Wish I lived in a country that did so too.

two points:

1. the religious right. in their rhetoric, they are very ultimate-goal oriented ("we are going to outlaw abortion! we are going to constitutionally ban gay marriage!"). in practice, they are willing to accept small victories, patiently waiting for the big ones. take abortion - they are content with small law changes that incrementally take away the option. "what about the unborn babies who will die this year??" you ask? tough, they let those go, with their eyes on the bigger prize down the road. idealism v. pragmatism.

2. enda. it's only bad to keep the T out of enda if the T are afraid once GLB get their rights they're taking their ball and going home. Ts must be afraid that GLBs are going to pull the ladder up behind them. not so much trust between the different factions, are there?

additionally, it just occurred to me that this is why young people don't make grassroots efforts, go to protests, etc, anymore. incremental change isn't good enough anymore - it's got to be all or nothing, or you're a failure. if their liberal parents had taught them how to pursue slow change, perhaps they'd bother. instead, my friends and i see our contributions as worthless, because there's no link between our small efforts and the greater goal. the more that can be achieved now the better.

"additionally, it just occurred to me that this is why young people don't make grassroots efforts, go to protests, etc, anymore. incremental change isn't good enough anymore - it's got to be all or nothing, or you're a failure. if their liberal parents had taught them how to pursue slow change, perhaps they'd bother. instead, my friends and i see our contributions as worthless, because there's no link between our small efforts and the greater goal. the more that can be achieved now the better."

While I understand what you're saying, I have to disagree. Yes, prolonged struggle is important. But just as important is being an attentive student to history, which illustrates that leaving people behind in a movement, blacks and women, laborers and minorities, always slows down the movement as a whole. It's a fact of history that divided movements are less successful than united ones. Gandhi himself would have made the same statement when addressing the concerns of Muslims. He didn't throw them under the bus because he was more concerned with Hindus. He believed in unity above all.

but they didn't complain when others climbed on the bandwagon. that's why it's so discouraging to see gay men evince so much hostility to the transgendered. then i thought, i've never see a POOR gay man. could i be indulging in stereotyping? i googled |median income gay| i got
http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/2007/08/15/gays-lesbians-earn-far-more-than-media-us-household-income/
"For gay men, the median household income is $83,000 per year (gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, according to US census data." Yikes! why is ENDA even needed????

when asked (in '43) what jews should do, gandhi replied (and didn't amend after the war), "since they are going to die anyway, let them all commit suicide, that way they are making a statement". holy gutter rat! batman!

Gandhi had every flipping word he said recorded. The context for that statement is that if you are in a concentration camp you could commit suicide in defiance against an enemy that was already killing you. He wasn't saying, "Oh, go die. I don't care for jews."

as you said, he had every statement recorded. you must have his autobiography. it has an index. look up "jews".

Politics has been referred to as "the art of the possible."

If it is possible to get rights for some, but not for all, isn't that preferable to rights for none? And won't getting rights for some make it easier to get rights for the rest?

It sucks that we have to have this argument. It sucks that it is OK to discriminate against anyone. Sex and sexual preference and gender identity should never be used as an excuse to discriminate against anyone.

It is easy for me to talk, I am a straight white male. Don't hold that against me, OK? Marriage and its benefits should go to anyone willing to make a commitment. Jobs should never be offered or withheld based on which person you want to marry, or not marry, or have sex with.

But you have to be realistic. I think there are a lot of different kinds of marriages that should be legal. Group marriages, line marriages, same sex marriages, whatever anyone can imagine that exists out of love between consenting adults. But I am not so short-sighted to insist that we get all or nothing. Taking it in little pieces is a much better way to get there than insisting on everything at once.

Aravosis is not saying any one should not get rights. He is saying you are much more likely to achieve success if you get it a piece at a time rather than insisting on getting it all at once.

Peace out, people.

you can read some of that gutter rat's sanctimony here:
http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm
and http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004247.html (which includes the rattish face as well) let me remind you that in WWI he was pro-war(on the british side). in WWII, fighting for their lives, the brit's took his advocacy of nonviolence as betrayal and it led directly to the arming of ali jinnah and the creation of pakistan (ask bangladesh how "merciful and holy" that was! but REALLY good for osama!) gandhi's legacy is BLOOD of the INNOCENT. 20 million hindus and moslems - and still counting!

The context for the statement can be found here within the original letter:

http://www.alshindagah.com/jan2001/9a.html

While I was slightly wrong about the context -- he wasn't referring to concentration camps -- he was referring to satyagraha, civil disobedience. He was calling on a unified jewish population to defy Hitler. So, yes, Gandhi did advocate unity above all.

Anywho, this section is about trans rights, so I won't be writing about this minor point again.