood in Dallas), much as blacks refer to "the hood" as slang for some black neighborhoods. But the term "gayborhood" is pretty popular nationwide. I've heard it used to describe areas in several cities.

#8 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 20 October 2006 - 09:29 AM

Gayborhood as I am told was a term invented by homosexual individuals and couples that would move to a certain area in the masses creating a "gay-friendly" neighborhood.

There are actually some in Tarrant county but they are more limited to different builder developments. I believe there is one in Keller. One of the guys I was working with when we were building our house, was gay and we were telling him about another neighborhood we were looking at. He got that mixed up with another development in Keller(I think) in which he was telling us was a "gayborhood" and asking why we would even consider it. I told him it wasn't a "gayborhood" and we got then we finally figured out which neighborhoods each of us were talking about. Anyway, that was the first time I had heard that term so he proceeded to educate me all about them.

#9 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 20 October 2006 - 01:37 PM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Oct 19 2006, 11:30 PM) View Post

I just get the impression that's the general Fort Worth way of looking at it. I know people have made remarks about how Fort Worth is thought of as "closed-minded," but I have never, ever felt that way about this city.


That's the beauty of this city.

#10 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 20 October 2006 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 20 2006, 08:05 AM) View Post

That's probably because FW doesn't have one. I think the term probably started within the gay community just as slang to describe the "gay" area or areas of a city (I understand Oakcliff is the new gayborhood in Dallas), much as blacks refer to "the hood" as slang for some black neighborhoods. But the term "gayborhood" is pretty popular nationwide. I've heard it used to describe areas in several cities.


All of Oak Cliff? unsure.gif

#11 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 20 October 2006 - 01:40 PM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Oct 20 2006, 10:29 AM) View Post

Gayborhood as I am told was a term invented by homosexual individuals and couples that would move to a certain area in the masses creating a "gay-friendly" neighborhood.

There are actually some in Tarrant county but they are more limited to different builder developments. I believe there is one in Keller. One of the guys I was working with when we were building our house, was gay and we were telling him about another neighborhood we were looking at. He got that mixed up with another development in Keller(I think) in which he was telling us was a "gayborhood" and asking why we would even consider it. I told him it wasn't a "gayborhood" and we got then we finally figured out which neighborhoods each of us were talking about. Anyway, that was the first time I had heard that term so he proceeded to educate me all about them.


Keller? Where? dry.gif

#12 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 20 October 2006 - 02:07 PM

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Oct 20 2006, 02:39 PM) View Post

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 20 2006, 08:05 AM) View Post

That's probably because FW doesn't have one. I think the term probably started within the gay community just as slang to describe the "gay" area or areas of a city (I understand Oakcliff is the new gayborhood in Dallas), much as blacks refer to "the hood" as slang for some black neighborhoods. But the term "gayborhood" is pretty popular nationwide. I've heard it used to describe areas in several cities.


All of Oak Cliff? unsure.gif

I think mostly the northern part. The Bishop Arts District has some very gay friendly shops and resturants. Popular Hunky's Hamburgers (one of the best burger places in DFW and the main reason I visit CedarSprings) recently opened a a second restuarant there. A gay coworker of mine gave a house party a few months ago, he lives near Kiest Park. And from what he says and from what I saw, I would say the majority of his street is gay households. The Oaklawn/CedarSprings area of Dallas is very urban in that there are very few single family homes in the area. It's mostly apartments, condos and townhomes, with more pricey developments going up every day. I think that price and lack of single family dwellings in Oaklawn are the reason Oakcliff has become another gayborhood. I would be shocked if there was anything like that in Keller. But in FW, I think the closest to a gayborhood there is Fairmount on the Southside. I lived in Ryan Place and my neighbors knew some more gay couples in that neighborhood, but Fairmount had a lot more and was a very gay friendly neighborhood. The annual tour of homes there almost always features homes of gay couples.

#13 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 20 October 2006 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Oct 20 2006, 02:40 PM) View Post

QUOTE(AdamB @ Oct 20 2006, 10:29 AM) View Post

Gayborhood as I am told was a term invented by homosexual individuals and couples that would move to a certain area in the masses creating a "gay-friendly" neighborhood.

There are actually some in Tarrant county but they are more limited to different builder developments. I believe there is one in Keller. One of the guys I was working with when we were building our house, was gay and we were telling him about another neighborhood we were looking at. He got that mixed up with another development in Keller(I think) in which he was telling us was a "gayborhood" and asking why we would even consider it. I told him it wasn't a "gayborhood" and we got then we finally figured out which neighborhoods each of us were talking about. Anyway, that was the first time I had heard that term so he proceeded to educate me all about them.


Keller? Where? dry.gif


Probably the nicest houses with the nicest cars and the nicest yards. cool.gif

#14 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:08 PM

Or you can just look for the homes with purple flowers in the front, DEAD GIVEAWAY... wait I have.... nevermind! smilewink.gif





#15 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 21 October 2006 - 08:09 AM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Oct 20 2006, 06:08 PM) View Post

Or you can just look for the homes with purple flowers in the front, DEAD GIVEAWAY... wait I have.... nevermind! smilewink.gif


rotflmao.gif

#16 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 21 October 2006 - 02:24 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 20 2006, 08:05 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Oct 19 2006, 11:30 PM) View Post

"Gayborhood?" I must admit, this is the first time I've heard that term (though I know there are "gay neighborhoods," I've never heard them given a name). Are there "bi-borhoods" too?
That's probably because FW doesn't have one.


Certainly not like Dallas or other perhaps more 'liberal' cities, but my neighborhood seems to be very saturated with same-sex-couple households. In fact I can think of about a half dozen I've met within a single block of where I live. This little enclave on the east side is a bit different than most of FW though, and not very large (at least as far as the people I've met). Hmmm...who knows, maybe I live in a gayborhood and didn't know that's what you called it.

#17 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:47 AM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Oct 21 2006, 03:24 PM) View Post

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 20 2006, 08:05 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Oct 19 2006, 11:30 PM) View Post

"Gayborhood?" I must admit, this is the first time I've heard that term (though I know there are "gay neighborhoods," I've never heard them given a name). Are there "bi-borhoods" too?
That's probably because FW doesn't have one.


Certainly not like Dallas or other perhaps more 'liberal' cities, but my neighborhood seems to be very saturated with same-sex-couple households. In fact I can think of about a half dozen I've met within a single block of where I live. This little enclave on the east side is a bit different than most of FW though, and not very large (at least as far as the people I've met). Hmmm...who knows, maybe I live in a gayborhood and didn't know that's what you called it.


Fort Worth is actually more liberal than Dallas.


----

D's "Pink Mafia" Headline is Criminal
publications & resources > publications archive > 1996 > D's "Pink Mafia" Headline is Criminal

November 01, 1996


In its November issue, D, a Dallas-based glossy magazine for the wealthy, published a cover story entitled, "The Pink Mafia: How Gays Gained Power and Status in the Nation's Most Conservative City." The story itself, while a reasonably well-researched article on the roles that wealthy gay men have played in moving Dallas towards a greater inclusion of the gay community, glosses over the contributions of any number of people, most glaringly lesbians and grassroots activists. Only one woman, activist and executive Louise Young, is mentioned. Most unsettling and inappropriate, however, is the constant use of the term "gay mafia" to refer to wealthy and powerful lesbians and gay men who work for social change.

The labeling of rich and powerful gay people as a "mafia" plays into the paranoid delusions of homophobes who see gay men and lesbians (just as anti-Semites perceive Jewish people) as an underground conspiracy, a demimonde that holds great power through secret manipulations of society. By calling the movement in Dallas a "mafia," the headline dismisses the struggle lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people have faced just to get a footholds in our society, and how it has been fought by our government and cultural institutions. It denies us our legitimate struggle to free ourselves from oppression and makes our fight for civil rights sound like a criminal, even immoral, activity.




#18 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 24 October 2006 - 12:07 PM

All I know is the only underground-pink-mafia-conspiracy going on in my neighborhood is the growing number of feral felines - these pesky little dudes are going to be the ones to take over.

Seriously though, it's a tough one...the fact that the discrimination is linked to gender and sexuality. Just say the word 'sex' in the bible belt, and you might be struck by lightning...not a topic most Puritan minds even want to consider in the slightest. Many conservative straight people don't seem to have a handle on their own heterosexuality, which they're often taught to repress so that everything relating to sex and gender might be thought of as obscene or pornographic. Add to that a scenario that defies generations of orthodox culture, and sexuality becomes a doubling confounding (non)issue.

Sometimes I wish you could just slap sense into people, but unfortunately many things just take time to seep into the genral understanding.

#19 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 24 October 2006 - 12:36 PM

It was my understanding that the term "gay mafia" originated in Hollywood to describe powerful gays in the entertainment industry. I don't think the authors of the article were meaning to be offensive. It may have been a poor choice of words. I definitely don't see what that has to do with FW being more liberal than Dallas.

When I would work at our old FW office, one of the Admin Assist. was gay. One day he invited me to join him and his boyfriend for lunch at Sammy's. We walked down to Sammy's and when we got to the Starbucks next door, his boyfriend was waiting. To my surprise ( and many around us) to two of them embraced and did some serious lip-locking. I've had gay friends for years and two guys kissing really doesn't bother me. But for some reason in FW it did. (I was thinking "OMIGOD, we're in FW. Don't do this!!!!) And then in the restuarant they were practically sitting in each other's laps. Believe me they were the talk of the place. I was most uncomfortable. Not because I personally had a problem with them, but because I've never seen this behavior in FW. Whereas in Dallas, I see it all over the place and noone really seems that bothered. Just yesterday, two muscle-bound guys kissed in the parking lot of Whole Foods Market on Lower Greenville and people just walked by. I would like to think that FW is more open, but I couldn't tell that day. Believe me, we got some hateful looks.

#20 CurtisD

CurtisD

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 20 December 2006 - 06:48 AM

When I was a teenager in the late 80's, I was really close to my gay cousin. My girlfriend at the time and I would go with him to the gay bars on Jennings because they were really lax about checking ID's. We loved going because we could have some drinks and dance like "grown ups". I was never a country music fan, but there was even a large gay C&W club. One of the popular clubs burned down and reopened on Magnolia near Hemphill. There was even a gay bar across from TWU on Rosedale and one near JPS. (We really made the rounds.) During that time, on Friday and Saturday night the streets near Jennings and Magnolia would be packed with cars. One would think that as FW grew, the gay scene would grow also. But it seemed the exact opposite happened. From what I've seen and according to my cousin, who now lives in N. Dallas, the gay scene in FW is just about gone. There are two small bars located near Jennings and Pennsylvania and one on Lancaster. Most gays tend to head to Dallas for nightlife. That being said, Dallas has one of the most attractive and virbrant gayborhoods in country. I've very hetero, but I've always been open-minded and my gay cousin has always been my best friend so I've always been "gay" friendly. I don't even consider myself to be a "liberal", but it has simply never bothered me if someone was gay. My girlfriend who used to accompany me to the gay bars is now a popular anchorwoman. She's not in Texas anymore, but I did notice that although she was born in Dallas and grew up in FW (since age 2), her bio list Dallas as her hometown.

#21 seurto

seurto

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Location:SWFW
  • Interests:FW, TX, history, cooking, party planning/giving (Par-Tays Plus), vino! My dogs, chickens and duck!

Posted 20 December 2006 - 08:06 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 24 2006, 02:36 PM) View Post

We walked down to Sammy's and when we got to the Starbucks next door, his boyfriend was waiting. To my surprise ( and many around us) to two of them embraced and did some serious lip-locking. I've had gay friends for years and two guys kissing really doesn't bother me. But for some reason in FW it did. (I was thinking "OMIGOD, we're in FW. Don't do this!!!!) And then in the restuarant they were practically sitting in each other's laps. Believe me they were the talk of the place. I was most uncomfortable. Not because I personally had a problem with them, but because I've never seen this behavior in FW.



I kinda think the "being uncomfortable" part would be any PDA which was that overt. I don't particularly like being around straight couples that are all over each other out in public. And no I'm not a major prude, but I do think there are times and places for things; straight, gay, or in between. wink.gif JMHO

#22 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 23 December 2006 - 01:21 AM

QUOTE(seurto @ Dec 20 2006, 10:06 AM) View Post

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 24 2006, 02:36 PM) View Post

We walked down to Sammy's and when we got to the Starbucks next door, his boyfriend was waiting. To my surprise ( and many around us) to two of them embraced and did some serious lip-locking. I've had gay friends for years and two guys kissing really doesn't bother me. But for some reason in FW it did. (I was thinking "OMIGOD, we're in FW. Don't do this!!!!) And then in the restuarant they were practically sitting in each other's laps. Believe me they were the talk of the place. I was most uncomfortable. Not because I personally had a problem with them, but because I've never seen this behavior in FW.



I kinda think the "being uncomfortable" part would be any PDA which was that overt. I don't particularly like being around straight couples that are all over each other out in public. And no I'm not a major prude, but I do think there are times and places for things; straight, gay, or in between. wink.gif JMHO



^^^ Totally agree. That's why I hate New Year's Eve... because it's the one night of the year when people suddenly think it's acceptable to get really drunk and proceed to dry hump in public. It totally grosses me out to watch that. GET A ROOM people!

#23 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 24 December 2006 - 01:08 PM

You think that's gross, wait til you see BIG TIME strollin around DTFW on NYEve. He's got something up his MINK COAT sleeve this year, what a scene he is. biggrin.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#24 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 26 December 2006 - 10:11 AM

I would describe FW as "gay neutral". The gay people I know in the city are a lot like most other people I know in the city, a little understated. I've never seen a strong pro or anti homosexual vibe. Dallas, on the other hand, does have some great gay pockets. It's also got plenty of conservatives (read: anti-gay), too. It's a good thing the city is large enough to give everyone their space.

#25 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 27 December 2006 - 12:23 AM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Dec 26 2006, 12:11 PM) View Post

I would describe FW as "gay neutral". The gay people I know in the city are a lot like most other people I know in the city, a little understated. I've never seen a strong pro or anti homosexual vibe. Dallas, on the other hand, does have some great gay pockets. It's also got plenty of conservatives (read: anti-gay), too. It's a good thing the city is large enough to give everyone their space.


I don't think you see the pro or anti gay vibes in FWian's actions, not usually anyway, but rather in their political affiliations. I would agree that many FWians are gay-neutral but this town still has plenty of red necks and extreme conservatives too! I think the correct term for FWian's stance on homosexuality might be more along the lines of "passively anti-gay" because, when they go to the poles, they mostly vote republican... And, as we have learned in the past few years, that is almost the same thing as being anti-gay. I don't think there is really much outward hostility toward homosexuals on the streets of FW, but there are plenty of private bigots out there who put on a PC face to their friends, and then vote for those who will make sure gays never have equal rights.

My gay cousin educated me on some things that I never really considered before. After our conversation, my view was totally changed. Consider the following scenario. Some straight folks consider "civil unions" a good/fair/necessary compromise to making gay marriage legal. If you really think about it, what's the difference between a civil union and only being allowed to ride in the back of the bus or segregating schools? They all extend rights without granting equality. Let's consider 1950's laws "allowing" blacks to ride in the back of the bus... that compromise allowed blacks to use public transportation, without granting them the right to sit in the front of the bus... The same types of efforts to side-step full equality resulted in blacks not being able to drink from the same water fountains, or go to the same schools as whites. Now, look at civil unions. They allow gay men/women to be recognized as a legal couple, without granting them all the rights that are afforded to married men and women. Let's consider home ownership for a minute. Two men/women can buy a house together, but it's not the same as when a married man/woman buy a house. Instead, it is looked at as a legal partnership, not joint ownership. Let's say a gay couple has a civil union, buys a house, and shares every aspect of their lives together. Then after 40 years of being together one of them falls ill and has to be hospitalized and can't make medical decisions for themself. The next of kin is not considered the life-partner, but rather the closest blood relative. Legally, the next of kin can ban the life-partner from the hospital visitation and doctors have no requirement to even share the status of that patient with their life-partner. Now, take it a step further... if that person doesn't recover, the "next of kin" could legally ban the life-partner from the funeral, and even collect the inheritance that the life-partner should be entitled to, including the dead's portion or investment in the home partnership. If the person who died, invested more than 50% of the house, then his siblings, for example, could force the life-partner out of the house and/or collect their dead "kin's" percentage of the home. A will doesn't cover the necessary steps to leave inheritance to a life-partner. There are other steps that have to be taken to ensure that a life-partner doesn't have problems with blood relatives stepping in and taking away their home, or making medical decisions on behalf of their partner, or whatever. So, when you hear gay men/women fighting for legalized marriage, they're really fighting for these types of rights... in other words, they are fighting for equal rights.

What is ironic to me, is that many blacks have very strong anti-gay beliefs based on their religious heritage. I think it's ironic that so many black men and women are so oppossed to equal rights for another minority group that is struggling to overcome many of the same discrimination issues that the black race has had to overcome in the last few decades.

Just a little food for thought. I know I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs...

#26 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:41 AM

QUOTE(Willy1 @ Dec 27 2006, 02:23 AM) View Post

A will doesn't cover the necessary steps to leave inheritance to a life-partner.


This isn't actually true. A poorly constructed will might present a challenge, but any competent lawyer can help you direct your estate to whomever you wish for about $150. If you can't afford $150, maybe the estate isn't worth fighting over. I've been involved in estates where entire families have been left out completely in favor of an unrelated third party. Unless the competence of the deceased at the time of the will is called in question, there's not that can be done. The courts have traditionally held incompetence to be a tough thing to prove. The matter might get tied up in probate for a little bit, but a little trust work can get you around most of that too.

However, I agree with you about the civil union issue. My take on it is that the government has no business being involved in marriages. I view a marriage as a primarily religious institution, largely conducted in churches. A marriage, as a religious event/institution, should carry no legal rights at all. I get no additional rights after my for being bar matzvahed, baptized, or confirmed. Why should holy matrimony carry any more benefit? I think the government should grant civil unions to every couple that wants one, and the rights and obligations should be the same for every union. If you're gay and want to get married, go find a minister to marry you. If you want the rights afforded to couples in the eyes of the state, go get a civil union.

Besides, I've never understood why people are so worried about the <1% of couples that are gay corrupting the institution of marriage, when 50% of all marriages fail anyway. The institution is already corrupt, in part because they are granted indiscriminantly by the government. And, the government is in no position to try to correct the corrupted institution because it would probably involve counseling and discernment before the wedding happens. Leave that to ministers, priests, rabbis, whoever. The government should grant civil unions indiscriminantly, and get the hell out of the marriage business.

As for your assertion about it being a republican issue, bah. I don't buy it. People vote for a lot of reasons, and gay marriage is probably not the leading factor in many people's voting. For example, I vote primarily fiscal issues, with some consideration given to the war in the last election. I wouldn't be willing to ignore my fiscal concerns to improve any of the social issues on the table today. Had I been a voter in the 1950's, that may not have been the case (balanced budget, very disturbing social climate affecting a high % of the population).

Once again just using myself as an example becasue I know you haven't accused me personally of anything: just because I didn't actively seek out every pro-gay candidate doesn't make me anti-gay. It doesn't even make me "passively anti-gay". Hell, even if I wanted to vote just for pro-gay candidates, it would have been tough. Except for the far left and far right, nobody advertises their feelings about gay rights. There are too many voters in both parties with a strong anti-gay bias. I know a lot of both democratic and rebuplican biggots, especially in Texas. It's not just a party issue (although the far right has latched on to it as a call to arms). The problem is that I can't vote for two presidents, one pro-gay and one fiscally conservative. I have to choose. I have to weigh the issues and, for me, fiscal canservatism is more important right now. That may not always be the case.

#27 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:57 AM

QUOTE(Willy1 @ Dec 27 2006, 02:23 AM) View Post

What is ironic to me, is that many blacks have very strong anti-gay beliefs based on their religious heritage. I think it's ironic that so many black men and women are so oppossed to equal rights for another minority group that is struggling to overcome many of the same discrimination issues that the black race has had to overcome in the last few decades.

Just a little food for thought. I know I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs...

I totally agree with you Willy1. How can someone fight for the civil and equal rights for one group (or thier own) and then deny openly deny them to another?? Either you're for equality or you're not. The bible is usually the basis blacks use to justify the discrimination imposed on gays, but it is was the same bible that often was used to justify the slavery and discrimination imposed upon blacks.

My mom used to say that elitism, hatred and disrespect for those that don't look, behave, or think the way you do are just part of the human condition. That it's just "what we do" and denying rights to one group satisfies the human need of another to feel superior. And you can't feel superior if everyone has the same rights as you do.

I used to think she was being overly dramatic, but I realize now that she wasn't that far off.

#28 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 27 December 2006 - 12:50 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Dec 27 2006, 09:57 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Willy1 @ Dec 27 2006, 02:23 AM) View Post

What is ironic to me, is that many blacks have very strong anti-gay beliefs based on their religious heritage. I think it's ironic that so many black men and women are so oppossed to equal rights for another minority group that is struggling to overcome many of the same discrimination issues that the black race has had to overcome in the last few decades.

Just a little food for thought. I know I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs...

I totally agree with you Willy1. How can someone fight for the civil and equal rights for one group (or thier own) and then deny openly deny them to another?? Either you're for equality or you're not. The bible is usually the basis blacks use to justify the discrimination imposed on gays, but it is was the same bible that often was used to justify the slavery and discrimination imposed upon blacks.

My mom used to say that elitism, hatred and disrespect for those that don't look, behave, or think the way you do are just part of the human condition. That it's just "what we do" and denying rights to one group satisfies the human need of another to feel superior. And you can't feel superior if everyone has the same rights as you do.

I used to think she was being overly dramatic, but I realize now that she wasn't that far off.


Gayness is not equal to blackness. mad.gif






#29 Dallastar

Dallastar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Location:Dallas White Rock Lake

Posted 27 December 2006 - 01:42 PM


Gayness is not equal to blackness. mad.gif
[/quote]

Thank you Cjyoung, it is very offensive to compare the civil rights movement or the struggles that black people have been through with that of the plight of gay people.

Regardless of what I do, no matter how I dress, or speak, no matter how affluent I become, the first thing you see about me is that I'm black.

My race is not a choice.

I don't know what your racial or or ethnic backgrounds are, but if you don't understand why we get upset, more than likely you are not black.

#30 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE(Dallastar @ Dec 27 2006, 03:42 PM) View Post

My race is not a choice.



Gay people would argue that their sexuality is not a choice.

Now, I am neither gay, nor black. So my opinion on what I think it may be like to be discriminated against is irrelevant. But what about people who are discriminated against based on their religion? Is that more, or less bad than being discriminated against based on race or ethnicity?

#31 Dallastar

Dallastar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Location:Dallas White Rock Lake

Posted 27 December 2006 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Dec 27 2006, 02:52 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Dallastar @ Dec 27 2006, 03:42 PM) View Post

My race is not a choice.



Gay people would argue that their sexuality is not a choice.

Now, I am neither gay, nor black. So my opinion on what I think it may be like to be discriminated against is irrelevant. But what about people who are discriminated against based on their religion? Is that more, or less bad than being discriminated against based on race or ethnicity?


I believe some would argue, that it's what they prefer, I can't say, but the gay people that I do know tell me it's just what they prefer (most of the time they are female who say's this) and for some reason a lot of the one's that I know turn to this because of being hurt or abuse in a relationship, most of the men (3) told me in private that they had been molested. but anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I can't hide the fact that I'm black, but you can hide if you are gay. All of the people that I know that I mentioned above works with me or I went to school with, and nobody else knows. You can't just look at them and tell. They told me because I felt like they needed somebody to talk to, and plus they knew I wouldn't judge them. Even though I don't agree with their lifestyle (my belief) but it doesn't make feel like they are bad people either.

#32 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 27 December 2006 - 03:19 PM

QUOTE(Dallastar @ Dec 27 2006, 03:42 PM) View Post

I don't know what your racial or or ethnic backgrounds are, but if you don't understand why we get upset, more than likely you are not black.

I didn't know race was the only reason equal rights have been denied. The comparison to the civil rights movements is not about color, it's about a group of people being denied rights that are granted to all other Americans.
I personally don't think being gay is a choice. I could be wrong, but so what?? If you make a choice on how to live your life that doesn't affect anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, why should you be denied rights and priviledges enjoyed by all other law-abiding, tax-paying Americans?? Civil rights have been denied to many because of religious preferences. I can choose and change my religious preference as easily as I can choose and change my clothes. I'm sure it would be easier for Muslims (which is religion, not a race) in many part of the country to stop being Muslim. I'm sure they could choose to be something else, but this being America and all, why should they??

Gays have been denied many of the freedoms that blacks have, that is where the comparison is drawn. Americans are promised equal freedom for all, not just those that make choices you agree with.

I'm black and I've never understood why blacks feel we have a patent on discrimination and civil rights

#33 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 27 December 2006 - 04:09 PM

QUOTE(Dallastar @ Dec 27 2006, 05:14 PM) View Post

I believe some would argue, that it's what they prefer, I can't say, but the gay people that I do know tell me it's just what they prefer (most of the time they are female who say's this) and for some reason a lot of the one's that I know turn to this because of being hurt or abuse in a relationship, most of the men (3) told me in private that they had been molested. but anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I can't hide the fact that I'm black, but you can hide if you are gay. All of the people that I know that I mentioned above works with me or I went to school with, and nobody else knows. You can't just look at them and tell. They told me because I felt like they needed somebody to talk to, and plus they knew I wouldn't judge them. Even though I don't agree with their lifestyle (my belief) but it doesn't make feel like they are bad people either.


I can't pick out just the parts of this I want to comment on, so here's the whole rant. First of all, I've never met a gay person who said it was a choice, but I know they are around. My gay friends have all commented on people who say it's a preference and they're belief is generally that these people aren't gay, they're just open minded sexually. On the other hand, I actually know a few gay virgins. That doesn't sound like a sexual preference to me.

Second, would hide the fact that you're black if you could? I doubt it, but I could be wrong. You are who you are. If you're black, other black people know it and at least you know who is in the same position you are in. If you're gay, you can either subject yourself to discrimination, or you can hide. Imagine how much different you're life would be if you had to hide who you are. What if you couldn't find other people to help you figure out why being who you are is considered a bad thing by a lot of ignorant people.

Now I'm not saying that being gay is harder or easier than being black. I'm just saying that if you wouldn't hide that fact that you're black, then the fact that you can't hide it is immaterial. In a sense you are free to be who you are. I don't think that having to choose, in this case, is any great luxury. It may not be worse than having no choice, but it's no picnic either. Like you said:

QUOTE

...and nobody else knows. You can't just look at them and tell. They told me because I felt like they needed somebody to talk to, and plus they knew I wouldn't judge them.


Why do they keep it a secret? The fear of sanction or reprisal for being who you are sounds like a b*tch to me. You hear about kids all the time who would rather run away or even kill themselves than admit to their parents that they are gay. Maybe it happens, but I've never heard of a kid afraid to tell his parents he was black (obviously they know already;) ).

#34 Dallastar

Dallastar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Location:Dallas White Rock Lake

Posted 28 December 2006 - 07:51 AM

Vjack, and Cberen1, I know that this is a highly sensetive issue so I wont comment any further, although I highly respect your opinions and feelings.
I believe that is what make this country great is that we have the freedom to express our feelings and have our own beliefs and opinions.

So now lets get back to bashing each others cities (just kidding) tongue.gif

#35 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 28 December 2006 - 12:16 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Dec 27 2006, 03:19 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Dallastar @ Dec 27 2006, 03:42 PM) View Post

I don't know what your racial or or ethnic backgrounds are, but if you don't understand why we get upset, more than likely you are not black.

I didn't know race was the only reason equal rights have been denied. The comparison to the civil rights movements is not about color, it's about a group of people being denied rights that are granted to all other Americans.
I personally don't think being gay is a choice. I could be wrong, but so what?? If you make a choice on how to live your life that doesn't affect anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, why should you be denied rights and priviledges enjoyed by all other law-abiding, tax-paying Americans?? Civil rights have been denied to many because of religious preferences. I can choose and change my religious preference as easily as I can choose and change my clothes. I'm sure it would be easier for Muslims (which is religion, not a race) in many part of the country to stop being Muslim. I'm sure they could choose to be something else, but this being America and all, why should they??

Gays have been denied many of the freedoms that blacks have, that is where the comparison is drawn. Americans are promised equal freedom for all, not just those that make choices you agree with.

I'm black and I've never understood why blacks feel we have a patent on discrimination and civil rights


It's not about having the "patent." If I were gay and white, I could keep my sexuality private and follow the generic pathway of success and rise the corporate ranks.

I can never hide the fact that I'm black ph34r.gif (unless I'm extremely high yella tongue.gif ). The point on having the ability to hide or not is relevant IMHO because of the fact that so many closet gays have rose to the top ranks of world government and business.



#36 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 28 December 2006 - 01:01 PM

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Dec 28 2006, 02:16 PM) View Post

I can never hide the fact that I'm black ph34r.gif (unless I'm extremely high yella tongue.gif ). The point on having the ability to hide or not is relevant IMHO because of the fact that so many closet gays have rose to the top ranks of world government and business.

Oh I see, so being able to hide who you are really gives gays (white one's anyway) an advantage. So why fight for equal rights when you can just hide your true self and get the job, home, and other priviledges of your straight peers. So like many blacks who were able to "pass" you spend your entire live looking over your shoulder hoping noone finds out who you really are. I'm not sure how many gays who have done this would call it an advantage. I'm sure many would say it's sad that in "free" country that promotes the idea of equality, someone would have to resort to such measures.

#37 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 28 December 2006 - 02:57 PM

Vjackson--one of the best posts that you have ever made.

#38 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 28 December 2006 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Dec 27 2006, 11:41 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Willy1 @ Dec 27 2006, 02:23 AM) View Post

A will doesn't cover the necessary steps to leave inheritance to a life-partner.


This isn't actually true. A poorly constructed will might present a challenge, but any competent lawyer can help you direct your estate to whomever you wish for about $150. If you can't afford $150, maybe the estate isn't worth fighting over. I've been involved in estates where entire families have been left out completely in favor of an unrelated third party. Unless the competence of the deceased at the time of the will is called in question, there's not that can be done. The courts have traditionally held incompetence to be a tough thing to prove. The matter might get tied up in probate for a little bit, but a little trust work can get you around most of that too.

However, I agree with you about the civil union issue. My take on it is that the government has no business being involved in marriages. I view a marriage as a primarily religious institution, largely conducted in churches. A marriage, as a religious event/institution, should carry no legal rights at all. I get no additional rights after my for being bar matzvahed, baptized, or confirmed. Why should holy matrimony carry any more benefit? I think the government should grant civil unions to every couple that wants one, and the rights and obligations should be the same for every union. If you're gay and want to get married, go find a minister to marry you. If you want the rights afforded to couples in the eyes of the state, go get a civil union.

Besides, I've never understood why people are so worried about the <1% of couples that are gay corrupting the institution of marriage, when 50% of all marriages fail anyway. The institution is already corrupt, in part because they are granted indiscriminantly by the government. And, the government is in no position to try to correct the corrupted institution because it would probably involve counseling and discernment before the wedding happens. Leave that to ministers, priests, rabbis, whoever. The government should grant civil unions indiscriminantly, and get the hell out of the marriage business.

As for your assertion about it being a republican issue, bah. I don't buy it. People vote for a lot of reasons, and gay marriage is probably not the leading factor in many people's voting. For example, I vote primarily fiscal issues, with some consideration given to the war in the last election. I wouldn't be willing to ignore my fiscal concerns to improve any of the social issues on the table today. Had I been a voter in the 1950's, that may not have been the case (balanced budget, very disturbing social climate affecting a high % of the population).

Once again just using myself as an example becasue I know you haven't accused me personally of anything: just because I didn't actively seek out every pro-gay candidate doesn't make me anti-gay. It doesn't even make me "passively anti-gay". Hell, even if I wanted to vote just for pro-gay candidates, it would have been tough. Except for the far left and far right, nobody advertises their feelings about gay rights. There are too many voters in both parties with a strong anti-gay bias. I know a lot of both democratic and rebuplican biggots, especially in Texas. It's not just a party issue (although the far right has latched on to it as a call to arms). The problem is that I can't vote for two presidents, one pro-gay and one fiscally conservative. I have to choose. I have to weigh the issues and, for me, fiscal canservatism is more important right now. That may not always be the case.



I may have misrepresented myself a bit here. I agree that biggotry is not a party-related issue. Both parties include biggots, just as both parties contain open minded, accepting people too. The point I was trying to make is simply that most FWians vote republican... which typically supports anti-gay politics. I agree with you that most people do not go to the poles with "let's beat those damn gays" on their mind. But, most people in FW would be very nice to a gay person when they encounter them, yet if they were asked their stance on gay marriage, or whatever... they would probably say they disagree with it... That's what I meant by "passively anti-gay". I also agree that actually finding a pro-gay candidate, other than openly gay politicians, is a tough thing to do... People typically vote for issues that are close to their own belief systems.

We live in a world where shoulda, woulda, coulda doesn't count. Therefore, even though gay issues get a lot of press, they get very little real movement in the political world. If gay people didn't constantly remind the world they are here, then they would probably be fogotten about... Good for them for keeping up the fight for their rights.

#39 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 28 December 2006 - 07:43 PM

Well, this has turned into a very interesting thread that really reflects all the ups/downs that anyone who is denied basic civil rights faces. I was going to quote/reply to a couple of the posts since I poasted my seemingly thought-provoking post... So I'll just hit the high points.

1. The comparison I made between black civil rights and gay rights was not meant to offend anyone who is black. My point really applies to any race or group who has ever been denied civil rights. I simply chose to point out the civil rights struggles of African Americans because they were the last group, before homosexuals, to fight the good fight for equality. Before blacks, jews, women, and many other "minority" groups have had to fight similar fights. My point was simply to point out that the gay minority seems to be one of the last minority groups to be denied equality on such a large scale in this country.

2. Race is not a choice. Sexuality isn't either. If you believe it is (and you are not gay), then ask yourself when exactly (date, age, time, year, or whatever) you chose to be straight. What...? You can't pinpoint the exact day, week, month, or year that you decided to be straight? Hmm, then maybe you're gay? Kidding. But seriously, it's absurd to believe that one group of people get to choose their sexuality and everyone is is just instinctively straight. Either everyone's sexuality is instinctive, or everyone chooses to be either gay or straight. And, since I don't know any straight person who would say "I choose to be straight" that leads me to a very logical conclusion that NO ONE chooses to be gay or straight.

3. There is a huge difference between being gay and being a victim of sexual abuse. Also, all gay people are not child molestors. All sexual absuse victims are not gay. Gay people are normal people who just happen to be gay. That is why they have the choice of hiding their sexuality... because they can. And, they do so because they are threatened or because they want the equality that everyone else enjoys (theoretically).

4. Gayness is not the same as blackness... I agree with that. Black people are born black. Gay people are born gay. Totally different conditions. But, the interesting point here is being missed. That point is, gay people, black people, white people, Native American PEOPLE... they are all PEOPLE - AMERICANS!!!!! And, therefore they should all have the equal right to pursue happiness regardless of race, religion, etc... (see the Constitution for further supporting details) Black people struggled to obtain the rights they have today. In order to achieve that, they had to fight long and hard for those rights. Gay people are just now beginning to really stand up and fight for those types of equalities. So the difference isn't whether or not black or gay is a choice.... but the conditions in which they are forced to live their lives - without equality. Think about this, in the early 50's "society" viewed blacks as second-class citizens and as a result, blacks only had second class rights. Blacks could ride the bus, but not the front of the bus. They could drink out of water fountains, but not the same fountains as whites. The list of inequalities goes on and on. Flash forward 50 years and here we are. The players are different, the situation is different, and the circumstances are a bit different... but the one common denominator is that a group of AMERICANS is being denied the basic rights that others have. What's scary... there are people who want to change the constitution to ensure those people never have a chance at having equality. Has the constitution ever been changed to make sure a group doesn't have equal rights?

5. Having to hide who you are to achieve success in the corporate world, the military, the sports world, or any world... that, by definition, is not freedom. And, that's just one of the reasons that people hide being gay. So, it could be argued from that point, that not only are gays being denied their equal rights, but also their freedom!

6. I think this is one of the best and most thought- provoking threads on this this site. Whodathunk!

#40 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 29 December 2006 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE(Willy1 @ Dec 28 2006, 09:43 PM) View Post


2. Race is not a choice. Sexuality isn't either. If you believe it is (and you are not gay), then ask yourself when exactly (date, age, time, year, or whatever) you chose to be straight. What...? You can't pinpoint the exact day, week, month, or year that you decided to be straight? Hmm, then maybe you're gay? Kidding. But seriously, it's absurd to believe that one group of people get to choose their sexuality and everyone is is just instinctively straight. Either everyone's sexuality is instinctive, or everyone chooses to be either gay or straight. And, since I don't know any straight person who would say "I choose to be straight" that leads me to a very logical conclusion that NO ONE chooses to be gay or straight.


If you believe the results from the famous (or infamous) Kinsey Institute's sexuality study, Dr. Alfred Kinsey believed that if you could measure human sexuality on a scale, totally heterosexual being a 1 and totally homosexual being a 10, most people would fall somewhere in the middle. unsure.gif

Questioning the validity of his claim might make many of us ask questions we might not want to know the answers to. laugh.gif

#41 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 29 December 2006 - 09:51 AM

I did a research report on gender-identity development for my senior pysch thesis in college. THIRTY years ago, they had identiified the genetic code that determined homosexuality in men...THIRTY years ago! One is conceived with both sexes and then one set of chromosomes becomes dominant...I don't remember, but it's like women are XY XY, and men are XY XX. (I do remembber that one of the researchers last name was Money.) When one of the second pairs of X's gets overtaken by a Y...or something to that efffect, voila. As one of my gay co-workers said to me once, "Why would I have chosen a path with such misery if I had a choice?"

As for some lesbians I have known, however, I think choice may be more an issue. I think that's especially true for the ones who go back and forth between men and women.

#42 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 30 December 2006 - 01:56 AM

QUOTE(redhead @ Dec 29 2006, 11:51 AM) View Post

I did a research report on gender-identity development for my senior pysch thesis in college. THIRTY years ago, they had identiified the genetic code that determined homosexuality in men...THIRTY years ago! One is conceived with both sexes and then one set of chromosomes becomes dominant...I don't remember, but it's like women are XY XY, and men are XY XX. (I do remembber that one of the researchers last name was Money.) When one of the second pairs of X's gets overtaken by a Y...or something to that efffect, voila. As one of my gay co-workers said to me once, "Why would I have chosen a path with such misery if I had a choice?"

As for some lesbians I have known, however, I think choice may be more an issue. I think that's especially true for the ones who go back and forth between men and women.


^^^ Anne Heiche anyone?

#43 jwodae

jwodae

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:01 AM

Another point: some argue that if gays are allowed to marry, then can I marry my dog or my tree? The definition in Canada, which won't hurt to look at, is that marriage is union between two consenting adults.


PS. Here's some interesting results from ballot measure of Nov 2005 in Texas.

In general 24% of Texas residents voted against the gay marriage ban. Dallas county was 34%, Houston/HARRIS 28%, TRAVIS county 60%, BEXAR31%. And TARRANT county was only 23%, lower than state average, so I wouldn't call Tarrant county gay neutral... though we don't have FW numbers here.




#44 jwodae

jwodae

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:07 AM

QUOTE(Willy1 @ Dec 27 2006, 01:23 AM) View Post

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Dec 26 2006, 12:11 PM) View Post

I would describe FW as "gay neutral". The gay people I know in the city are a lot like most other people I know in the city, a little understated. I've never seen a strong pro or anti homosexual vibe. Dallas, on the other hand, does have some great gay pockets. It's also got plenty of conservatives (read: anti-gay), too. It's a good thing the city is large enough to give everyone their space.


I don't think you see the pro or anti gay vibes in FWian's actions, not usually anyway, but rather in their political affiliations. I would agree that many FWians are gay-neutral but this town still has plenty of red necks and extreme conservatives too! I think the correct term for FWian's stance on homosexuality might be more along the lines of "passively anti-gay" because, when they go to the poles, they mostly vote republican... And, as we have learned in the past few years, that is almost the same thing as being anti-gay. I don't think there is really much outward hostility toward homosexuals on the streets of FW, but there are plenty of private bigots out there who put on a PC face to their friends, and then vote for those who will make sure gays never have equal rights.

My gay cousin educated me on some things that I never really considered before. After our conversation, my view was totally changed. Consider the following scenario. Some straight folks consider "civil unions" a good/fair/necessary compromise to making gay marriage legal. If you really think about it, what's the difference between a civil union and only being allowed to ride in the back of the bus or segregating schools? They all extend rights without granting equality. Let's consider 1950's laws "allowing" blacks to ride in the back of the bus... that compromise allowed blacks to use public transportation, without granting them the right to sit in the front of the bus... The same types of efforts to side-step full equality resulted in blacks not being able to drink from the same water fountains, or go to the same schools as whites. Now, look at civil unions. They allow gay men/women to be recognized as a legal couple, without granting them all the rights that are afforded to married men and women. Let's consider home ownership for a minute. Two men/women can buy a house together, but it's not the same as when a married man/woman buy a house. Instead, it is looked at as a legal partnership, not joint ownership. Let's say a gay couple has a civil union, buys a house, and shares every aspect of their lives together. Then after 40 years of being together one of them falls ill and has to be hospitalized and can't make medical decisions for themself. The next of kin is not considered the life-partner, but rather the closest blood relative. Legally, the next of kin can ban the life-partner from the hospital visitation and doctors have no requirement to even share the status of that patient with their life-partner. Now, take it a step further... if that person doesn't recover, the "next of kin" could legally ban the life-partner from the funeral, and even collect the inheritance that the life-partner should be entitled to, including the dead's portion or investment in the home partnership. If the person who died, invested more than 50% of the house, then his siblings, for example, could force the life-partner out of the house and/or collect their dead "kin's" percentage of the home. A will doesn't cover the necessary steps to leave inheritance to a life-partner. There are other steps that have to be taken to ensure that a life-partner doesn't have problems with blood relatives stepping in and taking away their home, or making medical decisions on behalf of their partner, or whatever. So, when you hear gay men/women fighting for legalized marriage, they're really fighting for these types of rights... in other words, they are fighting for equal rights.

What is ironic to me, is that many blacks have very strong anti-gay beliefs based on their religious heritage. I think it's ironic that so many black men and women are so oppossed to equal rights for another minority group that is struggling to overcome many of the same discrimination issues that the black race has had to overcome in the last few decades.

Just a little food for thought. I know I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs...



Bravo... This is well-put. I am sure you will change someone's beliefs so that that one more person will die less ignorant. Thank you.

Some of my coworkers loved King Kong but hated that cowboy movie... I said wait a minute, you don't have problems with King Kong loving that girl, but hate two guys in love? At least the latter is love between two human beings!!! I love both movies btw. rotflmao.gif

#45 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:59 AM

I say that if ALL that inheritance matter and hospital status scenario along with other issues are so important in a gay (or any) relationship, THEN LEGALY BIND AN AGREEMENT and take care of those issues beforehand or at the beginning of ANY serious relationship, so as to better create a clear understanding of those "rights" or requests upon an unexpected death. Anyone can draw up a legally executed will and get it notorized.

What's the BIG deal here? dry.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#46 hooked

hooked

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 09:21 AM

QUOTE(safly @ Jan 10 2007, 12:59 AM) View Post

I say that if ALL that inheritance matter and hospital status scenario along with other issues are so important in a gay (or any) relationship, THEN LEGALY BIND AN AGREEMENT and take care of those issues beforehand or at the beginning of ANY serious relationship, so as to better create a clear understanding of those "rights" or requests upon an unexpected death. Anyone can draw up a legally executed will and get it notorized.

What's the BIG deal here? dry.gif


It's VERY, VERY dangerous to attempt to draft your own will or other estate planning documents, especially if your desires could be considered "out of the ordinary" or "unusual." Pay the money and get a lawyer to do it right.

Perhaps just as important (especially for gay and lesbian partners) are Medical Powers of Attorney and Powers of Attorney for business and financial affairs. If these documents are not prepared and signed IN ADVANCE OF NEED, the law specifies that family members have the authority to act on behalf of an incapacitated person.

Texas law is very specific with regard to the language that must be used in drafting estate planning documents, and in the requirements for valid execution (signing). Trying to save a few hundred dollars in legal fees is just plain silly cnsidering the importance of the issues involved.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that doing this type of work is how I buy my groceries. biggrin.gif

#47 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 10 January 2007 - 09:47 AM

Dallas has really been courting gay visitors lately. I love the new slogan: DALLAS, THE SECRET IS OUT!!!

#48 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:48 PM

QUOTE(hooked @ Jan 10 2007, 09:21 AM) View Post
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that doing this type of work is how I buy my groceries. biggrin.gif


I didn't even know TBLS had a specialization in gay issues.


#49 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:33 PM

I don't think it is very difficult or DANGEROUS at all to create your own will. Just place an "out of the ordinary" or "unusual" waiver/clause in the language and you are set to express how you want business handled and agreed upon for the future. smile.gif

But a lawyer can help.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#50 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 11 January 2007 - 01:03 AM

QUOTE(safly @ Jan 10 2007, 02:59 AM) View Post

I say that if ALL that inheritance matter and hospital status scenario along with other issues are so important in a gay (or any) relationship, THEN LEGALY BIND AN AGREEMENT and take care of those issues beforehand or at the beginning of ANY serious relationship, so as to better create a clear understanding of those "rights" or requests upon an unexpected death. Anyone can draw up a legally executed will and get it notorized.

What's the BIG deal here? dry.gif



You are totally missing the point. It's not about inheritance or medical decisions - those were just illustrations to show how gay people don't have equal rights. This is the United States of America. Home of the Free. We're all supossed to be free to pursue our individual happiness here in this land of democracy and equality. Yet somehow we still have an entire sector of our society that is treated like second-class citizens who don't have the same rights as everyone else. It is that same "what's the big deal" mentality that kept blacks segregated, women from voting and all sorts of other discriminatory actions in this country's history! And, we have people who are actually trying to amend our Constitution just to deny the rights of one group of people! (I thought Sadam Hussein was dead!)

And, the argument about binding things legally before anything happens is lame. Sure on the surface it seems like an easy fix. But, gay people, like straight people, date around before settling down. And, you make it sound like all medical situations come with a 90 day warning. Are you seriously telling me that you believe that all gay people should have to draw up legal documents JUST IN CASE there is a medical emergency? Come on.

Let's be realistic about it... Let's say a straight guy has been dating his girlfriend for 5 years, but they're young and haven't gotten to the point in their life that they want to get married. Now, one day, there is a horrible accident and he is suddenly on life support at Harris... His girlfriend isn't going to be denied the right to see him in the hospital... not by the staff and not by his family. Now, let's imagine another very common scenario. A wealthy gay guy has a bf that he's been with for 5 years, but they too are young and not quite ready for life-long committments either. Then there is an accident, and he's on life support... In rushes the family who hasn't spoken to him in years because he's gay and they hate homo's. This is the same family who hates his boyfriend because he "turned" their "love one" gay. And it's the same family who has now instructed the hospital to not let his bf see him, and not to inform the bf of his condition or include his bf of 5 years in any medical decisions. Now, let's take it a step further... he dies. Now, the family who hated him for being gay has locked the bf of 5 years out of HIS OWN home that he shared with their "beloved" son because they were the next of kin and the young man didn't have an updated will naming his bf the benefactor of everything....

Here is where the problem starts. The girl could have run out and gotten married and solved all problems. She becomes the next of kin and upon her husbands death, everything is hers. On the other hand, the bf has to spend thousands on legal documents, which can probably be challenged in court, and in the end might be over turned if the state he lives in doesn't recognize same sex unions/marriages, or even worse, still has laws on the books against homosexuality.

You're right about one thing - a legally binding document MIGHT be able to solve this problem. But, at this point, it's about the principal of the matter. This is America. It's 2007, not 1955! And, in this day and age, people shouldn't have to go pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to draw up legal documents that give them the same rights as everyone else. They should just have the same rights as all other Americans. Period. IMO, this is a black and white issue. Either people support everyone having equal rights in America, or they support discrimination.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users