First Gay marriage at West Point

[4a6c1]

West Point chapel hosts its first same-sex wedding

WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) — Cadet Chapel, the landmark Gothic church that is a center for spiritual life at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, hosted its first same-sex wedding Saturday.

Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, exchanged vows in the regal church in an afternoon ceremony, attended by about 250 guests and conducted by a senior Army chaplain.

The two have been together for 17 years. They had a civil commitment ceremony that didn't carry any legal force in 1999 and had long hoped to formally tie the knot. The way was cleared last year, when New York legalized same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama lifted the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

The brides both live in New Jersey and would have preferred to have the wedding there, but the state doesn't allow gay marriage.

"We just couldn't wait any longer," Fulton told The Associated Press in a phone interview Saturday.

Cadet Chapel was a more-than-adequate second choice, she said.

"It has a tremendous history, and it is beautiful. That's where I first heard and said the cadet prayer," Fulton said, referring to the invocation that says, "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won."

The ceremony was the second same-sex wedding at West Point. Last weekend, two of Fulton's friends, a young lieutenant and her partner, were married in another campus landmark, the small Old Cadet Chapel in West Point's cemetery.

Fulton has campaigned against the ban on gays in the military as a member of two groups representing gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen. She graduated from West Point in 1980, a member of the first class to include women.

She served with the Army Signal Corps in Germany and rose to the rank of captain, but left the service in 1986 partly because she wanted to be open about her sexual orientation. Obama appointed her last year to the U.S. Military Academy's Board of Visitors.

Fulton said the only hassle involved in arranging her ceremony came when she was initially told that none of West Point's chaplains was authorized by his or her denomination to perform same-sex weddings.

Luckily, Fulton said, they were able to call on a friend, Army Chaplain Col. J. Wesley Smith. He is the senior Army chaplain at Dover Air Force Base, where he presides over the solemn ceremonies held when the bodies of soldiers killed in action overseas return to U.S. soil.

The couple added other military trappings to their wedding, including a tradition called the saber arch, where officers or cadets hold their swords aloft over the newlyweds as they emerge from the church.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/west-point-chapel-hosts-first-same-sex-wedding-185326592.html

Awesome!

[Kastrel]

Nice! Glad to see this.

[Tgo01]

Are they trying to cause an earthquake?!

[4a6c1]

Are they trying to cause an earthquake?!

Sandy missed West Point apparently.

[Sad American]

Just out of curiosity, when did homosexuality become a celebrated culture instead of just a sexual act or preference?

[Parkbandit]

Just out of curiosity, when did homosexuality become a celebrated culture instead of just a sexual act or preference?

When someone figured out how to make a political voting block out of another segment of our population.

[Sad American]

When someone figured out how to make a political voting block out of another segment of our population.

I think there is quite a bit more to it than just that, but I get your point. I think a recent survey showed that only around 3% of the population identified themselves as being 'gay.' I think this also included bi-sexual, transgender, etc. It's just interesting that much of the news revolves around this topic when it is such a minority.

[msconstrew]

I think there is quite a bit more to it than just that, but I get your point. I think a recent survey showed that only around 3% of the population identified themselves as being 'gay.' I think this also included bi-sexual, transgender, etc. It's just interesting that much of the news revolves around this topic when it is such a minority.

It's because they are a minority that so much of the news is dedicated to this issue. It's an equality issue and a civil rights issue (on the one hand) and a religious issue (on the other hand). Anything that encompasses those two larger categories is going to receive a lot of attention, and deservedly so.

I took a look and, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Great_Migration_and_Civil_Rights_ Movement), African Americans made up approximately 10% of th total US population at the time of the Civil Rights movement. So, quite a minority (though not as low as 3%), and I doubt you'd ask what all the fuss is about regarding issues like miscegenation.

[Sad American]

It's because they are a minority that so much of the news is dedicated to this issue. It's an equality issue and a civil rights issue (on the one hand) and a religious issue (on the other hand). Anything that encompasses those two larger categories is going to receive a lot of attention, and deservedly so.

Many black people have a problem with the civil rights movement being equated to the gay rights movement.

You have a point though about why it is a hot button issue. What are homosexuals trying to achieve? Is it simply marriage equality or is it having a wide acceptance in the culture of homosexual activity? To many people homosexuality is unacceptable, as they view it to being an affront to nature and the intention of God. Homosexuals are certainly not to be second class citizens or discriminated against as blacks were in the previous century. The free speech of those who do not believe in that particular lifestyle should not be inhibited either.

[Gweneivia]

I thought my marriage felt a little rocky on Saturday. This explains so much!

[msconstrew]

Many black people have a problem with the civil rights movement being equated to the gay rights movement.

You have a point though about why it is a hot button issue. What are homosexuals trying to achieve? Is it simply marriage equality or is it having a wide acceptance in the culture of homosexual activity? To many people homosexuality is unacceptable, as they view it to being an affront to nature and the intention of God. Homosexuals are certainly not to be second class citizens or discriminated against as blacks were in the previous century. The free speech of those who do not believe in that particular lifestyle should not be inhibited either.

Did it sound like I was trying to inhibit free speech?

I am not an expert on the homosexual "movement", but gay marriage concerns marriage equality. One side effect of achieving such equality is probably wider acceptance of gays, but I doubt it's the primary or even secondary rationale.

[Sad American]

No, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to inhibit free speech, although you can see different movements trying to accomplish that.

[msconstrew]

No, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to inhibit free speech, although you can see different movements trying to accomplish that.

From my point of view, they should be able to say whatever they want. It will only have the ultimate net effect of alienating people who find the archaic attitude offensive, bigoted, and unacceptable.

[Nattor]

Does anyone object to marriage for any reason except religion?

[Sad American]

Does anyone object to marriage for any reason except religion?

Well, I've heard of atheists against gay marriage for reasons due to their belief in Darwinian evolution. Their reason against gay marriage being that it is unnatural since it doesn't promote propagation of the species. These people are most likely a minority group. Some people, who are not necessarily 'religious' have an aversion to it because they see it as 'gross.' There are also those who think it is morally wrong without believing or holding any major religion, although this idea is kind of curious, considering the origin of morality, which is another topic for debate.

Here is an article that I found (not that I really am trying to promote) that can kind of explain the position for the secular case against gay marriage.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

[Warriorbird]

Libertarians who stop related to homosexuality are sad. Citing freep is about as acceptable as citing Daily Kos.

[Sad American]

Libertarians who stop related to homosexuality are sad. Citing freep is about as acceptable as citing Daily Kos.

Your first sentence I read about 5 times and still can't understand. Can you explain what you meant differently? I was just trying to show that the view of a secular position against homosexuality exists. The source is irrelevant.

[Warriorbird]

Your first sentence I read about 5 times and still can't understand. I was just trying to show that the view of a secular position against homosexuality exists. The source is irrelevant.

From a website with so much conservative bias that even Republicans consider it unacceptable. That's even ignoring the mindbogglingly stupid argument. Are straight married people that don't procreate bad people and undeserving of marriage? No.

[Sad American]

From a website with so much conservative bias that even Republicans consider it unacceptable.

Ah, I see. Well I wasn't trying to necessarily 'promote' the conservative principle on the matter in this situation. I've actually never been to dailykos or freerepublic to form ideology, if you can believe that. :grin:

[diethx]

I thought my marriage felt a little rocky on Saturday. This explains so much!

LOL

[msconstrew]

The source is irrelevant.

Source is always relevant. If a source has no credibility, then its content is the thing that's irrelevant.

[Sad American]

I didn't mean that it is irrelevant totally, I meant it was irrelevant in regards to his concern about what was presented in the article, which is, an explanation of the view of a secular individual being against gay marriage. It was just a link to prove the fact that these individuals do exist, not necessarily that their view is something that should be adhered to by all of society.

[Sad American]

Are straight married people that don't procreate bad people and undeserving of marriage? No.

That is actually a point in the article.

[Allereli]

social conservatives, religious and generally ignorant people believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The equality movement believes that people are born into their sexual/gender nature, have no control over this factor, and should not be denied the rights that come with marriage because of this. Benefits vary by state, but there are 1,100 federal benefits/legal protections that come with marriage, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance, parenting, and healthcare. It's not insignificant. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm)

I wouldn't call it celebrated, I'd call it accepted. I thought the choice vs. nature argument should be pointed out in a discussion about gay marriage.

[Sad American]

Benefits vary by state, but there are 1,100 federal benefits/legal protections that come with marriage, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance, parenting, and healthcare. It's not insignificant. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm)

I wouldn't call it celebrated, I'd call it accepted. I thought the choice vs. nature argument should be pointed out in a discussion about gay marriage.

Good point, and I want to point out the hospital visitation rights issue because I have had personal experience with this. I have never, in my experience, seen a person denied visitation rights at a hospital based on their relationship status to the patient. We let countless individuals who are in homosexual relationships see their significant others in the area I work. It's not like we stop them at the door and say, "Woah, woah, woah! I can tell you're one of them gays so uh, get outta here!"

Homosexuals can also make their significant other the Power of Attorney fairly easy, allowing them to make all health-care decision rights if they are incapacitated or unable to do so. Now other matters of federal and state benefits apply in many cases. I've just found that the 'Hospital visitation rights' to be a straw man argument not based on reality.

[WRoss]

Just out of curiosity, when did homosexuality become a celebrated culture instead of just a sexual act or preference?

As someone who went to West Point and has hundreds of associates who also went there, this is such a historic event that this is the first I've heard of it.

[msconstrew]

Homosexuals can also make their significant other the Power of Attorney fairly easy, allowing them to make all health-care decision rights if they are incapacitated or unable to do so. Now other matters of federal and state benefits apply in many cases. I've just found that the 'Hospital visitation rights' to be a straw man argument not based on reality.

1) Your personal experience doesn't invalidate the argument. I'm sure if you used Google you could find countless stories showing the exact opposite. Though I have no issue with using personal anecdotes to state your personal experience (and that's all it is, really), your personal experience is a drop in the bucket of actual experience. And calling it a strawman argument just makes it seem like you think your personal experience is the sine qua non of how homosexuals are treated in a healthcare setting.

2) Gay people shouldn't have to obtain a Healthcare Power of Attorney in order to make healthcare choices for their loved ones. Do I have to obtain a Power of Attorney to do so for my husband? No, because I am his next of kin. Arguing that homosexuals can do something that straight people can do, if only homosexuals will put in that little bit of extra effort, merely reinforces the point that they are treated unequally.

[Allereli]

Good point, and I want to point out the hospital visitation rights issue because I have had personal experience with this. I have never, in my experience, seen a person denied visitation rights at a hospital based on their relationship status to the patient. We let countless individuals who are in homosexual relationships see their significant others in the area I work. It's not like we stop them at the door and say, "Woah, woah, woah! I can tell you're one of them gays so uh, get outta here!"

Homosexuals can also make their significant other the Power of Attorney fairly easy, allowing them to make all health-care decision rights if they are incapacitated or unable to do so. Now other matters of federal and state benefits apply in many cases. I've just found that the 'Hospital visitation rights' to be a straw man argument not based on reality.

my aunt and her former partner went through the power of attorney process. It cost them a small fortune and she said it just wasn't the same as being accepted by the state/country, there could always be someone who could challenge it, and the party should cost what they spent on it, not the legal process. I see articles all the time of hospitals, especially religion-based ones, denying visitation rights.


In 2010, the federal Department of Health and Human Services issued rules that require hospitals participating in Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, and Medicare, the health program for seniors, to allow patients to choose who can visit and how often.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/truth-test-misleading-statement-fails-to-cite-change-in-policy_2012-07-08.html

A good reason why it's not seen as often as it used to be, but hospitals (mainly religious) are still doing this. Here's a non-religious hospital story from August in Nevada, you can see all the issues tie together and why power of attorney and the status of "domestic partner" is not enough.

http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2012/08/20/13376356-when-domestic-partnership-is-not-enough-same-sex-couple-in-nevada-denied-hospital-visitation-rights-despite-their-legal-union

[Sad American]

1) Your personal experience doesn't invalidate the argument. I'm sure if you used Google you could find countless stories showing the exact opposite. Though I have no issue with using personal anecdotes to state your personal experience (and that's all it is, really), your personal experience is a drop in the bucket of actual experience. And calling it a strawman argument just makes it seem like you think your personal experience is the sine qua non of how homosexuals are treated in a healthcare setting.

Yes it's anecdotal, I admit to that. Maybe this was more of a shared experience years ago (being denied visitation), but I just can't imagine it happening on a wide scale now to where it would be one of the major issues for legalizing gay marriage.

Power of attorney is a good idea for everyone who wants to ensure that a particular person has all authority over their healthcare decisions. I've seen disagreements come to head and families influence decisions that have not necessarily been in the best interest of the patient or the wishes of the spouse.

[Sad American]

I have to admit, that article really surprise me. I wonder if it often occurs because the patient is estranged from their family and then the family doesn't want their significant other present. I would have to believe that this is the case in most of the circumstances where someone is prohibited. Family dynamics, gotta love em. :-)

[msconstrew]

I have to admit, those articles really surprise me. I wonder if it often occurs because the patient is estranged from their family and then the family doesn't want their significant other present. I would have to believe that this is the case in most of the circumstances where someone is prohibited. Family dynamics, gotta love em. :-)

In my experience (meaning professional experience), this happens a lot more often than you think. Someone's bigoted mother shouldn't be allowed to keep their chosen life partner from visiting them in the hospital, nor from making healthcare decisions.

Everyone should have a power of attorney, I agree. Everyone should also have a will and an end of life plan and indicate whether they are organ donors and talk to their doctors about heroic measures. Doesn't always happen. And those documents have about as much power as the paper they're written on; if someone wants to challenge them, they certainly can.

[Sad American]

And those documents have about as much power as the paper they're written on; if someone wants to challenge them, they certainly can.

No kidding. Ever heard of Terri Schiavo? Heh.

[Back]

No kidding. Ever heard of Terry Schiavo? Heh.

Yeah, that was a farce. Republicans stopped congress to try and save a brain dead woman.

[msconstrew]

No kidding. Ever heard of Terri Schiavo? Heh.

Yeah, I have. Unfortunately the difference between what I'm talking about and the Schiavo case is that Schiavo never memorialized her wishes if she ended up in a vegetative state. Consequently, her husband (who stated that she wanted to be taken off of life support) and her family (who stated that she'd want to continue existing) had very different positions in the matter, and without a memorialized statement from Ms. Schiavo the court had to hold evidentiary hearings on the issue. So there was no piece of paper to disregard or challenge in that particular case.

[Methais]

From a website with so much conservative bias that even Republicans consider it unacceptable. That's even ignoring the mindbogglingly stupid argument. Are straight married people that don't procreate bad people and undeserving of marriage? No.

Stop gaying up this thread.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/272BB3B1-636D-4262-8CA6-88E141EA9DA3-6430-00000733F3C0F790.jpg

Also, gay Divorce Court on TV please.

[Warriorbird]

Stop gaying up this thread.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/272BB3B1-636D-4262-8CA6-88E141EA9DA3-6430-00000733F3C0F790.jpg

Also, gay Divorce Court on TV please.

I heard that posting One Direction and Justin Bieber pics? Pretty gay.

Please. Come be our token.

[Methais]

I heard that posting One Direction and Justin Bieber pics? Pretty gay.

Please. Come be our token.

You forgot Freddy Mercury.

Clearly you're gay, but not homosexual.

[Warriorbird]

Good point, and I want to point out the hospital visitation rights issue because I have had personal experience with this. I have never, in my experience, seen a person denied visitation rights at a hospital based on their relationship status to the patient. We let countless individuals who are in homosexual relationships see their significant others in the area I work. It's not like we stop them at the door and say, "Woah, woah, woah! I can tell you're one of them gays so uh, get outta here!"

Homosexuals can also make their significant other the Power of Attorney fairly easy, allowing them to make all health-care decision rights if they are incapacitated or unable to do so. Now other matters of federal and state benefits apply in many cases. I've just found that the 'Hospital visitation rights' to be a straw man argument not based on reality.

It's entertaining how you're for equality for all "individuals" except homosexuals.

[WRoss]

Here's a fun and somewhat relevant fact:

When women were first admitted to West Point, they had to shave their heads just like the men did. This lasted for all of the 8 weeks of basic training until an officer walked in on a male and female cadet fornicating. He thought it was two male cadets going at it because of the shaved heads. Shortly after that, women were allowed to grow their hair out longer. And since there had never been a need for rules about having sex on campus, they just went ahead and banned it completely.

[Warriorbird]

You forgot Freddy Mercury.

Clearly you're gay, but not homosexual.

There's nothing gay about posting Freddy Mercury pictures. To say so would be gay. The Jonas Brothers were merely unworthy of mention.

[Back]

Also, gay Divorce Court on TV please.

That right there should be reason enough to support gay marriage. Imagine the revenue from Gay Divorce Court, a whole new slew of shows for Jerry Springer, Gay Housewives, and on and on.

[Sad American]

Here's a fun and somewhat relevant fact:

When women were first admitted to West Point, they had to shave their heads just like the men did. This lasted for all of the 8 weeks of basic training until an officer walked in on a male and female cadet fornicating. He thought it was two male cadets going at it because of the shaved heads. Shortly after that, women were allowed to grow their hair out longer. And since there had never been a need for rules about having sex on campus, they just went ahead and banned it completely.

Boys will be boys.

[Showal]

I think there is quite a bit more to it than just that, but I get your point. I think a recent survey showed that only around 3% of the population identified themselves as being 'gay.' I think this also included bi-sexual, transgender, etc. It's just interesting that much of the news revolves around this topic when it is such a minority.

A 3% minority with family and friends who legitimately care about the rights and discrimination of the 3% minority strangely grows into more than 3% you cited. Do you really think that the population that identifies themselves as gay are the only people who would care about this issue?

[Sad American]

A 3% minority with family and friends who legitimately care about the rights and discrimination of the 3% minority strangely grows into more than 3% you cited. Do you really think that the population that identifies themselves as gay are the only people who would care about this issue?

No, I do not think that.

[Tgo01]

I really don't understand why when someone is murdered it makes the news. I mean that one person represents what, .0000001% of the population? Craziness.

[WRoss]

I really don't understand why when someone is murdered it makes the news. I mean that one person represents what, .0000001% of the population? Craziness.

I really don't understand why the only black and/or Hispanic murders/suicides to make the news are athletes, actors, and music stars.

[Warriorbird]

That right there should be reason enough to support gay marriage. Imagine the revenue from Gay Divorce Court, a whole new slew of shows for Jerry Springer, Gay Housewives, and on and on.

Good Back posts are worth saving.

[Allereli]

Gay Divorce Court would be a fantastic show

edit: so would Gay Four Weddings

[Latrinsorm]

Just out of curiosity, when did homosexuality become a celebrated culture instead of just a sexual act or preference?When enough people realized what dicks they were being by denigrating it.

There's also a not insignificant petty pleasure in being on the winning side of history. Consider the difference between getting a laugh in high school by calling someone a faggot and being the backwards old grandfather cracking nigger jokes to resounding silence.

[Showal]

When enough people realized what dicks they were being by denigrating it.

There's also a not insignificant petty pleasure in being on the winning side of history. Consider the difference between getting a laugh in high school by calling someone a faggot and being the backwards old grandfather cracking nigger jokes to resounding silence.

When all is said and done, do gays get to keep the word 'faggot' for themselves?

[Sad American]

When enough people realized what dicks they were being by denigrating it.

There's also a not insignificant petty pleasure in being on the winning side of history. Consider the difference between getting a laugh in high school by calling someone a faggot and being the backwards old grandfather cracking nigger jokes to resounding silence.

No one should be subject to personal insults on that level. Insults aside, there has been quite a progression from it being so quiet in society to the point where it is now.

[msconstrew]

When all is said and done, do gays get to keep the word 'faggot' for themselves?

When all is said and done, "faggot" will revert back to its original, non-gay-affiliated definition (a bundle of sticks).

[Latrinsorm]

No one should be subject to personal insults on that level. Insults aside, there has been quite a progression from it being so quiet in society to the point where it is now.I am of two minds on the level of progress. We do have four (4) openly GLBT members of Congress, but two problems there: even if you buy 3%, 3% of 535 is a lot bigger than 4; only half of the 4 can be legally married in the states they represent. We also have zero (0) openly GLBT sports figures currently in the big 3 leagues, made up of over three thousand men. For all the fines levied and ad campaigns, gay-bashing language is no less pandemic. One of our two political parties made it part of their platform (http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/) to work against civil rights and were given control of the House of Representatives.

It is like Gandhi said: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win... but we're in the fight phase now, and it's stupid, myopic, pointless, and shitty.

[ClydeR]

Just out of curiosity, when did homosexuality become a celebrated culture instead of just a sexual act or preference?

Have you been in a coma for the last 43 years?

[ClydeR]

Today’s babies are tomorrow’s taxpayers and workers and entrepreneurs, and relatively youthful populations speed economic growth and keep spending commitments affordable. Thanks to our relative demographic dynamism, the America of 50 years hence may not only have more workers per retiree than countries like Japan and Germany, but also have more than emerging powers like China and Brazil.

If, that is, our dynamism persists. But that’s no longer a sure thing. American fertility plunged with the stock market in 2008, and it hasn’t recovered. Last week, the Pew Research Center reported that U.S. birthrates hit the lowest rate ever recorded in 2011, with just 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. (The rate was 71 per 1,000 in 1990.) For the first time in recent memory, Americans are having fewer babies than the French or British.

More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-birthrate-and-americas-future.html)

That's why it matters. If you let homosexuals get married, then everybody else will stop getting married and our birth rate will decline.

[Showal]

That's why it matters. If you let homosexuals get married, then everybody else will stop getting married and our birth rate will decline.

I have never actually thought about this. Very good contribution, Clyde. I say ban gays.

[Nathala Crane]

That's why it matters. If you let homosexuals get married, then everybody else will stop getting married and our birth rate will decline.

"Hey guys, I heard only married couples have babies."

[Methais]

"Hey guys, I heard only married couples have babies."

Incorrect.

Only gay married couples have babies.

[Nathala Crane]

Incorrect.

Only gay married couples have babies.

Friggin' storks.

[Tgo01]

Wait wait wait, couples have babies?

[Methais]

Wait wait wait, couples have babies?

Only women do, but men should have the right to have babies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUBAx8jbYNs

[ClydeR]

This is part of a long article about how single people voted overwhelmingly for Obama and accounted for a significant part of margin of victory..


How did we get to an America where half of the adult population isn’t married and somewhere between 10 percent and 15 percent of the population don’t get married for the first time until they’re approaching retirement? It’s a complicated story involving, among other factors, the rise of almost-universal higher education, the delay of marriage, urbanization, the invention of no-fault divorce, the legitimization of cohabitation, the increasing cost of raising children, and the creation of a government entitlement system to do for the elderly childless what grown children did for their parents through the millennia.

But all of these causes are particular. Looming beneath them are two deep shifts. The first is the waning of religion in American life. As Joel Kotkin notes in a recent report titled “The Rise of Post-Familialism,” one of the commonalities between all of the major world religions is that they elevate family and kinship to a central place in human existence. Secularism tends toward agnosticism about the family. This distinction has real-world consequences. Take any cohort of Americans?—?by race, income, education?—?and then sort them by religious belief. The more devout they are, the higher their rates of marriage and the more children they have.

The second shift is the dismantling of the iron triangle of sex, marriage, and childbearing. Beginning in roughly 1970, the mastery of contraception decoupled sex from babymaking. And with that link broken, the connections between sex and marriage?—?and finally between marriage and childrearing?—?were severed, too.

Where is this trend line headed? In a word, higher. There are no indicators to suggest when and where it will level off. Divorce rates have stabilized, but rates of cohabitation have continued to rise, leading many demographers to suspect that living together may be crowding out matrimony as a mode of family formation. And increasing levels of education continue to push the average age at first marriage higher.

More... (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nation-singles_664275.html?page=3)

[AnticorRifling]

I am of two minds on the level of progress. We do have four (4) openly GLBT members of Congress, but two problems there: even if you buy 3%, 3% of 535 is a lot bigger than 4; only half of the 4 can be legally married in the states they represent. We also have zero (0) openly GLBT sports figures currently in the big 3 leagues, made up of over three thousand men. For all the fines levied and ad campaigns, gay-bashing language is no less pandemic. One of our two political parties made it part of their platform (http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/) to work against civil rights and were given control of the House of Representatives.

It is like Gandhi said: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win... but we're in the fight phase now, and it's stupid, myopic, pointless, and shitty.

You're such an angry toe sock wearer.

[Atlanteax]

Just out of curiosity, when did homosexuality become a celebrated culture instead of just a sexual act or preference?

Kinda odd too, considering that it is essentially only 2-3% of the population... guess it is the hip thing to do?

[Allereli]

3% of 311 million is 9,330,000. That's still a lot of people.

[Atlanteax]

I reckon a good portion of the increased support for homosexually is probably Hollywood-related, because Mass Media (particularly TV) plays a huge rule in shaping public opinion.

So Hollywood-based gay activists are (generally) far more willing to be flamboyant in expressing themselves, and that gets carried over heavily in Mass Media and contributed to the snowball effect of support/tolerance?

[Latrinsorm]

You're such an angry toe sock wearer.I do not believe that is the case, although I am of course willing to read any peer-reviewed publications you have corroborating your assertion.

[Allereli]

guess it is the hip thing to do?

Acceptance and tolerance should not be dismissed as a passing fad

[Back]

Stop with the crazy conspiracy theories. Gays have been a part of society from before the bible. It has always been accepted. Everyone knows that uncle who never married, the lady and her best friend, the checker at the grocery store who is really nice but you think he "might be" but no one cares, a cousin who likes to work out with his friends at the gym all the time, or that friend you are keeping a secret for.

Anti-gay hysteria comes from religious sources.

[AnticorRifling]

What are you wanting to tell us Back?

[AnticorRifling]

I do not believe that is the case, although I am of course willing to read any peer-reviewed publications you have corroborating your assertion.

My peers can't read so their reviews might take time.

[diethx]

Does that 3% include all the gays that are too afraid to come out of the closet? Forgive me if that's been answered already, there's a lot of shit to wade through in this thread.

[Tgo01]

It has always been accepted. Everyone knows that uncle who never married, the lady and her best friend, the checker at the grocery store who is really nice but you think he "might be" but no one cares, a cousin who likes to work out with his friends at the gym all the time, or that friend you are keeping a secret for.

That sounds more like "Keep your homo shit in the closet" rather than acceptance.

[Atlanteax]

That sounds more like "Keep your homo shit in the closet" rather than acceptance.

Heh, yep.

[4a6c1]

I reckon a good portion of the increased support for homosexually is probably Hollywood-related, because Mass Media (particularly TV) plays a huge rule in shaping public opinion.

So Hollywood-based gay activists are (generally) far more willing to be flamboyant in expressing themselves, and that gets carried over heavily in Mass Media and contributed to the snowball effect of support/tolerance?

At first I thought I was reading a Sad American post. Haha! That's so funny!

[Methais]

Acceptance and tolerance should not be dismissed as a passing fad

He's right at least to some degree.

You have gay people that really are gay, and then you have the ones (usually women and/or emo/scene kids) that do it for the attention, though they usually claim they're bi, again for the attention, and are usually "straight" again once they've matured past basing their existence around attention whoring.

[Methais]

Stop with the crazy conspiracy theories. Gays have been a part of society from before the bible. It has always been accepted. Everyone knows that uncle who never married, the lady and her best friend, the checker at the grocery store who is really nice but you think he "might be" but no one cares, a cousin who likes to work out with his friends at the gym all the time, or that friend you are keeping a secret for.

Anti-gay hysteria comes from religious sources.

I don't think "accepted" means what you think it means.


What are you wanting to tell us Back?

That scarf from a couple years ago already told us everything.

[Allereli]

He's right at least to some degree.

You have gay people that really are gay, and then you have the ones (usually women and/or emo/scene kids) that do it for the attention, though they usually claim they're bi, again for the attention, and are usually "straight" again once they've matured past basing their existence around attention whoring.

I think gay culture is a lot less flamboyant now than it was back in the 70s.

[Liagala]

I think gay culture is a lot less flamboyant now than it was back in the 70s.
And '80s.

http://www.80sreborn.com/images/mannequin-2.jpg

[Allereli]

And '80s.

http://www.80sreborn.com/images/mannequin-2.jpg

LOL Hollywood!

[Tenlaar]

Just wait until the future!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9yh1vQC9J1qheit6o2_500.jpg

[diethx]

Hollywood Montrose is allllll up in this thread, motherfuckers.

[Showal]

This is part of a long article about how single people voted overwhelmingly for Obama and accounted for a significant part of margin of victory..

And here are some words.

[Methais]

I think gay culture is a lot less flamboyant now than it was back in the 70s.

This might be because there are increasing amounts of straight people these days that are even more gay than homosexuals are.

Reposted example:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/272BB3B1-636D-4262-8CA6-88E141EA9DA3-6430-00000733F3C0F790.jpg

Also:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e08-south-park-is-gay