|
Post by Decatur on Dec 1, 2008 3:55:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 1, 2008 7:21:47 GMT -5
Gays just don't get it. I for one , could care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors and figure it's not my business to judge. I have no objection to these arrangements being privy to the same legal rights as married couples as it relates to property and personal matters which is where the case for discrimination can be made. On the other hand, when the state issues these folks an actual marriage license, the message given is that the citizenry as a whole condones the behavior. It's a matter of principle. This campaign is nothing more than an attempt to coerce the people of this country into approving of something which we most certainly do not.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 1, 2008 10:11:02 GMT -5
!
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 1, 2008 10:42:37 GMT -5
I get a different message from the legalization of same-sex marriages. To me, it's a message of equal rights even for those who are not like us.
Yes, I do see it as very similar to the civil rights battles that others have faced and continue to face.
Civil unions, even if they are written with the intent of granting every right of marriage except the title, are still "separate but equal" status, and will always be something less than the complete measure of legal acceptance. "Separate but equal" didn't work in terms of racial equality, as it just ensured "separate" and never lived up to the "equal" part. Civil unions are just the same thing in a different sack.
I have full confidence in Nature's ability to prevent gay marriages from becoming extremely popular. But for those who do have other preferences in life, I think they should have the same right to pursue their choice of partners and to live their life together under the same rules, including actual marriage, not some "separate but equal" sack of baloney substitute.
And I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will eventually make the same decision, and all the time and money spent trying to delay full rights for some of our fellow citizens will have been wasted.
I think we have better things to do, like educating more people about the second amendment, or about the carrying capacity of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Dec 1, 2008 17:22:46 GMT -5
On the other hand, when the state issues these folks an actual marriage license, the message given is that the citizenry as a whole condones the behavior. [/quote Ding ding ding........... we have a winner. The fact is, the majority of the citizens of this country.....not just individual states......do not agree with this kind of behavior. Besides........being black is not a behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 1, 2008 18:27:23 GMT -5
Equating homosexual issues with civil rights is an insult to every black person in the country. It is not the same thing at all. Black is a genetic thing. You can't help being black. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. In my opinion it is perversion. Moral considerations aside, it is clearly a mental illness; the parts aren't compatible folks. Hello, Mr. Obvious.
That said, it's already illegal to shoot, beat, harass, or threaten homosexuals---just like it is everybody else. It is perfectly legal for gays to go where straight people go, eat where they eat, work where they work, etc.
Gays aren't looking for the same rights as normal people, they are looking for additional "rights."
They want minority status, so that their boss can't fire them if they are bad workers, fearing they will simply cry,"discrimination!" and sue them out of business. They want minority status so that whenever something doesn't go their way, they can cry "discrimination!" and sue a company or business that ticks them off for whatever reason. They want to get married so that they can cover their "partners" under their employee insurance, just like real marriages.
The marriage issue is a no brainer. Marriages throughout history, pick any culture you want---- is a man+woman=family proposition.
Pretty soon it will be illegal to give them a dirty look. Already I am a "Bigot" because I simply disapprove. How long before my kid has to go to "tolerance" classes? How long until Child Protective Services ends up at your door because they get wind that you have taught your children that this behavior is wrong?
This is where a society that turns it's back on God ends up.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 1, 2008 20:59:39 GMT -5
Civil unions, even if they are written with the intent of granting every right of marriage except the title, are still "separate but equal" status, and will always be something less than the complete measure of legal acceptance. Civil unions allow every LEGAL right granted under a marriage license. That makes the union equal in legality. It's the MORAL right that gays want to force us to acknowledge by demanding a marriage license and that is something the majority of the citizens of this country are not willing to do. The only discrimination I see here is that which gays are exhibiting toward us "straight" people by disallowing us the right to decide we don't wish to declare their behavior moral by our standards.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 1, 2008 22:43:21 GMT -5
Equating homosexual issues with civil rights is an insult to every black person in the country. It is not the same thing at all. Black is a genetic thing. You can't help being black. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. In my opinion it is perversion. Moral considerations aside, it is clearly a mental illness; the parts aren't compatible folks. Hello, Mr. Obvious. Sas I agree with you on most things you say on this board... but how can you honestly say that homosexuality is a behavior? Were you at one point homosexual because if you weren't then really you can't know for certain if it is a choice... or if it is something people are born with... A lot of things are behaviors... Overeating is a behavior.... but fat people are still allowed to get married... Pedophilia is a behavior... but the government does not say that convicted pedophiles are not allowed to have children with their husband/wife... ignorance is a choice... but stupid people still marry and reproduce all the time.. and America does not seem to be outraged by this... The way I see it they are people... same as you and me and everyone else... no better... no worse... just different.... and why should they not be allowed to have the opportunity to make the person they love miserable for the rest of their lives... or give up half their stuff when they find out that little piece of paper changes things...
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Dec 1, 2008 23:11:56 GMT -5
Sleaz I just knew this was coming. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 2, 2008 0:36:06 GMT -5
Equating homosexual issues with civil rights is an insult to every black person in the country. It is not the same thing at all. Black is a genetic thing. You can't help being black. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. In my opinion it is perversion. Moral considerations aside, it is clearly a mental illness; the parts aren't compatible folks. Hello, Mr. Obvious. Overeating is a behavior.... Actually, overeating is an addiction!
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 2, 2008 8:00:07 GMT -5
Equating homosexual issues with civil rights is an insult to every black person in the country. It is not the same thing at all. Black is a genetic thing. You can't help being black. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. In my opinion it is perversion. Moral considerations aside, it is clearly a mental illness; the parts aren't compatible folks. Hello, Mr. Obvious. . Sas I agree with you on most things you say on this board... but how can you honestly say that homosexuality is a behavior? Were you at one point homosexual because if you weren't then really you can't know for certain if it is a choice... or if it is something people are born with... A lot of things are behaviors... Overeating is a behavior.... but fat people are still allowed to get married... Pedophilia is a behavior... but the government does not say that convicted pedophiles are not allowed to have children with their husband/wife... ignorance is a choice... but stupid people still marry and reproduce all the time.. and America does not seem to be outraged by this... The way I see it they are people... same as you and me and everyone else... no better... no worse... just different.... and why should they not be allowed to have the opportunity to make the person they love miserable for the rest of their lives... or give up half their stuff when they find out that little piece of paper changes things... Nothing wrong with a different opinion, God Bless America..... Marriage isn't that bad that we should want to make everybody suffer equally, is it? Seriously, I would agree that all the other people with bad behaviors you mentioned, such as overeating, ARE allowed to marry.....The opposite gender. Homosexuality is a choice.... no one has to do it. Even if these people feel that they can't help it, why does that mean they need to get married? A gay marriage isn't real anyway, IMO, but to call two individuals of the same gender "Married" is an insult to the institution. Besides, the marriage issue is just a part of the larger goal of official minority status. If they can achieve minority status---which the mainstream media seems to have already given them---marriage won't be the last thing they get. Where does this stop? You know that "transgendered" folks are now part of the poor persecuted group. Pretty soon, all I have to do is make up my mind that I am really a woman, in spite of the beard, body hair and male reproductive organs, and I can claim all kinds of "minority" benefits at work and from the government? Do I get a "transgendered" college loan? A special housing loan, maybe? Other minorities get special loans....
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Dec 2, 2008 9:20:32 GMT -5
Civil unions, even if they are written with the intent of granting every right of marriage except the title, are still "separate but equal" status, and will always be something less than the complete measure of legal acceptance. Civil unions allow every LEGAL right granted under a marriage license. That makes the union equal in legality. It's the MORAL right that gays want to force us to acknowledge by demanding a marriage license and that is something the majority of the citizens of this country are not willing to do. The only discrimination I see here is that which gays are exhibiting toward us "straight" people by disallowing us the right to decide we don't wish to declare their behavior moral by our standards. I agree with Huxbux on how society is to handle homosexual unions, although I do not view homosexuality as a matter of choice 100% of the time. Having known and been close to many homosexual/bisexual individuals throughout my life (no, I am not one, lol), I can not deny that there is some genetic basis for the way they are (although I am not saying 100% of people who call themselves homosexual have this genetic basis). The issue of choice versus genetics, to me, is irrelevant to the issue of legal rights. Marriage is, by definition, between 1 man and 1 woman, so why should we change the definition just because some people are homosexual? That definition has worked well for many years, and society is overwhelmingly not in favor of changing it, so I don't see why we should change that to accommodate the views of a minority of individuals. In my view, there is no discrimination if homosexual couples in a legally-recognized union enjoy all the legal rights of married couples. I don't see why homosexual individuals would want to enter into a "marriage" if it is between one man and one woman by definition--I imagine to them, it would feel like wearing clothes 2 sizes too small. I have no issue with them entering into and taking pride in legal unions, which are by definition something other than marriage, and enjoying all legal benefits given to married couples.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 2, 2008 12:26:46 GMT -5
Greyhound, So let me get this straight....you do believe that at least some significant portion of the homosexual population is that way because of their genetic makeup? And you do not deny that they are humans and citizens? But you still think we should deny them the right to marry the person of their choice, because of the "definition" of marriage as between a man and a woman, historically? Hmmm...
There was a time when the historic definition of a wife was being the property of her husband. And a time when the legal definition of a voter was someone who was free, white and 21, and a landholder....and male. And a time when the definition of a human in parts of this great country did not include those of African descent.
These definitions did not change by themselves. It took a good bit of searching of conscience by many people, much changing of minds over time, and lots of deep reflection on the part of a great many good people to change those definitions from their long accepted status to their new status.... as outdated definitions that we once believed were true but no longer accept as being so.
It was not accomplished by the acceptance of the then-existing "definition" of wife, or voter, or human, as being the final one.
Definitions change all the time. I think it's time we changed the definition of "equal rights under the law" to include those who don't share our sexual preference, just as we did when we included those who didn't share our race or gender.
I'll add the same disclaimer that you did....I'm not homosexual. None in the family that I know of, or among my close friends. The few homosexuals that I've been casually acquainted with over the years seemed just like regular folks to me. I saw no reason to deny them the right to marry within their preference if they so chose. And I think the current divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates are doing much more harm to the traditional marriage definition than would the inclusion of a few more people who happen to have a different idea of what constitutes sexual attraction.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 2, 2008 13:55:13 GMT -5
Is marriage defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman?
I thought part of the problem was because there was was no universal definition?
Didnt California just pass an amendment to their states constitution that defined marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman because there was no such definition before??
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 2, 2008 13:59:52 GMT -5
With these types of social issues I am usually pretty liberal ..... I fall into the "dont tell me what to do and I wont tell you what to do" category.
I was completely neutral on the gay marriage issue ..... My wife has an uncle who is gay. He is one of the nicest men you will ever meet. I went to school with some men who are now openly gay. Never had a problem with them either.
I am not homophobic in the least. Dont care one way or the other.
Issues like the state of Mass. deciding to teach alternative lifestyles to children as young as the first grade are the reason I would strongly oppose any laws that made gay marriage legal. It is another case of a few fruits ruining the whole salad.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 2, 2008 14:03:28 GMT -5
Swilk
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 2, 2008 17:00:10 GMT -5
Once again Russ, you see nothing wrong with forcing society to sanction , (or "bless" if you will), a behavior that the majority believes to be immoral. That's an issue that you've failed to address. No one here is advocating a denial of the rights of gays. This would seem to me to be a reversal of the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
A society which has no moral compass to guide it is lost.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 2, 2008 18:58:11 GMT -5
Huxbux, We do see the same thing from some very different angles, sometimes. 8^)
I don't like to see society, or any member of it, forced to do anything unneccessarily.
Freedom is good.
And I personally never use the term "bless".
I think that if the majority of society doesn't believe it is moral to engage in a behavior, they should have every freedom not to engage in it.
However, they don't have the freedom to prevent others from engaging in it due to their belief.
Thus, I was able to have a ham sandwich a few minutes ago despite the opinion of a great many people in our society that eating pork is immoral. I didn't have to Google it up and see if the anti-pork-eaters were now in the majority, or if any laws had been passed to make that sandwich illegal. I could simply rely on my own moral compass in making the decision. I hold no grudge against those in other houses who might have opted for chicken or beef or fish. They are free to eat as they wish, as am I.
I am strongly suspicious of those who may have chosen cottage cheese, with or without any fruit accompaniment, but I don't plan to start a push towards a constitutional amendment to make that choice illegal. Their disgusting habit seems to me to be ample self-punishment.
A society which needs to poke its moral compass into my business can just get lost.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 2, 2008 20:02:18 GMT -5
Well said Russ.... I might also add that who is to say what is moral? The religious right? remember that there was a time when Christianity was thought to be an abomination... they even went so far as to feed Christians to the lions... So at that point in history I guess that was the "moral" thing to do since it was what the majority thought was right....
Let me ask you this.... Do you recognize the marriage of Jews or Muslims? They are not married in the same fashion that Christians are.... how about Wiccans and Pagans? surely they are not married because your God is not involved in it....
Minorities have had to fight to get everything they have wanted in this country.... The Indians fought to try and save their land... Blacks fought for their freedom... women fought (although in a different sense) for the right to vote and to be treated as equals... By the thinking of some of the posts I have read... it would seem that you would not allow women the that right... or blacks the rights that they fought for...
Remember the world is an ever changing place... this country is no different than any other... things change as the times change... different things become the "norm" and older traditions die out.... if you don't think this is true... then please tell me why we are not still living in caves and rubbing two sticks together to make fire?
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 2, 2008 21:53:40 GMT -5
Huxbux, We do see the same thing from some very different angles, sometimes. 8^) I don't like to see society, or any member of it, forced to do anything unneccessarily. Freedom is good. And I personally never use the term "bless". I think that if the majority of society doesn't believe it is moral to engage in a behavior, they should have every freedom not to engage in it. However, they don't have the freedom to prevent others from engaging in it due to their belief. Thus, I was able to have a ham sandwich a few minutes ago despite the opinion of a great many people in our society that eating pork is immoral. I didn't have to Google it up and see if the anti-pork-eaters were now in the majority, or if any laws had been passed to make that sandwich illegal. I could simply rely on my own moral compass in making the decision. I hold no grudge against those in other houses who might have opted for chicken or beef or fish. They are free to eat as they wish, as am I. I am strongly suspicious of those who may have chosen cottage cheese, with or without any fruit accompaniment, but I don't plan to start a push towards a constitutional amendment to make that choice illegal. Their disgusting habit seems to me to be ample self-punishment. A society which needs to poke its moral compass into my business can just get lost. Again Russ, you've missed the real issue. We (the majority opposed to gay marriage) do not wish to prevent others from engaging in their behavior, which is where you keep focusing your argument. We have simply exercised our rights in choosing to not officially sanction that behavior by refusing those who do a marriage license. To do otherwise would be tantamount to our approval of said behavior. Although I allow you to eat your pork sandwich or whatever equally disgusting meaty matter you choose to slap between two pieces of bread because I believe it's your right to do so, I absolutely have the right to not approve of it, do I not? If I do not approve of your preference in sandwiches, that does not make my opinion of your eating habits discriminatory as you are still exercising your rights by eating the sandwich. We (the majority) are just not going to force the Surgeon General of the U.S. to declare that the eating of your sandwich is something which we approve of in order to make you feel better about the whole thing. A society which follows a moral compass may not be the ideal fit for all individuals all of the time, but it sure beats the chaos of wandering around without direction. BTW, I absolutely love BBQ pork.
|
|