Gay men and women should have the same rights

As usual, Mr. Gore, you are right again. People should not be judged or penalitized because of their sexual orientation anymore than for the color of their skin.

i couldnt agree more. seems to me telling someone they cannot marry because of
sexual orientation reeks of the same sort of policies which disallow anyone of
unpure blood to marry into the master race. i.e. we are not nazi germany when will we
stop acting like it?
another link about same sex marriage at current.
http://current.com/items/86559801_for_all_of_you_who_ha...
post script c'mon folks wake up impeach!!! the constitution demands it. there is no
lame duck. that is an excuse for complacency. apathy kills your mind!

Dear Al,

Let me preface this comment by saying that you were my first choice for President this year, however much you didn't seem to want to run. ;-)

Barack Obama said the following at the very pulpit that Martin Luther King preached at, in Ebenezer Baptist Christ in Atlanta, Georgia, surrounded by some of this country?s most prominent black religious leaders.

?If we are honest with ourselves, we?ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been honest to King?s vision of a beloved community. If we?re honest with ourselves, we?ll have to admit that we?ve scorned our gay brothers and sisters, instead of embracing them.?

His statement wasn't only extremely supportive of gays and lesbians in America, but was also transformative... a rebuke to some, and a call to accept homosexuals in the black community, rather than shun and stigmatize them, pushing them towards closeted, unsafe sexual behavior.

Al, you must know that Barack Obama has the cards stacked pretty heavilly against him in this race. The odds aren't on his side. I know you want to stay above politics in order to be effective fighting for our environment and our future... but as for myself, I want hope for the future. A hope for true equality, hope for our country.

Al, I understand that you didn't want to run for President, but please, please consider endorsing Barack Obama for president... as soon as possible... while it can do some good.

Consider using your endorsement as leverage in order to effect and improve upon Barack Obama's environmental and energy policies, and to see to it that we have a hope at slowing and reversing the risks of global warming as soon as possible, so that we can avoid the worst ravages of global warming.

While Barack Obama can unify this country with hope, he can use guidance and assistance to help channel that hope into action. Please, Al... consider being that guidance and that hope.

I want to live my life with hope for peace and equality... I, like most Americans, have spent too long with only broken promises. And, when I die one day, I want to know that there will still be hope for the world and for the future after I am gone. That's why I ask you... please... it was tragic to see a good man like you lose your big chance at the White House. Please don't let another good man lose his big chance. Help him, and help him help us.

My thanks,
Mark Kraft

Thank you for having the courage to advocate equal rights for the gay community. You are absolutely right on all points. I don't know why people want to deprive others of simple human rights.

Love should be celebrated not penalized. I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Gore, unfortunately that isn't the world we live in, but there is always hope. And to markkraft: if Obama cares so much for the gay community then he shouldn't be accepting endorsements from those who are anti-gay.

Homophobia is discrimination in my eyes. I agree with Mr Gore, why on earth do people feel so threatened by homosexuality? I'm a straight lad and am very happy in my relationship. My girlfriend makes me a better person and what else do we have in life if we're not allowed the one true human feeling of "Love." Now why should homosexuals be judged and told that in the eyes of some that they are not be allowed to have the same? Who gives a @u#k if other folk don't live the same way as you do. Learn to love all and maybe you'll grow as a human being.

Thank you, Mister Gore.

You have some good ideas Mr. Gore, and I must say that I more or less agree with what you have to say. The only thing I would point out would be your choice of words pertaining to homosexual "marriage" rather than homosexual "union".

I would like to point out that on a personal level I really could not care less if we call it marriage or union. What is important are the meanings behind the word and the social and legal status that the word implies. However, marriage is a religious word and it is not possible to separate the word marriage from it's religious background. I think that the point I am trying to make is that by using terms like "civil union" rather than "marriage" you verbally remove religion from the equation. In removing religion from the equation, you can negate many of the arguments based upon religion and keep the argument strictly about politics and/or legal issues.

Anyhow, I apologize if I have ranted or pointed out something that was inherently obvious. I realize that I am talking about pretty much boils down to semantics, but I think that being precise about word choice is very important in anything that can be argued.

There you go not allowing them full civil rights. That's wrong.

This is interesting in light of the fact that in the past, Mr. Gore has not been a supporter of gay marriage per se.

And this is why Al Gore has been my hero for a very long time...

Why do we always have to have someone to discriminate against?

But I second markkraft's opinion here for the most part, though there's the question of how advantageous such an endorsement would be if Obama wishes to separate himself from the old guard? Does Kerry (who I have no intention of comparing with Gore) help Obama? Can you be endorsed by the very establishment you are essentially distancing yourself from?

This is of course more fitting in a different conversation than here.

Well stated. Thank you for sharing your perspectives here.

By the way, I'm glad to see you active in social media, and not just a "board" member at Current.

Totally agree with you Mr. Gore. No one should stick their nose into other people bedrooms to dictate how or with whom they should have sex or follow in a passionate relationship. If we only keep ourselves supporting everyone's sexual education so everyone can be health (Public, Religion and Government) will do just fine on this one.

No we shouldn't.

Let's not pretend that we are all the same. We are not.
Homosexuals are homosexuals and heterosexuals are heterosexuals. It's not an insignificant difference.
It's not like a different skin color.
Marriage was invented for heterosexuals and biology has more to do with that than anything else.

What happened to you, man? I want the Al Gore of the 80s back. No need for this left-wing garbage.

"Stardate"-You remind me of the "Nazi" era. People without "compassion" or "tolerance" for others. Is not because a person is different than I (proved that this person is not a criminal) that I should discriminate against them in any way. That includes their sexual orientation. Grow up, would you?

@stopnoise

""Stardate"-You remind me of the "Nazi" era. People without "compassion" or "tolerance" for others."

Compassion and tolerance have nothing to do with this. Biology has.
It's not discrimination. That would imply that homosexuals are deprived of something that is their God given right. Like freedom of movement, for example.
Marriage is not in that category. It was invented to protect humans in their early years when they are too weak and too unintelligent to do that on their own. (Other species don't have such problems)
Two men or two women just can't provide such protection due to the differences between the male and female brains.

I don't care about anyone's sexual orientation per se.
Sex is just entertainment for homosexuals and I have better things to do than spending my time worrying about how X or Y are having fun.
But marriage is much more than just entertainment and that's what homosexuals kicking and screaming for "equal rights" seem to forget.

For that matter marriage is not a right. It's a practicality. It existed long before the word "right" had any meaning.

I find hard to conceptualize here how a marriage between two men or two women with children can threat the marriage between a man and a women.

There is no relationship between these two.

The fact here is that the resulted of this union would give by Law the same monetary benefits to individuals of different sexual orientation and is that what you do not want right?

So what is the issue here?
- Financial benefits
- Equal rights before the Law
- Conceptuality of Traditional Marriage
- Religious dogma

-What really are you so desperate defending there?

Kudos to Mr. Gore for standing up on this! How different many of our lives would have been if he had been President....

StarDate-

Actually, marriage was created as a way to further subjugate women and reinforce the idea that they are a man's "property". I always find it interesting that so many conservative-types always romanticize marriage as some long established "society saving" institution. You can look back through history and see cases of women being sold into marriage for political gain or monetary gain. It is still that way in many cultures where arranged marriages and such occur.

It has since become (at least in our country) something a bit different, but that only goes to show how our cultures idea of "marriage" is constantly evolving and changing. Why can't we keep moving forward and extend our very new definition of marriage (marriage=love and stability, a rather 20th century idea) to the gay community?

You have the right idea, waymonhudson. "Marriage" is by no means an immutable idea, as the type of marriage as we know it has existed for about a hundred years, and for much of the world, there is no freedom to "marry" ? it is a pact between families, often made for economic advantages.

If you want to talk about the "practicality" of it, then polygamy is a mostly "practical" idea that served some of the most "successful" civilizations in human history, if you want to look at it that way.

And biology and sexuality are a bit more complicated than that, stardate. Read a book. Thanks.

Thanks for both of you "waymonhudson" and "khsing" for clearing up some parts of this issue. I sure had the thoughts that "stardate" was a little bit "confused" about this issue and end up to mix up things like "practicality" and "biology." That is the reason I am laying out some real issues that is related to "Marriage."

Really,

-What is the "beef" here that the "so called straight" individuals feel threated or offended?
-Is that because you do not want to share the financial benefits with "gay couples?"

The bottom line here is that "Gays" are humans just like the rest of us and many are not just doing "for the sex or entertainment" but for the commitment and responsibility to receive the same financial support to raise their children.

Gore:

I am unable to follow your video since it is not captioned. I am deaf, and I would greatly appreciate if you or your staff can add captions or subtitles to your videos. Remember there are over 30 million Americans with varying degrees of hearing losses, and most of them rely on captioning. The internet video revolution is leaving us out.

"Slinkerwink" here is Mr. Gore script from this movie.

I think is wrong for the Government to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. I think people, gay, man and women owe to have the same rights as heterosexuals man and women to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to joint together in marriage and I do not understand why it is considerate by some people to be a threat to a heterosexual marriage. Shouldn't we be promoting some kind of faithfulness and loyalty to ones partners regardless of their sexual orientation because if we do not do that, then to that extend you are promoting "promiscuity" and promoting all the problems that can be resolved from "promiscuity" and the loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love owe to be celebrated and encourage and that shouldn't be prevented from any form of discrimination in the Law.

Thank you!

You are welcome! I corrected the verb "owe" from the sentence:

I think people, gay, man and women [owe] to have the same rights

That seems more like what Mr. Gore meant.

Thank you Mr. Gore.

I don't mean to drag the conversation back down into the mud, and perhaps it was just that no one wanted to give credence to this statement by acknowledging it, but I feel like someone should contest:

"Sex is just entertainment for homosexuals..."

Clearly, stardate, you do not have a background in human sexuality, physiology, psychology, or sociology. Sex is never "just entertainment" for anyone. That is a massive oversimplification of one of the most complex social pillars in all of humanity.

The lion's share of the verifiable research related to sexuality in the above mentioned fields indicate that humans, gay or straight, have a very strong emotional, physical, and psychological need for intimate contact with other humans. One report even suggests that prostate cancer affected men who remained celibate more than men who engaged in regular, safe sexual activity throughout their sexually mature years.

We owe it to our entire society to support the rights of gay men and lesbians to obtain and sustain long-lasting relationships. It's not just about the touchy feely social recognition or all of the legal issues that make disallowing equal rights for the GLBT community more than just a little onerous, it's also about the physical and psychological well-being of somewhere between 5-15% of our population.

My partner and I just celebrated our 30th anniversary
this month. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran.
What , pray tell, has Bush ever done for this country
but try and set it back 150 plus years. His rich
daddy got him out of that war. Anyway, thank you Mr.
Gore. You should be our president right now.
God bless you.

Thanks, Al...better late than never. I think you have come a long way in the past 7 years...on a lot of issues. I suspect that much of what you are saying now is what you believed even back then. The difference is that you are out from under the thumb of the Clintonistas and their triangulating handlers/advisors, and you are now, indeed, your "own man".

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000; and I don't for one minute regret that vote. The "old" Al Gore had allowed himself to be programmed by the Clintons; and you probably would have made a lousy President if you had won by following in their tracks.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your candor now; and I would be happy to vote for you if you were to run again (even though Dennis Kucinich would have been my first choice). As I say, you have come a long way. Thanks for standing up for what's right regarding same-gender marriage...and for all the other issues you have been so courageously outspoken about.
------------------------------------------------------------

As for the following comment someone posted earlier....

"What is important are the meanings behind the word and the social and legal status that the word implies."

The poster is exactly right in what he says, but his analysis of the situation is very much off the mark. The social and legal status of the word 'marriage' is entirely different from the term 'union'. Unless the government will use the term 'civil union' for all the relationships it now calls 'marriage', the implication will always be that same-gender marriage and opposite-gender marriage are not equal.

What I'm saying is that, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck, rather than making up some name that will forever relegate LGBTQ couples to the 'back of the bus'. Equal rights demands equal--rather than 'similar'--terms for what is in fact the same thing. Civil unions performed in the church must be given the SAME status as those performed at City Hall...no more no less no differentiation.

Real nice sentiments and all, but I don't recall you ever expressing them when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Or in 1996 when the Clinton campaign ran ads in the South touting his signing DOMA. I certainly don't remember you saying anything of the sort when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was implemented by Bill Clinton. Either you didn't believe these to be true back then, or you didn't have the fortitude to speak up for what was right. And I'm guessing that's the case not only on gay rights issues. At LEAST the Republicans are up front about their twisted positions. As a gay man, I'm extremely relieved that you're not our President. With you and the Clintons it's always "Do as I say, not as I do."

@Inconvenient_Skeptic

I don't mean to jump to anyone's defense, but it's not the vice-president's job to publicly question his boss in the middle of their term in office or a political campaign. In a corporate environment, you can be fired for that. It's called insubordination, and it's even worse news when Washington-style politics are involved.

I feel that same gender marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriage, The leagalization and acceptance of these unions by society may do much to improve the state of heterosexual marriages.
When gay individuals no longer feel the pressure to hide in socially acceptable heterosexual marriages, there will be less heartbreak and betrayal when these marriages fall apart from the strain of pretending.
I agree that the label of marriage is so strongly tied to religion that the government should phase out the use of the word and replace it with civil union for ANY couple.
Let religious institutions treat the word marriage in any way they choose.

There are so many things I could say in response to the comments in your video. But I think a simple "Thank you" says it best. I only wish that more people shared your opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Vice President--

You and your wife are very much invited to my wedding to my partner, in July. I do say wedding because in our church same sex couples can get married in the eyes of God.

Thank you again.

Caron

Well said Mr. Gore. Senator Obama recently gave a great speech in which he said "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them," and other words against discrimination and bigotry for which he deserves great credit. It is unfortunate however, that unlike Kucinich, Obama doesn't back his indictment of homophobia with support for true equality for our gay brothers and sisters who deserve the right to marry under the law if not necessarily under the gods of those religions that remain homophobic for whatever reason. I'm straight but firmly believe "We need a government determined to end discrimination" of ALL KINDS.
It baffles me when those who are part of communities that have endured discrimination, don't come together against the discrimination of all others. The fight for equality must be a fight for justice, not just self-interest.

Al Gore believes and perpetuates the myth that most opposite-sex couples are sexually faithful to one another.  By contrast, David P. McWhirter, M.D. and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., PhD, found that the notion of sexual fidelity is anathema to long-term male homosexual relationships.  McWhirter and Mattison are themselves homosexual and a male couple. In their book The Male Couple (Prentice-Hall) they report the results of their study of 157 male couples. They concluded that ?all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships," that ?fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other," and that "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.?

Of particular interest are the following parts of their analysis. From pages 253 and 254:

"When we ask the men in this study why they want sex outside the relationship, their answers include the following responses:
"1. 'All my sexual needs are not met by my partner. Sex together gets boring at times, and I need new material for my fantasies.'
"2. 'My partner is not really my sexual type. I still like to have sex with a certain type of man.'
"3. 'It's fun and adventure. The more variety and number of partners, the more adventure and fun.'
"4. 'I have some kinky sexual interests that my partner doesn't share.'
"5. 'We have found that having sex with others often enhances our sex together afterwards.'
"6. 'Sometimes I do it with another guy because I'm so angry at my lover.'
"7. 'At times I get scared with how emotionally tied to each other we are. Having outside sex at times gives me a temporary distance I feel I need to have from my lover.' . . .
" 'We've never felt that either of us should be sexual only with the other. From the beginning that was absurd. He knew as well as I that we would trick out, so why start our relationship by making rules and denying the probability?' "

Page 255:

"Many couples in the earliest years together linked faithfulness with sexual exclusivity, while couples with a longer history think faithfulness has little or nothing to do with sex."

Page 256:

"As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel . . . by the end of the fifth year of relationship more than 95 percent are in this group [of 'sexual nonexclusivity']. Bell and Weinberg warn: 'Moreover, it should be recognized that what has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa . . . .' "

McWhirter and Mattison conclude their discussion on page 259 by stating, "We do not trust it [the 'sexual monster'] in our partners, and least of all in ourselves."

Intellectual honesty requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the institution of marriage; whether that which "has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa." For just one example, should adultery be excluded from the reasons for divorces of male couples? The answer appears to be, yes. If the marriage laws apply equally to everyone, then adultery also must be excluded as a reason for divorce among heterosexuals. This also raises the very real question of why male couples should be excluded from marrying as many men as they would like.

Intellectual honesty also requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the children raised in that environment. Accounts from those raised in environments of sexual licentiousness indicate that such an environment is very harmful to development.

Thank you, Mr. President.

dear al,
i am a lesbian. my partner of 18 years and i have a long running joke/understanding that you are the only man i would go straight for.
we are so incredibly proud of you for making this statement.
thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you President Gore (by popular vote) for finally coming out in support of Marriage Equality!!!! I am a foreigner who fell in love with an American and for the past 9 years have been trying very hard to stay here legally and hopefully not be torn apart from my partner, my spouse. Though I am one of those fortunate people who have managed to get a green card, a lot of people are not so lucky.

The American partner DO NOT have any right to sponsor their spouse/partner for a green card, in fact, if the relationship is disclosed, his foreign partner might run the risk of being denied a visa or denied entry into the US - something that straight couples do not have to go through. Come on, they could even apply for a Fiance visa!!!

We NEED marriage equality or for the Uniting American Families Act to be passed so that all this same sex binational couples could be together and not forced to live in exile or break up.

http://www.out4immigration.org.

Thank you for recognizing the humanity of homosexuals.

@lekoman

"Clearly, stardate, you do not have a background in human sexuality, physiology, psychology, or sociology. Sex is never "just entertainment" for anyone."

It is for homosexuals. Nothing more. And you don't need any formal background in human sexuality, physiology, psychology, or sociology to know that.
You just have to look at the result. What can you get after two men had sex? Nothing except two men who feel good. What can you get if a men and a woman had sex? A man and a woman who feel good and possibly a third human.


"The lion's share of the verifiable research related to sexuality in the above mentioned fields indicate that humans, gay or straight, have a very strong emotional, physical, and psychological need for intimate contact with other humans."

With this you didn't refute my point.
Yes humans have a very strong emotional, physical, and psychological need for being entertained. That's why I watch InfoMania, for example. Endorphines are released during orgasm, as well as during laughter.
Using your "logic" one could say that The Daily Show is not about entertainment after all humans have a
a very strong emotional, physical, and psychological need for making fun of other humans.

Nevertheless I like how people try to elevate this primitive disgusting and often dangerous activity to the level of some sort of noble deed. It's funny.
A very strong emotional, physical, and psychological need? Oh, that sounds so serious! Suddenly it's not about entertainment. That sounds so profane. Sex is something much deeper than that.

No it's not.

"We owe it to our entire society to support the rights of gay men and lesbians to obtain and sustain long-lasting relationships."

Society doesn't ask anyone to legalize gay marriage. Only a small fraction of the society does. A small minority claims that the vast majority own them something.
And it's not that gays don't have sex without the rest of us allowing them to marry. You mixed up two things here: the alledged health benefits of men having sex and their "right" to marry other men which most people in our society are not willing to recognize.

"One report even suggests that prostate cancer affected men who remained celibate more than men who engaged in regular, safe sexual activity throughout their sexually mature years.
"
Even if this is true what the hell does this have to do with sex not being a form of entertainment?
You want to say that gays have sex because they want to prevent prostate cancer? Most don't even know about this study for that matter and even if they knew they couldn't care less. They have sex because they want to feel good and that's it.
Or you want to suggest that gay marriage should be legal because gay sex may prevent prostate cancer?

Do you realize the lack of logic in your argument here, don't you?

stardate, only a minority of men prefer big breasts, world-wide.

@Vierotchka

"stardate, only a minority of men prefer big breasts, world-wide."

Now that's what I call wishful thinking.
Could I see the statistics?

Or at least your definition of "big breasts"
as I said they prefer big ones over small ones.
So you want to say that the majority of men world-wide prefer small breasts?