BrokeStraightBoys
BSB Owner
A lot of straight celebs have been seen in this shirt including Zac Efron, Taylor Lautner and now Blake Bennet. 
-
CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.
Blake Bennet supports gay rights
- Thread starter BrokeStraightBoys
- Start date
Hahaha!! Celeb. Thanks but yes I do support!
Thanks but yes I do support!
BrokeStraightBoys
BSB Owner
JLipps4u
BSB Addict
Hahaha!! Celeb.
Celeb? Most definitely,to us,well, to me. What's more, having met you through the forums, I feel you are an intelligent, thoughtful, and mature young man who I'd rather meet, than any other celeb, including Zac and Taylor.
Sadly, I do not believe in same sex "marriages". I think they are ridiculous. And I say that at the risk of being tarred and feathered by the forumites. However, I do believe in civil unions, and I will be the first to admit that same sex unions do need to have their rights acknowledged equally under civil law. I have witnessed (at the hospital) many great injustices to people because of the inequity of civil law. Misguided, and I may be, that is my take on that issue.
Beth
BSB Addict
A lot of straight celebs have been seen in this shirt including Zac Efron, Taylor Lautner and now Blake Bennet.
I love a man who can stand up for the right reason! I think Blake should be rewarded...please call me at 555-fuc-kme2!
peterh6308
BSB Addict
Washington just passed same sex marriages, and funny enough not one of my friends in long term relationships are interested in this union.
I love a man who can stand up for the right reason! I think Blake should be rewarded...please call me at 555-fuc-kme2!
said the number didnt work..
Swampyankee
Active Member
You forgot to dial one first! LOL!
said the number didnt work..
Swampyankee
Active Member
A lot of straight celebs have been seen in this shirt including Zac Efron, Taylor Lautner and now Blake Bennet.
These tees would be great in the store!
while i have no interest in marriage, either opposite or same sex, i support the right of all individuals should have the right to enter into a committed relationship with any other consenting adult.
the idea of one form of union for straights and another form of union for gays goes against my understanding of equal protection.
i the ladies who lived down the street from me when i was a child, were sisters to the world and until one of them got very sick and died did anyone question their relationship. it was sad to see family member who never spoke to either one of them making decisions about treatment and burial. if the sisters had been able to formalize their relationship like any other couple, then that would not have happened that way.
it should be a right, but not a duty.
blake is welcome to support this civil right.
the idea of one form of union for straights and another form of union for gays goes against my understanding of equal protection.
i the ladies who lived down the street from me when i was a child, were sisters to the world and until one of them got very sick and died did anyone question their relationship. it was sad to see family member who never spoke to either one of them making decisions about treatment and burial. if the sisters had been able to formalize their relationship like any other couple, then that would not have happened that way.
it should be a right, but not a duty.
blake is welcome to support this civil right.
tjgoldstein73
Well-known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Posts
- 163
- Reaction score
- 0
Personally, I think everyone has the right to experience the legal misery that was my straight parents marriage.
jayshaw
Well-known Member
I don't consider this big news. I think it is the least he can do, since he performs on a site that caters primarly to gays. As far as gay marriage, my partner and I have been in a very,very,long relationship and neither of us believe in it (gay marriage). We have taken care of any problems that might come up about illness (doctor,hospital,health decisions),visitation,death,and inheritance. We have a Will, Health Directive, and Powder of Attorney. We have had occasion to already use some of these. Thankfully we haven't encountered any problems.
i wish many of the people i knew hadn't gotten married.
i have straight friends who should never have gotten married.
i have straight friends who lived together for a long time and then got married, they seperated without divorce because of the legal complexity.
i have friends who have been together for a long time. they seem happy. after 30 years, i am happy.
marriage should not be the expected thing.
the fact that blake publicly supports the right to same-sex marriage can hardly be expected. i think it is worth acknowledging.
gay people have their own concerns, as expressed in this thread.
i have the right, but i don't plan to use it, thank you very much. just because i have no plan to exercise my right in no way strips me of that right.
i have straight friends who should never have gotten married.
i have straight friends who lived together for a long time and then got married, they seperated without divorce because of the legal complexity.
i have friends who have been together for a long time. they seem happy. after 30 years, i am happy.
marriage should not be the expected thing.
the fact that blake publicly supports the right to same-sex marriage can hardly be expected. i think it is worth acknowledging.
gay people have their own concerns, as expressed in this thread.
i have the right, but i don't plan to use it, thank you very much. just because i have no plan to exercise my right in no way strips me of that right.
stowe1
Ye Olde Curmudgeon
Thank you, Blake. We need all the straight allies we can get.
Obviously, people have the right to their own opinions when it comes to whether or not they will avail themselves of a right. Most Americans have the constitutional right to vote, and sadly look how few exercise it on a regular basis. But marriage is different. Marriage is a right which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all Americans. But it is currently not available to gay Americans and it should be. Whether or not a gay couple wants to avail themselves of that right is a choice they should be able to make. Right now, with a few exceptions, it is not. But it is my view that those in the gay community who don't want to avail themselves of the right to marriage, should still lend your support to the effort to get this right explicitly guaranteed to all gays. I applaud anyone in a long term relationship and equally praise those who have taken the necessary steps to protect themselves because we can't marry. But the point is you shouldn't have to do that unless you choose to. Right now you are forced to. And even if you are protected in such things as wills, visitations, power of attorney, etc. you still don't enjoy all the federal and/or state benefits that you are entitled to as a couple if you were married. Again, you might choose not to avail yourselves of them by not marrying, but that will be your chocie. Right now you have no chocie.
The hangup with so many people who oppose our marrying is that the marriage act has gotten tied up with religion. In this country, we have, in essence, deputized religious clergy to act as agents of the state in performing the marriage ceremony. But remember, marriage is still a civil act - you can't get married in a church or synagogue, without a
marriage license issued by the civil government. Or you may choose to get married civilly by a government agent, e.g. justice of the peace, town clerk, or judge. In a number of European countries, you have to get married in a civil ceremony before you get married in a religious one.
That's why so many people in the U.S. get all hung up about the religious aspect of marriage, when truth be told, marriage has to be sanctioned by the civil government, by issuing a license, before you can proceed to any type of ceremony, civil or religious. As a civil act, it is a civil right which under the 14th amendment should be applied equally to all citizens.
I married a woman in Greenwich, Connecticut in 1967. We were required to get a blood test by the state government and get a license from the state issued by the Town Clerk of Greenwich. All this before we made the choice to get married at St. Mary's Church as opposed to a civil ceremony. We had to meet the civil requirements before the marriage took place. I'm beating a dead horse here, but just to emphasize the importance of having this RIGHT available to all citizens and denied to very few, and certainly not denied on the basis that the couple wishing to get married is of the same sex.
To me and I'm not saying this to demean the opinions of anyone who has a contrary view, but to me, not supporting marriage equality for gay men and women is an affront to those who came before us and started our liberation movement. Frank Kameny, the Stonewall protesters, Larry Kramer and many more have advanced the cause of gay equal rights to where it is today. Now it is our turn to move the ball down the field closer to the time when there is no question that constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans are available to all Americans. I'm just sayin'!!
__________________
Obviously, people have the right to their own opinions when it comes to whether or not they will avail themselves of a right. Most Americans have the constitutional right to vote, and sadly look how few exercise it on a regular basis. But marriage is different. Marriage is a right which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all Americans. But it is currently not available to gay Americans and it should be. Whether or not a gay couple wants to avail themselves of that right is a choice they should be able to make. Right now, with a few exceptions, it is not. But it is my view that those in the gay community who don't want to avail themselves of the right to marriage, should still lend your support to the effort to get this right explicitly guaranteed to all gays. I applaud anyone in a long term relationship and equally praise those who have taken the necessary steps to protect themselves because we can't marry. But the point is you shouldn't have to do that unless you choose to. Right now you are forced to. And even if you are protected in such things as wills, visitations, power of attorney, etc. you still don't enjoy all the federal and/or state benefits that you are entitled to as a couple if you were married. Again, you might choose not to avail yourselves of them by not marrying, but that will be your chocie. Right now you have no chocie.
The hangup with so many people who oppose our marrying is that the marriage act has gotten tied up with religion. In this country, we have, in essence, deputized religious clergy to act as agents of the state in performing the marriage ceremony. But remember, marriage is still a civil act - you can't get married in a church or synagogue, without a
marriage license issued by the civil government. Or you may choose to get married civilly by a government agent, e.g. justice of the peace, town clerk, or judge. In a number of European countries, you have to get married in a civil ceremony before you get married in a religious one.
That's why so many people in the U.S. get all hung up about the religious aspect of marriage, when truth be told, marriage has to be sanctioned by the civil government, by issuing a license, before you can proceed to any type of ceremony, civil or religious. As a civil act, it is a civil right which under the 14th amendment should be applied equally to all citizens.
I married a woman in Greenwich, Connecticut in 1967. We were required to get a blood test by the state government and get a license from the state issued by the Town Clerk of Greenwich. All this before we made the choice to get married at St. Mary's Church as opposed to a civil ceremony. We had to meet the civil requirements before the marriage took place. I'm beating a dead horse here, but just to emphasize the importance of having this RIGHT available to all citizens and denied to very few, and certainly not denied on the basis that the couple wishing to get married is of the same sex.
To me and I'm not saying this to demean the opinions of anyone who has a contrary view, but to me, not supporting marriage equality for gay men and women is an affront to those who came before us and started our liberation movement. Frank Kameny, the Stonewall protesters, Larry Kramer and many more have advanced the cause of gay equal rights to where it is today. Now it is our turn to move the ball down the field closer to the time when there is no question that constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans are available to all Americans. I'm just sayin'!!
__________________
keep saying it, stowe!
my personal view on the subject of marriage is colored by my experience with that institution. however, i marched and spoke out in favor of equal rights. i support marriage equality.
in california, the courts have said, it is a right guaranteed to me. so in this state it seems to be a settled issue. (for now!)
my personal view on the subject of marriage is colored by my experience with that institution. however, i marched and spoke out in favor of equal rights. i support marriage equality.
in california, the courts have said, it is a right guaranteed to me. so in this state it seems to be a settled issue. (for now!)
Alright guys, not every forum is a debate.
All mark and I wanted to do was just show the cool shirt, opinions are opinions, but when your opinions hurt in a destructive non criticizing way, let's try to be civil and not argue over who's right or wrong in this.
It's just a cool shirt.
FRIENDS!
Alright guys, not every forum is a debate.
All mark and I wanted to do was just show the cool shirt, opinions are opinions, but when your opinions hurt in a destructive non criticizing way, let's try to be civil and not argue over who's right or wrong in this.
It's just a cool shirt.
FRIENDS!
Exactly! It's a cool shirt and you look great in it.
Which brings up that corny pick-up line...."If I told you I liked your shirt, could I talk you out of it?
mikeyank
Long time forumite
Of course Stowe is 100% correct. It is amazing to me that in 2012, in the USA, this is still even an issue. If a particular religion does not want to recognize same sex marriage, so be it. But when it comes to legal rights, government has no business getting involved. We do have a constitution that guarantees our rights.
Similar threads
