Tera253
Gran Gran
In Soviet Russia, post writes you
Posts: 588
|
Post by Tera253 on Nov 9, 2008 8:06:32 GMT -5
the protests seemed quite exaggerated... anyways, I personally think that trying to force people to "Accept" something they don't want to accept is just as bad as trying to get people to see something as "vile" and "2nd-class". either way, this will be a "war" that will always be fought, and lies will always be told on either side. I saw a commercial that rallied against Prop 8 that told lies about the Mormons (being Mormon, I know what they do and don't do). so in other words, it's not just the people FOR prop 8 that were making the lies, but the groups against it as well. it really DOES take two to tango. personally though, I think that now that Prop 8 is over that America needs to scrap any further arguing about it for the time being and worry abnout more important things. ~Azula~ Gay marriage, is certainly not about acceptance. Someone being allowed to pursue happiness and there for individual rights is tolerance. I personally feel gay marriage is something that we should be past by now. To me its just as important as any other law or problem. People need to grew up and deal with it. Its to me at least on the level any case of inequality and is not easily dismissed. "tolerance" and "acceptance" are all but interchangable. I can pretty much re-quote what I said using a different approach. "I think making people tolerate something thy don't want to tolerate is just as bad as having people not tolerate something they want to tolerate"at this point in America's history though, I think we need to shelve this crap for the time being and worry more about something that affects everyone... like, the economy? more time and money into fixing our economy and solving the issue with Iraq, and then we can worry about more petty issues like this IMHO. (EDIT: and why am I always the one to slap a new page?) ~Azula~
|
|
|
Post by Blind Bandit on Nov 9, 2008 9:34:50 GMT -5
Gay marriage, is certainly not about acceptance. Someone being allowed to pursue happiness and there for individual rights is tolerance. I personally feel gay marriage is something that we should be past by now. To me its just as important as any other law or problem. People need to grew up and deal with it. Its to me at least on the level any case of inequality and is not easily dismissed. "tolerance" and "acceptance" are all but interchangable. I can pretty much re-quote what I said using a different approach. "I think making people tolerate something thy don't want to tolerate is just as bad as having people not tolerate something they want to tolerate"at this point in America's history though, I think we need to shelve this crap for the time being and worry more about something that affects everyone... like, the economy? more time and money into fixing our economy and solving the issue with Iraq, and then we can worry about more petty issues like this IMHO. (EDIT: and why am I always the one to slap a new page?) ~Azula~ I think you forgetting that this is a fundamental right that gay and lesbian couples do not Possess that strait couples take for granted. Such a right is equally important as any other freedom. Just because it dosen't effect you is valid but still weak. We live in country that promises equality and yet we are not allowing it. Also tolerance and equality do not carry the same meaning. From Dictionary.com Tolerance Acceptance As you can see Tolerance is dealing with or enduring something you may not agree with. This is what is being asked for. Acceptance is on the other hand refers to believing or approving of gay marriage. Acceptance is not what is being asked for only tolerance.
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Nov 9, 2008 17:37:13 GMT -5
That's sort of my position except that any private institution can grant whatever they want. It'd just be symbolic anyways. Grandi, you do realize that a year or so ago, or whenever the heck it was, that we were having that godawful argument about gay marriage, that your current position is the same one I had (still have)? And WOOT for your bloggage.
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Nov 11, 2008 1:58:37 GMT -5
^Well, people are entitled to alter or change their opinions.
I am under the assumption that there are in fact gay/lesbian/bisexual people who follow one of the three major monotheistic, patriarchal doctrines. That being said, gay people who would like to get married have to not only deal with the government recognizing their marriage, but also the institution in which they wish to marry accepting their requesting and performing the ceremony.
Given the endless and debatable controversy surrounding "God's Views" about people's sexual orientation, there never will be a clear-cut decision on gay marriage. Not for a good long while anyway.
As far as "civil unions" or some sort of recognized union that allows tax benefits, adoption abilities, and other rights that married couples enjoy, the government should allow such. And all the time, money, and energy going into making people suddenly accept gay marriage is wasted. People need to funnel these resources into covering the legislative basics first.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 11, 2008 2:32:01 GMT -5
[/qutoe] That being said, gay people who would like to get married have to not only deal with the government recognizing their marriage, but also the institution in which they wish to marry accepting their requesting and performing the ceremony.[/quote] I'm assuming you mean the institution in which they want to get married. I highly doubt that there are people who'd rather not marry than have a marriage not done by a priest, when there marriage is against their religion anyway. For the government there is, they must allow it because of the first ammendment. "Equal but seperate" never works. it's tolerance not acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by travellingfay on Nov 13, 2008 6:57:34 GMT -5
Friend, I think you need a better dictionary. Or, you know, you need to think this assertion through a little more carefully. Are you sincerely trying to argue that it is immoral to try to change someone's mind? That their passionately-held belief should be respected, no matter what it is? Because that is arrant rubbish. By that rationale, it would be immoral to try to argue against Adolph Hitler's sincere belief that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people were inherently superior to all others, and that Jews, Gypsies, Physically and Mentally disabled people and Homosexuals should all be murdered. After all, he believed it! It was his right to believe it! By your rationale, it is immoral to try to counsel and reprogram the thinking of paedophiles or rapists. They sincerely believe that they should be allowed to f*ck who they want to. Disagreeing with them, and trying to make them change their minds, is oppression! It's immoral! By your rationale, it is immoral to take a stand against racism and bigotry - the KKK members who sincerely believe that black Americans are less human than white Americans, well, they're entitled to their beliefs. Disagreeing with them, insisting that black Americans are entitled to the same rights as white Americans, that slavery was a wicked and shameful period of America's history, that the Civil Rights movement was A Good Thing and that people are just people - well, that's immoral! It's unfair! It's denying them their rights! ...or, you know - not. This laissez-faire approach to morality will not do. It is morally bankrupt to play the game of "each to their own", and pretend that all beliefs and philosophies are equally valid and deserving equal respect. They are not. Philosophies that are rooted in selfishness, in xenophobia, in prejudice, in belittling of other groups of people - these philosophies do NOT merit some kind of respect simply because their proponants are sincere. Being sincere about your prejudices does not mean that people should back off and quit pointing out that you're a bigot. Sincerity really isn't enough. Keith Olbermann said it best, I think: ...I was tempted to cut and paste the whole article, but I realise that would have been a case of tl;dr. But I definitely recommend you read the whole text of his response to Prop 8, because it is a thing of clarity, eloquence and beauty. www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermanns-prop-8-s_n_142862.html
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Nov 13, 2008 11:57:34 GMT -5
For the government there is, they must allow it because of the first ammendment. But government can't force religious institutions to marry people. The only way gay people, by government recognition, could get married, is in a court room. I'm willing to bet, there are a lot of gay people who would rather have a more traditional wedding. And right now, there's less than a handful of religious institutions that will marry gay couples together. Didn't say "separate but equal." Said, work on basic benefits first then progress from there. it's tolerance not acceptance.[/quote] To(may)to, to(mah)to. Either way, currently, it's a waste of resources. People need to focus on the legal barriers first before tackling the social ones.
|
|
Mike
Avatar Roku
Love is the beauty of the soul.
Posts: 1,269
|
Post by Mike on Nov 13, 2008 13:20:55 GMT -5
Gays and Lesbians should be able to get married and have the same rights as a straight couple. They're still going to live together, love each other, and still have sex, so why not just let them get married. If it bothers Christians so much they should just leave it at this:
That God still loves everyone no matter what they do and That they will have to deal with him when they die.
Its not anyones place to judge them or not allow them to be married. It's immoral and unconstitutional to take away what makes them happy.
At the end of the day we're all still human beings all deserving equality.
I was in Manhattan last night and by Lincoln Center and there was this massive protest. They were all ticked about california. The line practically went on forever, cops helicopters everything. I thought it was pretty cool seeing all of them, gays, lesbians and straight people marching together. That's what this country is all about.
|
|
Tera253
Gran Gran
In Soviet Russia, post writes you
Posts: 588
|
Post by Tera253 on Nov 13, 2008 13:51:56 GMT -5
In the imperfect world we live in, it is physically impossible to make everyone happy.
on one hand, if we leave thigns the way they are, the gays/lesbians/etc will be "unhappy", and on the other, those who are opposed to it will be "unhappy" (namyly, upset, angry, whatever) should it be changed.
different things make different people happy. people who are addicted marijuana say it makes them happy, and yet it's illegal. should we make it legal just so they can be happy? some people find themselves attracted to children and think that banging them makes them happy, should we legalize that too?
again, my thesis of "mo matter what, there's always gonna be an "unhappy" group.
So where do I stand on this? I personally say "whatever makes the majority happy" those who support and oppose it are gonna go out and vote. generally, the strong they support/oppose it, the more likely they'll vote. similarly, the less they care abpout it, the less likely they'll care enough to get out and vote.
with Prop 8's success, I assume that the majority of the area affected (California) was for Prop 8, hence the reason it passed.
I'm personally against gay marriage because of recent lies they've spread about the Mormons (I know what they[Mormons] do and don't do) but that aside, I'll go back to my neutral standpoint.
summed up, my philosophy is: "Majority wins". if it makes people "unhappy" and there's nothing else they can do about it, then it looks like they'll have to find another way to be "happy". until then, majority, majority, majority. correct me if I'm wrong about which side is/was the majority x3.
~Katara~
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Nov 13, 2008 14:11:18 GMT -5
I'm personally against gay marriage because of recent lies they've spread about the Mormons (I know what they[Mormons] do and don't do) but that aside, I'll go back to my neutral standpoint. summed up, my philosophy is: "Majority wins". if it makes people "unhappy" and there's nothing else they can do about it, then it looks like they'll have to find another way to be "happy". until then, majority, majority, majority. correct me if I'm wrong about which side is/was the majority x3. ~Katara~ Normally, I'd be inclined to agree that the majority wins. On the other hand, if a populace is fed lies and falsehoods to support one side, I do not consider the majority's opinion to be truly informed. Furthermore, the reason homosexuals in California and nationwide have an issue with the LDS church is because they poured thousands of dollars of advertising into getting it passed and using arguments that, if looked upon objectively, are ludicrous, at best. Then, there's the entirely different matter of the hypocrisy of a church that once condoned polygamy being the end-all-be-all of marriage matters.
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Nov 13, 2008 17:00:50 GMT -5
In the imperfect world we live in, it is physically impossible to make everyone happy. on one hand, if we leave thigns the way they are, the gays/lesbians/etc will be "unhappy", and on the other, those who are opposed to it will be "unhappy" (namyly, upset, angry, whatever) should it be changed. different things make different people happy. people who are addicted marijuana say it makes them happy, and yet it's illegal. should we make it legal just so they can be happy? some people find themselves attracted to children and think that banging them makes them happy, should we legalize that too? again, my thesis of "mo matter what, there's always gonna be an "unhappy" group. So where do I stand on this? I personally say "whatever makes the majority happy" those who support and oppose it are gonna go out and vote. generally, the strong they support/oppose it, the more likely they'll vote. similarly, the less they care abpout it, the less likely they'll care enough to get out and vote. with Prop 8's success, I assume that the majority of the area affected (California) was for Prop 8, hence the reason it passed. I'm personally against gay marriage because of recent lies they've spread about the Mormons (I know what they[Mormons] do and don't do) but that aside, I'll go back to my neutral standpoint. summed up, my philosophy is: "Majority wins". if it makes people "unhappy" and there's nothing else they can do about it, then it looks like they'll have to find another way to be "happy". until then, majority, majority, majority. correct me if I'm wrong about which side is/was the majority x3. ~Katara~ I would agree with that normally, except, that same philosophy disregards certain basic human rights. Imagine how this country would be had the common people followed "majority rules" on issues like segregation. For that particular social issue, the government, though they eased into gradual, national integration, the courts ruled segregation unconstitutional and Congress had to step in to fix the problem. Problem is, uncle sam doesn't want to get its hands wet, especially at this point and time, with an issue like gay marriage and (like integration) it's trying to dodge dump it on the states. After a while, the federal gov. is going to have to deal with it. Personally, I believe that because of the amount of protest in support of gay marriage outweighs the support of banning it, the gov's gonna cave to the louder side.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 13, 2008 17:19:49 GMT -5
That has nothing to do with anything. Also, if that's the case, do you also think they should be able to not marry inter-racial couples? Regardless, they should be able to get married as long as marriage is a word still in the legal books. They are seperate but equal. You're suggesting that gay people have a legal right that straight people do to but probably never use, and is supposed to be equal to marriage. Seperate but equal.
By the way, I just think the word "marriage" would be wiped off the government and for now on marriages will be civil unions, that way religious people can do whatever they want with marriage, gay people will have the same rights as straight ones, and now the church can't claim to own a government respected practice......wait......well we'll be free from that kind of bull-whocky for atleast 1 year and that's worth way more than what it would cost. The point isn't to keep everyone or as many people as possible happy. It's for them to have the rights they should. And yes it should be legal to smoke marijuana.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Nov 13, 2008 19:38:31 GMT -5
I think the only reason Prep H passed was because it was voted on during an election year when people were focused on the bigger picture. I dont think it will last long.
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Nov 13, 2008 20:12:26 GMT -5
If you absolutely insist on seeing that way, then whatever floats your boat.
The main issue is taking care of the major parts before tying up loose ends. (Ex: Adoption, tax breaks, employer's health coverage plans, etc). It's not separate. They are the SAME things that married couples would have. It's not labeled "gay couple" coverage or "gay tax breaks." It's simply called a tax break or health coverage. Period. Same amount of funding, same legislation. And if given the option to receive benefits first and "title" later, common sense would tell a person to start at point A and then progress to point B instead of whining. It's not grouping gays and lesbians into a separate school, or setting out different water fountains, or different days at Disney World for gays and lesbians only. They'll still be allowed to mingle in society. As of right now, because of the given issues, companies don't have to provide health coverage to homosexual couples (and would like to keep it that way to cut costs).
Arguing that "either call it this or no deal" actually would promote an overall disservice to homosexual couples who could possibly save money by enrolling in company health insurance or enjoying a higher tax return at the year.
Whether religious institutions choose to recognize some sort of union under God, the government really shouldn't have a say in the matter. It's up to that institution's discretion. The American government did not come up with marriage; they just wrote laws for how to ink it on a sheet of paper and how to divide the money when it's time for a divorce.
If the religious institution of question refused to marry an interracial couple, then yes, it is out of the government's hands. And furthermore, if there is such an institution, the interracial couple should have enough common sense not to get married there in the first place. Matter of fact, there are some Catholic churches that won't recognize a marriage unless both people are Catholic. Nothing the government can do.
|
|
Tera253
Gran Gran
In Soviet Russia, post writes you
Posts: 588
|
Post by Tera253 on Nov 14, 2008 4:53:16 GMT -5
The point isn't to keep everyone or as many people as possible happy. It's for them to have the rights they should. And yes it should be legal to smoke marijuana. so what makes them and say, people attracted to children (pedos) different? shouldn't they have rights too? ~Azula~
|
|