When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

[HollyS]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.

I'm glad I amuse you.

And I'm only being 'bout 1/3 insincere.

 

[ericad]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.

Being an atheist is as relevant to this issue as being religious. So I don't understand your post. Can you elaborate? Emoties are very useful for conveying emotion, but they don't serve as good substitutes for whole sentences. Please and thank you.

 

[E B]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/powell-favors-same-sex-marriage/?hpt=hp_t1

"I have no problem with it," he said in the interview, which will air at 5 p.m. ET. "In terms of the legal matter of creating a contract between two people that's called marriage, and allowing them to live together with the protection of law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country. And so I support the president's decision."

 

[HollyS]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.

Being an atheist is as relevant to this issue as being religious. So I don't understand your post. Can you elaborate? Emoties are very useful for conveying emotion, but they don't serve as good substitutes for whole sentences. Please and thank you.

I don't think (any PSer) being religious (or atheist) is paramount to this discussion. Religion was only brought up as one of the obstacles to universal acceptance of SSM. Pointing out that atheists have a right to marry, and btw, "I am one" is immaterial, really.

This can quickly devolve into finger pointing at Christians here as unsympathetic, ignorant, intolerant, etc. I've kept my own personal opinion out of this discussion, and yet, more than one poster felt they knew exactly what I thought . . . because I'm a Christian. They do not, apparently, know me very well.

If you can keep from ascribing specific thoughts and motives to everyone here who is religious, fine. If you can't, let's just let it lie.

 

[Imdanny]

This can quickly devolve into finger pointing at Christians here as unsympathetic, ignorant, intolerant, etc. I've kept my own personal opinion out of this discussion, and yet, more than one poster felt they knew exactly what I thought . . . because I'm a Christian. They do not, apparently, know me very well.

If you can keep from ascribing specific thoughts and motives to everyone here who is religious, fine. If you can't, let's just let it lie.

Well, if someone falsely ascribed a motivation to you in this thread, why not call that person out specifically?

Since you brought this up, I'm a Congregationalist. Maybe you shouldn't assume what people's religious views are or aren't.

 

[ericad]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.

Being an atheist is as relevant to this issue as being religious. So I don't understand your post. Can you elaborate? Emoties are very useful for conveying emotion, but they don't serve as good substitutes for whole sentences. Please and thank you.

I don't think (any PSer) being religious (or atheist) is paramount to this discussion. Religion was only brought up as one of the obstacles to universal acceptance of SSM. Pointing out that atheists have a right to marry, and btw, "I am one" is immaterial, really.

This can quickly devolve into finger pointing at Christians here as unsympathetic, ignorant, intolerant, etc. I've kept my own personal opinion out of this discussion, and yet, more than one poster felt they knew exactly what I thought . . . because I'm a Christian. They do not, apparently, know me very well.

If you can keep from ascribing specific thoughts and motives to everyone here who is religious, fine. If you can't, let's just let it lie.

Religion is paramount to the discussion of semantics and the definition (and perceived ownership) of the word "marriage" as it applies federally and to religious organizations, which we've discussed at length on this thread.

Stating that one is an atheist is relevant because atheists can be married without any involvement or approval from religious groups, just as gays could be if included under the same institution of "marriage." Yet there are many who use religious freedom as an argument against same sex marriage, and want it to be called something else.

By creating "civil union" as a separate category of partnership, we lend credibility to the claim that the term "marriage" belongs to faith based groups, in which case atheists should be converted to the civil union group under this rationale. Personally, I have no problem with this option, therefore being an atheist is relevant since the groups that would be most affected by defining "marriage" as faith-based are...wait for it...gays and atheists.

Stating that one is an atheist is no different from the posters on this thread who have stated their personal religion (Christian, Jewish, etc.) yet I don't see you calling them out or rolling your emotie-eyes at them, telling them that their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[HollyS]

"Woo-Hoo!! High five me, dude! I'm an atheist, too!!"


Whoopie.

Being an atheist is as relevant to this issue as being religious. So I don't understand your post. Can you elaborate? Emoties are very useful for conveying emotion, but they don't serve as good substitutes for whole sentences. Please and thank you.

I don't think (any PSer) being religious (or atheist) is paramount to this discussion. Religion was only brought up as one of the obstacles to universal acceptance of SSM. Pointing out that atheists have a right to marry, and btw, "I am one" is immaterial, really.

This can quickly devolve into finger pointing at Christians here as unsympathetic, ignorant, intolerant, etc. I've kept my own personal opinion out of this discussion, and yet, more than one poster felt they knew exactly what I thought . . . because I'm a Christian. They do not, apparently, know me very well.

If you can keep from ascribing specific thoughts and motives to everyone here who is religious, fine. If you can't, let's just let it lie.

Religion is paramount to the discussion of semantics and the definition (and perceived ownership) of the word "marriage" as it applies federally and to religious organizations, which we've discussed at length on this thread.

Stating that one is an atheist is relevant because atheists can be married without any involvement or approval from religious groups, just as gays could be if included under the same institution of "marriage." Yet there are many who use religious freedom as an argument against same sex marriage, and want it to be called something else.

By creating "civil union" as a separate category of partnership, we lend credibility to the claim that the term "marriage" belongs to faith based groups, in which case atheists should be converted to the civil union group under this rationale. Personally, I have no problem with this option, therefore being an atheist is relevant since the groups that would be most affected by defining "marriage" as faith-based are...wait for it...gays and atheists.

Stating that one is an atheist is no different from the posters on this thread who have stated their personal religion (Christian, Jewish, etc.) yet I don't see you calling them out or rolling your emotie-eyes at them, telling them that their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation.

And off we go.

 

[justginger]

Erica, please save your time and effort - well worded and intelligent answers are simply dismissed with a 4 word snark. It's not worth your effort or blood pressure to continue the 'discussion.'

 

[armywife13]

Erica, please save your time and effort - well worded and intelligent answers are simply dismissed with a 4 word snark. It's not worth your effort or blood pressure to continue the 'discussion.'

+1.... Unfortunately. To me it seems odd that the one who is complaining about religion being involved is the cause of the beginning of heated religion discussions related to this topic. Yes, a few people made comments about being atheist, but the discussions went on without a hitch until the eye rolls had to come out.....

Erica-

I completely agree with you on your views and see no problem with you saying you are an atheist.

-Sarah...a born and raised catholic

 

[ericad]

Erica, please save your time and effort - well worded and intelligent answers are simply dismissed with a 4 word snark. It's not worth your effort or blood pressure to continue the 'discussion.'

+1.... Unfortunately. To me it seems odd that the one who is complaining about religion being involved is the cause of the beginning of heated religion discussions related to this topic. Yes, a few people made comments about being atheist, but the discussions went on without a hitch until the eye rolls had to come out.....

Erica-

I completely agree with you on your views and see no problem with you saying you are an atheist.

-Sarah...a born and raised catholic

Agreed on all counts.

Back to the original question, I think same sex marriage will ABSOLUTELY be legalized federally, however I don't think it will happen for several years. Much of it depends on the upcoming election, and the commitment of President Obama, if reelected, to make this happen. A show of support is great, but at the end of the day it's worth a hill of beans if it doesn't result in policy changes.

I do believe we'll see more and more states passing marriage equality laws, and as the numbers increase, so will pressure on the federal government to make the changes necessary to catch up with the states who have decided to embrace the 21st century.

 

[armywife13]

Erica, please save your time and effort - well worded and intelligent answers are simply dismissed with a 4 word snark. It's not worth your effort or blood pressure to continue the 'discussion.'

+1.... Unfortunately. To me it seems odd that the one who is complaining about religion being involved is the cause of the beginning of heated religion discussions related to this topic. Yes, a few people made comments about being atheist, but the discussions went on without a hitch until the eye rolls had to come out.....

Erica-

I completely agree with you on your views and see no problem with you saying you are an atheist.

-Sarah...a born and raised catholic

Agreed on all counts.

Back to the original question, I think same sex marriage will ABSOLUTELY be legalized federally, however I don't think it will happen for several years. Much of it depends on the upcoming election, and the commitment of President Obama, if reelected, to make this happen. A show of support is great, but at the end of the day it's worth a hill of beans if it doesn't result in policy changes.

I do believe we'll see more and more states passing marriage equality laws, and as the numbers increase, so will pressure on the federal government to make the changes necessary to catch up with the states who have decided to embrace the 21st century.

I sure hope so. I cannot wait until the day that everyone has equal rights. To me (and I know everyone has different views), it seems like such a black and white, right and wrong issue, that it frustrates me to see it taking so long.

 

[HollyS]

And the current prevailing attitude is why the only people left in the discussion are those who agree with each other. You are the only "rational" posters.

I believe this thread has reached the usual PS impasse. Arguments aren't the same thing as discussions. We start out discussing, but if a thread goes over 5 pages . . . you get this.

 

[ededdeddy]

This discussion makes me giggle. All the handwringing about people not accepting it and the bogus non arguments against it. 58 percent of the general public support it 70 percent of people born after 1980 do and even more among people born after 1990. Remember in the next election kids born in 1998 will be able to vote.