|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 PM February 7th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
As Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out, "Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays."
Gay marriage isn't a big deal one way or another. Anti-male sexism in family courts encourages female-initiated divorce (about 80% of divorces) and deprives fathers of equal rights to custody and contact with their children.
It isn't about divorce. It's about treating fathers, unmarried and married, as walking wallets and disposable sperm donors who shouldn't be allowed any choices in vitally important aspects of life. That has to change NOW!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:07 PM February 7th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. We can decrease divorces by enforcing joint custody and making divorces equal rather than a windfall to women, or to either spouse. That's what matters to me, not gay marriage or even no-fault divorce. In fact I think fault-based divorce is worse for men, given the anti-male bias in family courts, and is even more supportive of a divorce industry. Other than that I support Baskerville and admire his work.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 11:15 PM February 7th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I think gay marriage should only be legal if it's called "gayrriage".
I usually don't like changing the original meanings of words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by The_Beedle on 02:48 PM February 10th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
We can't definitavely identify every person living as either exactly female or exactly male. Even leaving aside psychological confusion about gender, we can't identify every persons body as entirely male or entirely female.
Other than squeamishness, is there a pressing need for government interference here? Is national security at risk if we don't sort everyone into two perfect genders? What do you propose we use for the test: what someone looks like, what their DNA looks like, how they dress, what their birth certificate says, or which deoderant they prefer?
Wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and fairer to just let any two unmarried adults marry each other?
(Oh, and marriage is about property rights and is a function of government. Let the churches come up with another word. They've got extra languages and special words for everything else, why not this too?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:51 AM February 8th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Why is this necessary? Because same-sex "marriage" is not only a threat to the marriage and the family. It may not even be the most serious. As Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out, "Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays."'
And
"It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it."
=================================================
...and who has been working relentlessly for decades to "undermine" "traditional understandings of marriage?" IMHO, this is certainly debatable, except in the politically correct arena of college campuses, where Draconian Academia, limits academic freedom and free speech and will not permit criticizing of gays, women, or racial minorities. They would consider doing so as creating a “hostile academic environment.”
IMHO, for decades homosexuals have attacked heterosexual males through women's studies programs, curriculum, "gender bender parties," vagina monologues, domestic violence misinformation, heterophobic sexual harassment laws, male vilification/rape misinformation propaganda, etc. If any of you have a problem with that last sentence then for partial documentation I suggest you read:
Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women by Christina Hoff Sommers ,
Heterophobia : Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism by Daphne Patai ,
Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies by Daphne Patai
IMHO, heterosexuality, but especially male heterosexuality has been vilified egregiously by campus heterophobic bigots, and anyone who dared to speak up has been labeled homophobic, just like the intolerant troll attempted to do on this current thread.
IMHO, I'm glad the legislatures are finally figuring out the hateful ways heterophobic groups have been pursuing a heterophobic, sexist and hostile, hate agenda neatly masked in the cloak of gender feminism, while using valid selected, or privileged, or entitled, civil rights issues.
IMHO, there has been no clearer example in history of the old Animal Farm axiom that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others," than those intolerant individuals who have been pushing their heterophobic, anti-male agenda on college campuses, in courts of law, and in the legislatures using the gender feminist movement.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:23 PM February 8th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"IMHO, for decades homosexuals have attacked heterosexual males through women's studies programs, curriculum, "gender bender parties," vagina monologues, domestic violence misinformation, heterophobic sexual harassment laws, male vilification/rape misinformation propaganda, etc."
I think there's some truth to this but it puts the cart before the horse, in that it is not so much the "homosexuals" but the misandrist women's studies programs and the feminists within them, both heterosexual and homosexual, who instigate these attacks. While they do recruit and mislead many homosexuals they do the same with other groups too, whether they be minorities, heterosexuals, environmentalists, etc., by making it sound like their causes are inseverable from misandry when in fact they are not. Homosexuals themselves are quite diverse in their beliefs. As we know, for instance, there are powerful homosexual conservative republican groups. And there are many homosexuals who are not political at all, or only mildly so. There are also homosexuals and especially bisexuals who support our cause and have joined us, including some men's rights leaders. Often, when gay men hear about our issues, such as fathers' rights and male DV victims, in a way that is not attacking of homosexuality, they very often support us. I remember a guy referred to us by Charles Cory of DV Men Colorado. He had been severely abused as a foster child by both his foster parents, and by a male partner. He wanted to join us and help our cause, especially on male DV issues, because he wound up researching it and seeing how male victims have been covered up for so long by the DV industry. Even though he was victimized by a male partner (and both foster parents) he fully understood how the research on female violence was being covered up, and he was angry about the misandry in the DV industry. When we met, his one very real fear was whether we would accept him, because he was gay and was not attracted to women at all. He just didn't know, and was nervous, but he had the courage to meet with me first and I respected that. He wound up working with us and he never pushed his sexuality or even background politics on any of us; nor did we with him. He was a good activist and very supportive of us until he he had a massive heart attack and died. That was a loss.
Another example was Steve G., a gay black man who wrote this piece in which he, having been with both women and men, compares women's harsh demands to men's much more relaxed demands in relationships
http://fyn.blakout.net/?blog=20000524104339 He supported us very strongly during our formative years in L.A. until he became very ill.
I think having people like this on the front lines with us is very effective. They were not in any way heterophobic. To me, bringing gay marriage into the men's rights agenda is not so relevant to make it worth the divisions that it brings. That's where I part with Baskerville, as well as on "fault-based" divorce, as much as I appreciate him and his work.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by dschmidt on 02:23 PM February 8th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Marc for speaking out on this issue. I was fearful if I alone did so, I would just get modded out like the person who did so earlier on this same thread.
I always find it disconcerting the homophobia rampant in much of the men's movement. Roughly 1/2 of all homosexuals/bisexuals are, after all, men or boys. Even more valuably, homosexuals will never be, and bisexuals never need be, talked out of the men's movement because their female SO/partner/whatever feels threatened by it. Also, they have greater need for action, or, to be a pessimist, less to lose--facing the duel oppressions of misandry and homophobia.
To your wonderful list, and as further demonstration to those trying to discourage gay inclusion in the men's right ranks, I'd like to add:
Douglas Morgan Strong. Former minister of Community Unitarian Universalist Church in Plano, TX. While minister at CUUC, Doug, openly gay and living with his long-term partner, bucked the feminist masses of the church population to be truly inclusive of father's and men's rights in mentions among his sermons, including a sermon every Father's Day on men's issues quoting the likes of Wendy McElroy and Warren Farrell, et al. These issues addressed such controversial issues as custody equity, female on male DV and men's health. The only on-line example I can find is on page 5 of this newsletter "A Strong Opinion." Oh, and I doubt Rev. Strong has anything against straight marriage, seeing as how he's officiated many--including my own.
Another wonderful example Marc and I both know of is Peter Allemano--who even now as he is recovering from a life-changing stroke is battling the health industry and it's purposeful neglect of men's health in favor of women's.
Respectfully,
David Schmidt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:46 PM February 8th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks David for your thoughts. Peter A. is a very good guy. Here's a picture of him marching across the Brooklyn Bridge with a banner during a fathers' rally. http://www.ncfm.org/pastact.htm
I try to avoid the term "homophobic." It definitely exists, just as heterophobia does. But it can be divisive and unfairly stigmatizing. One's being a traditionalist, being opposed to gay marriage, or believing homosexual sex is a sin, doesn't automatically make one homophobic, at least not to me. It just depends how they treat others. I have close Christian friends who think it's a sin to have sex outside marriage, but they don't treat me with disdain for doing so. I respect them if they respect me. I see the same with homosexuality. There are plenty of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin (of course, some do not) but who don't mistreat people because they're gay. I don't see that as bigotry. Gay people should try to be the same toward Christians, etc. It's too easy to fall apart calling each other names. We can all work together with a little effort.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:21 PM February 10th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
You guys have got it right. A lot of gay men respect themselves as men, and we should too. It's the male feminists lap-dogs and male self-haters, hetero and homo, whose demented propoganda should be denounced. And the men licking feminist boot to get pussy or career promotions deserve to be exposed for the vile worms that they have become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:22 PM February 8th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Parents are pressured to put their children on dangerous psychotropic drugs under threat of child-abuse charges"
That is, in general, utter nonsense.
Psychiatric medications have helped millions of people to lead normal or near-normal lives.
The notion that these medications are addictive*, that people are forced or brainwashed into using them, or that they are inherently dangerous, is one of the biggest lies ever foisted on the American public.
Many people who have never had direct experience with mental illness are understandably ignorant.
"Scientific" studies showing that antidressants are no more effective than placebos are worthless - since they (the studies) only last for 6-8 weeks. Guess what happens to the people who are on the placebos, after the 6-8 weeks? That's right, they go back to being clinically depressed.
Scientologists are particularly to blame for attempting to hoodwink the public on this issue. (I am at a loss to understand why anyone would listen to a Scientologist about anything).
I'm sorry to get off the subject of men's rights, but I cannot let something like this go by. And I am not going out on a limb when I say that the mental health issue is at least as significant as men's rights.
*Benzodiazapines such as Xanax can be dependency-forming, but these substances are controlled.
One must delineate between addiction, dependency, etc. These are originally clinical terms which, when manipulated by certain lawyers, give the impression of being a "word game", which is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:05 PM February 8th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
That's interesting. Wouldn't you agree, though, that Ritalin (sp?) has been overprescribed especially to boys even when they're not ADD but simply acting a little hyper?
I have an autistic brother with seizures, and meds have helped him very much, even saved his life. I myself have been prescribed Adderall for ADHD. I don't take it like I should, but when I do, it helps me read/concentrate at a near-normal rate and I never felt an addiction or dependency. But that's just me. I worked for two years representing people with mental disabilities in disputes with HMOs, etc., and I definitely think psych meds help them. They seemed more rational and workable when they took them, especially in conjunction with counseling. My observations, of course, were not scientific.
I also know people on medical marijuana who insist that it got them off of their depression drugs. Somehow, I believe most of them. And we know how depression is affecting men and how it has not been addressed enough.
I don't know alot about this, but I can't help thinking there's at least some merit to the claim that boys in particular are being overprescribed these things.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 08:11 PM February 8th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Parents are pressured to put their children on dangerous psychotropic drugs under threat of child-abuse charges"
That is, in general, utter nonsense.
I tend to agree that 'in general' such threats are not normal (Steven B does get a bit far out there on occasion), but they have occurred (so I myself wouldn't call it 'UTTER nonsense'... perhaps just 'overstated'.
IMO it's not the medications themselves that are the problem but the misapplication of the medications. If 20% of the children taking Ritalin actually HAVE ADHD I'd be surprised, especially given the absurdly vague diagnostic screening I saw (something like 40% of adults would be diagnosed adhd using that screening).
I believe in many cases these drugs are used to control children who don't fit the 'sit still and do your work' mold, too active, too fidgety, too distractable, etc. The victims of these drugs are primarily young men. Instead of letting them roughhouse outside for 20 minutes in the morning they cancel all physical activity (for safety or budget or some other poor excuse) and act surprised when the young men can't sit still and concentrate. THEN instead of looking for the root cause they throw a Ritalin bandaid on the behavior.
For real ADHD sufferers these drugs are no doubt a Godsend... but we need FAR more rigor in diagnosis then questions like "have you ever felt distracted in the last week".
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Stephen Baskerville, president of