shape
carat
color
clarity

When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

  • 2012

    Votes: 12 14.3%
  • 2013

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • 2014

    Votes: 5 6.0%
  • 2015

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • 2016

    Votes: 5 6.0%
  • 2017

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • 2018

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2019

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • After 2020

    Votes: 27 32.1%
  • Never

    Votes: 11 13.1%

  • Total voters
    84

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Maisie|1336857818|3193946 said:
When you say gay marriage do you mean in a church/mosque/synagogue or a civil marriage ceremony?

I'm not Kenny, and I don't know what he meant (pretty sure he meant marriage under civil law but that's for him to say) but maybe this will help a little. I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US, a marriage, or a civil union, has to be "solemnized," and the solemnization ceremony (according to the law) can be done either by a religious institution or by a judge.
 

Maisie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
12,587
Imdanny|1336896497|3194190 said:
Maisie|1336857818|3193946 said:
When you say gay marriage do you mean in a church/mosque/synagogue or a civil marriage ceremony?

I'm not Kenny, and I don't know what he meant (pretty sure he meant marriage under civil law but that's for him to say) but maybe this will help a little. I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US, a marriage, or a civil union, has to be "solemnized," and the solemnization ceremony (according to the law) can be done either by a religious institution or by a judge.

Thanks Danny. In the UK there was talk of making it law that anyone can get married in a church. This concerns me as a church marriage is different to a civil marriage. I don't think it would be fair to force churches to marry gay couples which might be against their beliefs. However, after Ella's warning I won't discuss this further as it may be going against the PS rules.

ETA I don't have an issue with gay marriage in a civil ceremony before anyone jumps on me. And I just realised that Kenny said 'when (not should' so my comment isn't really in the right place anyway.
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
Living in Massachusetts it is so hard to believe that this debate is going on. Gay marriage has been legal here for 8 years come this Thursday.

Maisie, in the USA, the courts or other branches of govt cannot legislate what the religious institutions do with their sacraments. There are some fringe issues, covering birth control under health insurance, which is another convo for another place, but the US govt is not interested or able in legislating sacraments. This is a discussion about civil marriage, not religious ceremonies. But yes, times are a changin' The deep southern Rabbi who married my husband and I marries gay couples within the faith (this is non binding by their states' laws), they just have to both be Jewish. The courts could not force her to marry Catholics or anyone else. I hope that makes sense.

From what I understand of the situation in the UK, it is if the church wants to continue to receive govt funding, then they cannot discriminate against some taxpayers because of their orientation. Which makes sense to me. A church can reject any funding source if they don't like the strings attached.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Maise, just to add to swimmer's excellent comments, in the US the Constitution provides separation of church and state. This can be found in the Bill of Rights and traced to Jefferson and Madison, whose original writings make explicit what their thoughts were on this subject. Conservatives do often deny that this is the case, but history is unequivocal about this, and our federal judiciary has held it to be as such.

I do want to be clear, because this subject has arisen, that nobody in the GLBT community in the US has nor ever would seek to legally force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings. I don't know when same sex marriage will become law nationally, but I do know that religious institutions will never be legally required to perform them.
 

Maisie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
12,587
Imdanny|1336906621|3194221 said:
Maise, just to add to swimmer's excellent comments, in the US the Constitution provides separation of church and state. This can be found in the Bill of Rights and traced to Jefferson and Madison, whose original writings make explicit what their thoughts were on this subject. Conservatives do often deny that this is the case, but history is unequivocal about this, and our federal judiciary has held it to be as such.

I do want to be clear, because this subject has arisen, that nobody in the GLBT community in the US has nor ever would seek to legally force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings. I don't know when same sex marriage will become law nationally, but I do know that religious institutions will never be legally required to perform them.

Its been on the news in the UK recently that there are members of the GLBT community who are pushing for the law to be changed so they can get married in church. I feel that this might be why there is so much opposition to the law changing. A lot of religious people oppose the church wedding, not the marriage in general.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Imdanny|1336906621|3194221 said:
Maise, just to add to swimmer's excellent comments, in the US the Constitution provides separation of church and state. This can be found in the Bill of Rights and traced to Jefferson and Madison, whose original writings make explicit what their thoughts were on this subject. Conservatives do often deny that this is the case, but history is unequivocal about this, and our federal judiciary has held it to be as such.

I do want to be clear, because this subject has arisen, that nobody in the GLBT community in the US has nor ever would seek to legally force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings. I don't know when same sex marriage will become law nationally, but I do know that religious institutions will never be legally required to perform them.


Really?
Tell that to the people of Hutchinson, KS.
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
beebrisk|1336914724|3194248 said:
Imdanny|1336906621|3194221 said:
Maise, just to add to swimmer's excellent comments, in the US the Constitution provides separation of church and state. This can be found in the Bill of Rights and traced to Jefferson and Madison, whose original writings make explicit what their thoughts were on this subject. Conservatives do often deny that this is the case, but history is unequivocal about this, and our federal judiciary has held it to be as such.

I do want to be clear, because this subject has arisen, that nobody in the GLBT community in the US has nor ever would seek to legally force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings. I don't know when same sex marriage will become law nationally, but I do know that religious institutions will never be legally required to perform them.


Really?
Tell that to the people of Hutchinson, KS.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204250020
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Oops. Let me read the link.

Edit, ok, thanks, k.

That had nothing to do with what I posted. I said "perform" same sex weddings.
 

Tuckins1

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
8,614
Not until people stop allowing religious beliefs to even be considered in a political platform/ influencing political decisions. Separation of church and state....
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,227
I respect every religion's right to practice their teachings, even if it means denying members what some outside that religion consider to be civil rights.
That's their religion and I will respect their right to teach ANYTHING they teach, short of criminal activity of course.

What some consider to be equality and civil rights issues like gay marriage, medical care to save a child's life, and women being allowed to drive a car or hold a job are subordinate to the teachings of the religion for their members.
If you disagree with the teachings of a religion, don't be a member.
This is a black and white perspective that I realize may be unthinkable to adults who were raised in said religion - and kids have no choice.

IMHO, forcing a religion to allow gay weddings in their buildings or to recognize/bless/accept gay weddings is going too far.

This whole respecting diversity thing is tricky; It can easily slide into the paradox of tolerating intolerance.

I expect eventually government will get out of the marriage business and in a few generations of ugly, messy fighting two new terms will emerge to replace today's single term marriage.
There will be one term for what everyone must legally do in the eyes of government to address /insurance companies/employers/IRS tax laws/real estate titles/hospital visitation/ inheritance etc.
The other term will be provided by religions to describe for their members what today is called marriage.

Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe religions will just add gay marriage to the list of unrecognized unions.
IOW Religion A already does not recognize religions X or Y.
Some Religion As think they are the ONLY true religion and everyone else is, uhm, well you know.
Religion A can just add married gays to their list of the unrecognized.
No problem; that's every religion's right.
Don't like it? Don't be a member.

We are living in interesting times, fer sure.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
kenny|1336929530|3194367 said:
I respect every religion's right to practice their teachings, even if it means denying members what some outside that religion consider to be civil rights.
That's their religion and I will respect their right to teach ANYTHING they teach, short of criminal activity of course.

What some consider to be equality and civil rights issues like gay marriage, medical care to save a child's life, and women being allowed to drive a car or hold a job are subordinate to the teachings of the religion for their members.
If you disagree with the teachings of a religion, don't be a member.
This is a black and white perspective that I realize may be unthinkable to adults who were raised in said religion - and kids have no choice.

IMHO, forcing a religion to allow gay weddings in their buildings or to recognize/bless/accept gay weddings is going too far.

This whole respecting diversity thing is tricky; It can easily slide into the paradox of tolerating intolerance.

I expect eventually government will get out of the marriage business and in a few generations of ugly, messy fighting two new terms will emerge to replace today's single term marriage.
There will be one term for what everyone must legally do in the eyes of government to address /insurance companies/employers/IRS tax laws/real estate titles/hospital visitation/ inheritance etc.
The other term will be provided by religions to describe for their members what today is called marriage.

Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe religions will just add gay marriage to the list of unrecognized unions.
IOW Religion A already does not recognize religions X or Y.
Some Religion As think they are the ONLY true religion and everyone else is, uhm, well you know.
Religion A can just add married gays to their list of the unrecognized.
No problem; that's every religion's right.
Don't like it? Don't be a member.

We are living in interesting times, fer sure.


What Kenny said. A kindly, voice of reason.
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,105
ksinger|1336917677|3194282 said:
beebrisk|1336914724|3194248 said:
Imdanny|1336906621|3194221 said:
Maise, just to add to swimmer's excellent comments, in the US the Constitution provides separation of church and state. This can be found in the Bill of Rights and traced to Jefferson and Madison, whose original writings make explicit what their thoughts were on this subject. Conservatives do often deny that this is the case, but history is unequivocal about this, and our federal judiciary has held it to be as such.

I do want to be clear, because this subject has arisen, that nobody in the GLBT community in the US has nor ever would seek to legally force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings. I don't know when same sex marriage will become law nationally, but I do know that religious institutions will never be legally required to perform them.


Really?
Tell that to the people of Hutchinson, KS.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204250020


While churches may not be legally forced to perform such services, cultural pressure and political correctness has already reared its ugly head in many denominations. There are people within the Episcopal church, the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran denominations who do not want and do not sanction same-sex marriages. But, they will be forced, by their bishops and above, to perform them. Simply because if it becomes the norm outside the church, it will eventually become part of the church.

It's amazing to me that the denominations that cling to 'history and tradition' the most are always the first to adopt a cultural trend.

Now, before anyone gets bent out of shape over my opinion on churches, I haven't given you MY personal perception of what should be done legally, so don't get your britches in a bunch. I will remain mum on that, thank you; although you might be surprised at what I really think.
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
kenny|1336680454|3192334 said:
What I find interesting is America is near 50-50 on gay marriage, but posts on PS opposing gay marriage are VERY rare.
I don't recall even one.

Why?

I'll venture a guess.
People on the wrong side of history know they are wrong and that it is hate (not morality) but (like the KKK wearing hoods) they don't want to be publically identified with their hate.
They prefer the warm comfy privacy of the voting booth to preserve their first class status and superiority. :angryfire:


If this is a serious question (and you haven't made up your mind that your guess is right and so don't honestly want an answer), I would answer it saying that America is not 50-50 on gay marriage. POLLS come out about 50-50 on gay marriage. Whenever there are elections, the results are very different. Americans (outside of certain liberal bastions--i.e. Hollywood, mainstream media outlets, academia and certain libertal elite groups who see themselves as more 'intellectual') do not support gay marriage. Everyone knows that they do not and this is why the tactics to make gay marriage legal do not (and cannot) involve a popular vote. The HOPE, on the part of gay marriage supporters, is that this will change eventually and the IDEA is to get it now, by any means possible because once it is done deal, THEN people will change their minds. But no one thinks the majority of Americans are currently in support of this.

HOWEVER, the reason that Americans do not support this is not because they 'hate' gay people. It is important not to get confused about this and it is easy to get confused, because one of the tactics to push this social change through has been by labelling those who don't support it as 'haters' and making them equivalent to the KKK. I think this is the tactic that has resulted in the false polls and also in the silence and lack of discussion from the majority of people when this subject comes out. People don't wish 'not to be publicly identified with their hate'--they don't wish to have to defend themselves from charges of hate and other insults (telling someone that they are like the KKK 'wearing hoods' is a serious insult, for those of us who remember what the KKK used to do 50 years ago) so they just shut up--and continue to vote as they feel is right and is best for the future of the country. Very seriously, many many people feel that marriage has a certain definition and are not at all convinced that it is a 'right'. They may have gay friends and family, they may have gay co-workers that they respect, they may have sympathy for gay couples who want the right to be there for their longterm partner during a serious illness, etc. That is why there is a huge difference when you inquire about gay 'marriage' and opposed to 'civil unions'. People do believe in fairness and in what they think are actual rights but do not believe certain social changes are good for the country as a whole, especially after having seen the results of many of the other social changes and changes to morality in the past 40 years and are unwilling to experiment further. They are not going to say so publicly though, so long as they feel bullied and remarks comparing them to the KKK (and your remark was mild compared to some others which are constantly made about people who don't believe in gay marriage, publicly) tend to make people feel bullied and their response is to draw back and dig their heels in and not say anything--but not change their minds.

There are also environments now where people can lose their jobs for saying anything publicly on the 'wrong' side of this issue or be publicly dragged through the mud. I think of the young lady a few years back in the beauty pageant who was ASKED whether she supported gay marriage (totally out of the blue and it had nothing to do with the pageant) and had to answer, and said something very mild (though somewhat inarticulate) like 'it's fine with me if you believe in gay marriage but I believe in opposite marriage' or something like that. there was incredible publicity as this young woman not only lost the pageant (she had been the front-runner) but had everything dirty in her past dragged out and put in newspapers and paraded in the media. She didn't say she hated anybody, she actually said it was fine for others to believe what they believed,b ut that she believed differently. It was quite a display--and it has not been the only one. Individual gay people are not responsible and may even deplore these kinds of tactics personally, but they create a climate of fear that makes people answer dishonestly--or just stay silent, when the subject comes up.

I wouldn't say that this is necessarily what is happening though here on Pricescope (though I know of at least one case where a poster left the forum after being very harshly attacked for 'anti-gay' views when she said she did not support gay marriage. While there are probably SOME here who disagree, Pricescope is a 'bubble'. The posters here skew much more liberal than the general population of the US--there are couple of threads where people have been polled and this has been found to be the case. There are also many posters from the countries in Europe where gay marriage has not only been passed, but also the sort of hate speech laws that make it difficult to speak against it. So what are they going to say?
I should add that there are definitely people who would object to gay marriage largely because of the above--because of the 'hate speech' laws that always seem to get passed in its wake (where even pastors can get charged,for quoting the Bible) and also because of the fact that I stated in last post, that the schools end up propagandizing their children about something which REALLY has to do with sex at earlier and earlier ages. This is in general a huge problem so far as convincing people about anything to do with this subject. The fact is, that gays are not distinguishable from the general population by any particular look or visual difference. Anybody who has any experience with being around gay people in real life (as opposed to tv) knows this well. There are certain stereotypes, but they most often do not fit--that very effeminate looking man is actually a married father of 6 while the big bodybuilder prefers other men (and the same for women). Therefore, when you have classes that deal with gay subjects, you end up dealing with sex, because that is what it is actually. Not what gays look like, but what they do. Because they are regular people who are DOING something different. And most do not want to read about this, any more than they would want to read about other couples performing other kinds of sex, in detail. and people fear their kids being exposed.
Plus of course the effects on kids on having 'parents' both of the same sex--adn thus not having role models of both sexes with complEmentary personal traits. As a black person, in the past 35 years or so I have seen a lot of this--both boys and girls being raised with no men around, just two women (mother and grandmother or two sisters) and these kids have a lot of issues. I don't see why this wouldn't be the same.
unfortunately the people are not gay who most loudly and publicly support gay marriage tend to be people who are very verbal about wanting to destroy traditional social structures in general and seem to be 'using' gays and this to accomplish this. This doesn't make the majority, who is more traditional, more supporting. In fact, a lot of people now see the issue as a Trojan horse, ifyou know what I mean.
And people are sorry that it makes someone feel bad and sympathetic when gay people say how much better they would feel if this was passed, but hearing how people feel and that they feel bad tends to make you not want to say anything to hurt their feelings further in public--but not to make you want to vote for something that you think would be terrible for the majority of the country and for the future.
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
This booklet is an example of the kind of thing parents are afraid of. It was passed out to middle school kids and up in Massachusetts in 2005. Besides pornographic descriptions under the guise of 'information' it has a list of gay bars, described as 'a nexus of gay life for all ages'. Middle school starts with 6th graders (12 year olds).
Is a person really like a KKK member because they are informed that this kind of thing can come into schools under the guise of 'education' once gay marriage is legalized --and objects to it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rubin-eugenics-mothers-day-20120513,0,4681748.story
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,105
Black Jade|1337024685|3195047 said:
This booklet is an example of the kind of thing parents are afraid of. It was passed out to middle school kids and up in Massachusetts in 2005. Besides pornographic descriptions under the guise of 'information' it has a list of gay bars, described as 'a nexus of gay life for all ages'. Middle school starts with 6th graders (12 year olds).
Is a person really like a KKK member because they are informed that this kind of thing can come into schools under the guise of 'education' once gay marriage is legalized --and objects to it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rubin-eugenics-mothers-day-20120513,0,4681748.story



Well, I'm confused. Surely that is not the correct article??


However, you did make some valid points in your previous post. There is such a thing as 'gray'. Not every issue is an either/or. And I'm more than tired of people playing the Hate Card. Or the Race Card. It's such a throw-away line instead of engaging in real discourse.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,227
Thanks for speaking up Black Jade.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,227
Feb03Bride|1337046752|3195352 said:
It should have been legal years ago.

But 40 years ago those sincere people were doing what they felt was right and moral.
I'm sure most of them were good people.

We are all trapped behind our eyes and a product of our times.

The idea of equality is a magical, powerful and transforming thing, isn't it?
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Black Jade|1337019906|3195000 said:
kenny|1336680454|3192334 said:
What I find interesting is America is near 50-50 on gay marriage, but posts on PS opposing gay marriage are VERY rare.
I don't recall even one.

Why?

I'll venture a guess.
People on the wrong side of history know they are wrong and that it is hate (not morality) but (like the KKK wearing hoods) they don't want to be publically identified with their hate.
They prefer the warm comfy privacy of the voting booth to preserve their first class status and superiority. :angryfire:


If this is a serious question (and you haven't made up your mind that your guess is right and so don't honestly want an answer), I would answer it saying that America is not 50-50 on gay marriage. POLLS come out about 50-50 on gay marriage. Whenever there are elections, the results are very different. Americans (outside of certain liberal bastions--i.e. Hollywood, mainstream media outlets, academia and certain libertal elite groups who see themselves as more 'intellectual') do not support gay marriage. Everyone knows that they do not and this is why the tactics to make gay marriage legal do not (and cannot) involve a popular vote. The HOPE, on the part of gay marriage supporters, is that this will change eventually and the IDEA is to get it now, by any means possible because once it is done deal, THEN people will change their minds. But no one thinks the majority of Americans are currently in support of this.

We have a democratic Republic. We don't follow the majority. We follow the Constitution.

HOWEVER, the reason that Americans do not support this is not because they 'hate' gay people. It is important not to get confused about this and it is easy to get confused, because one of the tactics to push this social change through has been by labelling those who don't support it as 'haters' and making them equivalent to the KKK. I think this is the tactic that has resulted in the false polls and also in the silence and lack of discussion from the majority of people when this subject comes out. People don't wish 'not to be publicly identified with their hate'--they don't wish to have to defend themselves from charges of hate and other insults (telling someone that they are like the KKK 'wearing hoods' is a serious insult, for those of us who remember what the KKK used to do 50 years ago) so they just shut up--and continue to vote as they feel is right and is best for the future of the country. Very seriously, many many people feel that marriage has a certain definition and are not at all convinced that it is a 'right'. They may have gay friends and family, they may have gay co-workers that they respect, they may have sympathy for gay couples who want the right to be there for their longterm partner during a serious illness, etc. That is why there is a huge difference when you inquire about gay 'marriage' and opposed to 'civil unions'. People do believe in fairness and in what they think are actual rights but do not believe certain social changes are good for the country as a whole, especially after having seen the results of many of the other social changes and changes to morality in the past 40 years and are unwilling to experiment further. They are not going to say so publicly though, so long as they feel bullied and remarks comparing them to the KKK (and your remark was mild compared to some others which are constantly made about people who don't believe in gay marriage, publicly) tend to make people feel bullied and their response is to draw back and dig their heels in and not say anything--but not change their minds.

To the first quote: I HAVE the RIGHT to be there for my partner during a serious illness. Personally, I don't need nor want your "sympathy."

To the second quote: no, people don't believe in fairness, and all of this talk about conservatives supporting civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other legal arrangements as opposed to marriage is a false promise. I could probably come up with a list of states who have outlawed any "fairness."

There are also environments now where people can lose their jobs for saying anything publicly on the 'wrong' side of this issue or be publicly dragged through the mud. I think of the young lady a few years back in the beauty pageant who was ASKED whether she supported gay marriage (totally out of the blue and it had nothing to do with the pageant) and had to answer, and said something very mild (though somewhat inarticulate) like 'it's fine with me if you believe in gay marriage but I believe in opposite marriage' or something like that. there was incredible publicity as this young woman not only lost the pageant (she had been the front-runner) but had everything dirty in her past dragged out and put in newspapers and paraded in the media. She didn't say she hated anybody, she actually said it was fine for others to believe what they believed,b ut that she believed differently. It was quite a display--and it has not been the only one. Individual gay people are not responsible and may even deplore these kinds of tactics personally, but they create a climate of fear that makes people answer dishonestly--or just stay silent, when the subject comes up.

I wouldn't say that this is necessarily what is happening though here on Pricescope (though I know of at least one case where a poster left the forum after being very harshly attacked for 'anti-gay' views when she said she did not support gay marriage. While there are probably SOME here who disagree, Pricescope is a 'bubble'. The posters here skew much more liberal than the general population of the US--there are couple of threads where people have been polled and this has been found to be the case. There are also many posters from the countries in Europe where gay marriage has not only been passed, but also the sort of hate speech laws that make it difficult to speak against it. So what are they going to say?
I should add that there are definitely people who would object to gay marriage largely because of the above--because of the 'hate speech' laws that always seem to get passed in its wake (where even pastors can get charged,for quoting the Bible) and also because of the fact that I stated in last post, that the schools end up propagandizing their children about something which REALLY has to do with sex at earlier and earlier ages. This is in general a huge problem so far as convincing people about anything to do with this subject. The fact is, that gays are not distinguishable from the general population by any particular look or visual difference. Anybody who has any experience with being around gay people in real life (as opposed to tv) knows this well. There are certain stereotypes, but they most often do not fit--that very effeminate looking man is actually a married father of 6 while the big bodybuilder prefers other men (and the same for women). Therefore, when you have classes that deal with gay subjects, you end up dealing with sex, because that is what it is actually. Not what gays look like, but what they do. Because they are regular people who are DOING something different. And most do not want to read about this, any more than they would want to read about other couples performing other kinds of sex, in detail. and people fear their kids being exposed.

No, they are not "doing" anything different. You mention sex. There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in. So trying to define gay people by what they "do" is a non-starter.

As to "people fear their kids being exposed," some of their kids ARE gay. When "people fear" the subject, it creates a dysfunctional and abusive environment for people of all ages.

Plus of course the effects on kids on having 'parents' both of the same sex--adn thus not having role models of both sexes with complEmentary personal traits. As a black person, in the past 35 years or so I have seen a lot of this--both boys and girls being raised with no men around, just two women (mother and grandmother or two sisters) and these kids have a lot of issues. I don't see why this wouldn't be the same.
unfortunately the people are not gay who most loudly and publicly support gay marriage tend to be people who are very verbal about wanting to destroy traditional social structures in general and seem to be 'using' gays and this to accomplish this. This doesn't make the majority, who is more traditional, more supporting. In fact, a lot of people now see the issue as a Trojan horse, if you know what I mean.
And people are sorry that it makes someone feel bad and sympathetic when gay people say how much better they would feel if this was passed, but hearing how people feel and that they feel bad tends to make you not want to say anything to hurt their feelings further in public--but not to make you want to vote for something that you think would be terrible for the majority of the country and for the future.

Actually, no, I don't.
 

justginger

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
3,712
Black Jade, I appreciate a good, healthy discussion and like the fact that you're happy to speak up when you feel the need to do so. And you do it in an articulate, anti-inflammatory manner. However, I am absolutely gobsmacked by your feelings on this matter. I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that someone who is clearly thoughtful and intelligent can come to the conclusions you do.

Can you honestly not see that this is a matter of equality? Pure and simple, it can't be boiled down any further. All men created equal, it's been ringing around as an unalienable American right for, well, hundreds of years. One man should not be able to legally enjoy a status that is denied to another. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality, a concept on which the Constitution does not even attempt to touch. What you consider moral, I do not, and vice versa. Laws are not based on morals, they are based on legal rights. Until an event or action actually DENIES another person their inalienable rights, it cannot be withheld - simply being found "distasteful" or "immoral" is not good enough to legally deny someone. Case in point: a judge just ruled in NY (?) that viewing child pornography online is not illegal - one must actually download and save such images to be considered 'in possession.' I find viewing child pornography on the internet morally reprehensible...but that's not enough to make the action illegal.

With morals taken out of the equation, along with any Biblical references (thanks to a crystal clear Constitutional separation of church and state), what other justification exists to continue denying 5-10% of the population the ability to marry their life partners, thereby enjoying the same medical, legal, and spiritual benefits as married heterosexual couples?
 

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
Imdanny|1336823548|3193712 said:
thing2of2|1336662460|3192067 said:
slg47|1336593564|3191406 said:
I think it will be a while. People who do not know gay couples personally may not realize that they can be in love and in committed relationships just like straight couples.

Someone posted this graph on FB
Screen%20Shot%202012-05-09%20at%2012.41.16%20PM.png
I think it may take another generation.

It is interesting to note that until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. (I do not believe that it is but I can certainly understand how someone growing up believing this may have an issue with gay marriage).

Another thing to note is that 'marriage' has two definitions. There is the 'government recognized marriage' and also the 'church recognized marriage (for some this is a sacrament). The two are very different but the same word, 'marriage', is used. I believe this may contribute to some people's objections to gay marriage.

I am not happy about the ban in NC but even less happy about all of the hatred I am seeing towards the NC voters.

Huh? Please elaborate on the bolded. You're more upset about people being angry at the bigotry and hatred of NC voters than you are at the actual bigotry and hatred of NC voters?

Does not compute.

Yes, really. Forget the fact that North Carolina just made even civil unions illegal and whom that will affect and how. You would be more (emphasis in the original) upset about "the bigotry and hatred" of North Carolina voters? Wow.

Some people don't know what bigotry is. I'd like to tell them what it is but I like to remain a member in good standing here if you know what I mean.

unfounded fear and ignorance is sad and will change over time. hating people for expressing an opinion that you disagree with...doesn't sit well with me.

i read an interesting quote...great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
 

iheartscience

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
12,111
slg, the people you're so concerned about voted in private to deny civil rights to a large group of people, so unless they speak up, no one will know exactly who they are. You should be a LOT more concerned about the large group of people who can't get married, and as a result can't visit their sick partners in the hospital, adopt children in some states, etc.

It really makes absolutely no sense to have more sympathy for the people who voted to deny gay couples civil rights than for the gay couples themselves being denied their civil rights.
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,105
"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
kenny|1337047758|3195366 said:
Feb03Bride|1337046752|3195352 said:
It should have been legal years ago.

But 40 years ago those sincere people were doing what they felt was right and moral.
I'm sure most of them were good people.

We are all trapped behind our eyes and a product of our times.

The idea of equality is a magical, powerful and transforming thing, isn't it?

Are you sure most of them were good people? Plenty of them reveled in their hate, lynching, this, that, and the other. Plenty of them revel in their hate still today.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,227
HollyS|1337104431|3195792 said:
"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

He didn't say ALL straight couples do "that".
I know gay couples who don't do "that" either.

"Outside the norm" is a potent phrase.
Left handed people are outside the norm, so are redheads.

Actually the most "normal" person is Chinese.
Is not being Chinese justification for denying smaller groups civil rights like marriage?

Do you feel superior because you are "normal"?
Einstein was not normal, neither was Hitler.
Normal is not good or bad.
Normal is just a number thing.

Fortunately the founders of America designed a system so the "normal" can not forever screw over the "not-normal".
IMHO this clinging to and enforcing what is "normal" is an ugly thing.
It excludes perfectly good people from the club.

BTW, being gay IS normal . . . for a gay person.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
HollyS|1337104431|3195792 said:
"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

Black Jade told us she has an Ivy Leaugue education. I'm sure she can answer for herself.
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,105
kenny|1337105415|3195805 said:
HollyS|1337104431|3195792 said:
"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

He didn't say ALL straight couples do "that".
I know gay couples who don't do "that" either.

"Outside the norm" is a potent phrase.
Left handed people are outside the norm, so are redheads.

Actually the most "normal" human being is Chinese.
Is not being Chinese justification for denying smaller groups civil rights like marriage?

Do you feel superior because you are "normal"?
Einstein was not normal, neither was Hitler.
Normal is not good or bad.
Normal is just a number thing.

Fortunately the founders of America designed a system so the "normal" can not forever screw over the "not-normal".
IMHO this clinging to and enforcing what is "normal" is an ugly thing.
It excludes perfectly good people from the club.

BTW, being gay IS normal . . . for a gay person.



Kenny, you are a master at putting words in other people's mouths, but I'm not biting. I DIDN'T SAY I WAS NORMAL AND YOU ARE NOT. And you know that isn't what I said. So your post was rather ridiculous.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,227
HollyS|1337105764|3195811 said:
Kenny, you are a master at putting words in other people's mouths, but I'm not biting. I DIDN'T SAY I WAS NORMAL AND YOU ARE NOT. And you know that isn't what I said. So your post was rather ridiculous.

You wrote, " A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you."

Going form "norm" to "normal" is not quite a stretch. Is it?
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
kenny|1337105415|3195805 said:
HollyS|1337104431|3195792 said:
"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

He didn't say ALL straight couples do "that".
I know gay couples who don't do "that" either.

"Outside the norm" is a potent phrase.

I know, right? Gay women couldn't do "that" if they wanted to and they're still gay. :rolleyes:
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,105
Imdanny|1337105699|3195810 said:
HollyS|1337104431|3195792 said:
"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

Black Jade told us she has an Ivy Leaugue education. I'm sure she can answer for herself.



I wasn't speaking for BJ. I was speaking directly to you, about what YOU said. I pointed out an obvious flaw in YOUR post. I wasn't clarifying her post, per se. But, whatever. When you're on roll, I usually just look the other way; my bad.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top