Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
RatherBRidin'
Published Letters: 166 Editor's Choice: 30
<<This is a tired old saw, one I've yet to see statistically proven, and contradicted by the people I meet. Lesbians are capable of being real players. The lesbians I know are just as capable of promiscuity (or being sexually liberated, if you prefer) as some of the gay men I know. Conversely, I know gay men who will settle for nothing less than complete monogamy.>>
And all of this about monogamy and polyamorous relations has WHAT to do with whether I as a lesbian can visit my beloved partner (or she me) in a hospital, inherit from her, have her legally recognized as my family?
Let's face it: men and women, whether straight or gay, can be "players", can be promiscuous. Men and women, whether straight or gay, can also be monogamous and committed to one person. This is not only a non-starter but it also uses the religious right's f*cked-up, backward logic that because some members of a group *may* do something "wrong", let's ensure no one from that group can do anything. If you follow that logic, then why the hell should straights be allowed to marry? Some of them will cheat, be "players"--male and female. Some will go on reality shows and marry. Some will marry for publicity stunts. You get the drift.
For the record, I'm not one of those lesbian "players" you refer to (as if all lesbians are). My partner and I 1) are totally monogamous and 2) have absolutely no plans to have children (whether of our own blood or through adoption). But why shouldn't we have the same rights under the law that my straight brother and his wife, also completely monogamous and childless, have?
I recognize and appreciate the situation Sara and Martha are in as parents. That more is at stake for gay and lesbian parents is true. However, the ultimate bottom line is that they first and foremost (and my partner and I) are being denied fundamental civil rights. It has to start with our rights as individuals being recognized.
Take the animal imagery--and the genders of the partners--out of Sutherland's advice/insight and you've got some nifty, mostly common sense tips about more effective interpersonal communication.
I found myself nodding a lot as I read her article--I've used some of those ideas and had others used on me, and regardless of who did it to whom, they've improved our communications in general and our relationship overall.
Some people just don't get it...but I'll bet that wingnut's dog or cat would! ;-)
<<Put succinctly: this column was dumb.>>
Same as this Broadsheet piece.
of the lack of common sense being shown generally at the Times these days (Dowd, Friedman, Herbert and Rich being the exceptions).
Wake me up when her pubic hair becomes her eyebrows, which should be about, uhm, 2 years from now at her current rate...
Neal's right and I'd like to add one point: Let's start consuming and buying products from those companies that advertise in Salon, on Air America, on Ed Schultz's show (among many others). Our next computer will very likely come from one such advertiser. We're also focusing on supporting "Blue" companies and those that the Human Rights Campaign find treat their employees well and respect diversity.
At first read, I scoffed at Richard Thompson Ford's theory...but reading further, there may be something to it. Every once in a while, someone straight will ask me, "Which of you is the man?" (We're both women.) They mean which one of us "wears the pants", does the traditionally male activities (primarily they're asking about non-bedroom activities, except for that one weird conversation with my ex...but that's another matter). Some seem genuinely puzzled. When I explain we share responsibilities based on our skills and talents and note that they don't always call into traditionally gender-segmented roles, some get it, others don't. (She's more mechanically inclined and has much better math skills, I'm better at cooking and I knit. But I'm better with the critters, playing sports and at carrying heavy items.)
All of this is neither here nor there. The bottom line is that people oppose issues such as gay marriage out of fear. (OK, granted a bunch are just mean-spirited jerks and others like Turd Blossom Rove are just political opportunitists.) Irrational fear to be sure. Which is why they usually just sputter when confronted with facts, figures and real gay/lesbian couples. Sometimes, such exposure can help them overcome these fears. Other times, the fears are just so deep-seated that, forget it.
The LGBT community has to continue to reach out to those who just may overcome their irrational fears. We have to continue to "live out loud"--there's Activism with a capital A and the daily-living activism of just being who we are day in and day out. Yes, we need the courts and legislatures on our side, but getting the people there is perhaps more important in the long run. Change begins at the grass roots. At the neighborhood level. In the workplace. In schools. Too often the LGBT community and our straight allies overlook the power of grassroots change.
"An exasperated Boehner said: 'The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen.
Well, I'm a bit appalled and exasperated (though not surprised) by this bonehead's comments. Is he hinting that Americans aren't appalled by the sight of flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers? Should we think, "Oh, it's just those soldiers again...they're paid so it's OK?" I am appalled by the sight of ANY flag-draped coffin. It means a human being has been killed, a family is grieving. How pathetic for the GOP to nit-pick about what caused the death. Yet how typical...
You're right, of course.
It's not particularly nice for either party to use such images. How painful for families and friends who've lost loved ones through war/terrorism.
But then neither side is particularly in tune with the views and concerns (or the pain) of the everyday man and woman in this country.
P.S. (I do think it's different of one shows Karina destruction and has images of Heck-of-a-Job Brown and Buy-a-Clue Chertoff by way of conveying the administration's astonishing ineptitude. That's different than showing a human being in a box. But I digress.)
...just more proof how freakin' clueless this man is.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
