Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

[rear naked]

way to totally derail the thread Amishassassin. Why couldn't you just start your own thread? This is a GAY MARRIAGE thread

[Amishassassin]

i was just curious, like i stated at the beginning....i really like looking at other peoples opinions and seeing things from their points of views. and see if there is mutual ground or if people are very closed minded and just super extremist. ok....how bout them gays people?

[Cflat]

i was just curious, like i stated at the beginning....i really like looking at other peoples opinions and seeing things from their points of views. and see if there is mutual ground or if people are very closed minded and just super extremist. ok....how bout them gays people?

lol. It's cool, man. I just find it a bit sad that much of our education system can't seem to handle teaching kids about such important things like evolution and the fact that we are a secular nation founded on the principles of the separation of church and state. I see examples of it way too often.

So, what are you thoughts on gay marriage?

[Amishassassin]

and yes...i will admit that i definately did word things not the way i was wanting to get across. that is 100% my bad. (hence why i suck at english classes) BUT..the point i was trying to make with this and with the gays IS...

If society changes over time and we have to adapt certain laws to certain situations...IE colored people and the freedoms for all or even drug laws...is our country always gonna be changing to these things like gay rights to marry and what not? cuz pretty sure that there werent a whole lot of gays back in 1776. right? what are people's thoughts on the whole adaptive nature of our country. should this BECOME a super big deal...or should we just give them the right to marry and move on? I personally think that we give them their rights and let them move on. they already stold the rainbow and refracted light from us (demitri martin quote...haha) what else could they want besides marriage? i think that once this is done...we will all sit back and continue on our lives or is there more?

[Amishassassin]

BTW...im christian...and i LOVE evolution. i think its dope shit. how can we NOT DISPROVE dinosaurs and all that. im all for evolution. call me crazy...anywhos...but about them gays...just look up to what i was trying to say about adaptive government...

[Cflat]

and yes...i will admit that i definately did word things not the way i was wanting to get across. that is 100% my bad. (hence why i suck at english classes) BUT..the point i was trying to make with this and with the gays IS...

If society changes over time and we have to adapt certain laws to certain situations...IE colored people and the freedoms for all or even drug laws...is our country always gonna be changing to these things like gay rights to marry and what not? cuz pretty sure that there werent a whole lot of gays back in 1776. right? what are people's thoughts on the whole adaptive nature of our country. should this BECOME a super big deal...or should we just give them the right to marry and move on? I personally think that we give them their rights and let them move on. they already stold the rainbow and refracted light from us (demitri martin quote...haha) what else could they want besides marriage? i think that once this is done...we will all sit back and continue on our lives or is there more?

It's called progress.
A thousand years from now, those people will look back on us in the same way we look back on those that preceded us by a thousand years. I like to think that we've generally been heading in the right direction. There seems to be a common trend as opposed to randomly changing ideas on morality. I'd guess that future civilizations would look back at our time and wonder why we even made gay marriage an issue. That's a good thing. I much prefer this age as opposed to an age where women were considered objects and we thought it ok to own other humans. I would like to believe that I'd prefer future progress even more.

I think it would be a safe bet to assume that there weren't less gay people in 1776, just less gay people willing to come out. It's not a disease that spreads. And are you implying that if we allow gay marriage that they are just going to want something else? This is not about compromises and appeasing specialty groups. This is about what is right and just according to our laws.

[Amishassassin]

that last apart about the gays wanting more was just a joke reference from demitri martin...i think that once everyone is "equal" in all aspects...we will be a better place. but its scary for me to think about what the future holds...cuz they didnt have heroin or LSD or crazy crazy drugs back then, nor the crazy internet. cuz back in the 50's my old man talked about that the WORST thing to ever hear about was girls having premarital sex and people who smoked. and obviously we have a LOT more issues than that. so once this whole thing boils over and calms down...does the future hold greater challenges for us and our children?

[ComOp]

and yes...i will admit that i definately did word things not the way i was wanting to get across. that is 100% my bad. (hence why i suck at english classes) BUT..the point i was trying to make with this and with the gays IS...

If society changes over time and we have to adapt certain laws to certain situations...IE colored people and the freedoms for all or even drug laws...is our country always gonna be changing to these things like gay rights to marry and what not? cuz pretty sure that there werent a whole lot of gays back in 1776. right? what are people's thoughts on the whole adaptive nature of our country. should this BECOME a super big deal...or should we just give them the right to marry and move on? I personally think that we give them their rights and let them move on. they already stold the rainbow and refracted light from us (demitri martin quote...haha) what else could they want besides marriage? i think that once this is done...we will all sit back and continue on our lives or is there more?

Until you can let go of the idea that you have a say in who your neighbor chooses to love and spend their life with, until you can stop thinking of people who are gay as "the gays"... You'll never really be able to wrap your mind around the idea that each person should have the same rights that you do.

[ovid9]

and yes...i will admit that i definately did word things not the way i was wanting to get across. that is 100% my bad. (hence why i suck at english classes) BUT..the point i was trying to make with this and with the gays IS...

If society changes over time and we have to adapt certain laws to certain situations...IE colored people and the freedoms for all or even drug laws...is our country always gonna be changing to these things like gay rights to marry and what not? cuz pretty sure that there werent a whole lot of gays back in 1776. right? what are people's thoughts on the whole adaptive nature of our country. should this BECOME a super big deal...or should we just give them the right to marry and move on? I personally think that we give them their rights and let them move on. they already stold the rainbow and refracted light from us (demitri martin quote...haha) what else could they want besides marriage? i think that once this is done...we will all sit back and continue on our lives or is there more?

If the country is going to continue to provide more freedom to more people than I'm all for things changing. So yes, there might be more.

As much as some people don't want to believe it, this is NOT a radical change. No one, outside of people who are currently not allowed to marry because our laws are antiquated and bigoted, is going to have their freedoms negatively affected by this. It is only a positive flow of freedoms. This is a good thing.

A certain segment of people want everyone to THINK this is a radical massive change, but its not. Its really not. All their arguments fall to pieces because they are built on an appeal to tradition and spiritual/moral authority. None of them hold up when put to the test of "If homosexuals are allowed to do what other consenting adults can do, get married, will this take rights or freedoms away from anyone else." The short answer is no, it won't.

It might seem radical to you, but from a legal and real life impact, its not. It most likely won't affect your life in the slightest.

[draelyc]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

Look again ~ that's different than what I said. You and I are in total agreement, it seems. In my hypothetical example, the problem was that some folks were allowed to be "married" whilst others had to settle for "civil unions." I was saying it should be the same for everyone, across the board.

As I said in earlier posts, leave marriage to each couple's religious institution (or lack thereof) of choice and get the state out of that bidness altogether. So I think you and I agree about that, ya?

But if it ain't the same for everyone, across the board, then having a problem with that inequality doesn't make a person "petty"; it makes a person ... ethical. Gnome sane?

[draelyc]

... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Interesting - I always thought the primary objection from the gay point of view was that they were not able to receive the same legal rights as straight couples. IF I were gay, the whole being "equal" to straight married couples by calling it a marriage would be so much farther down the food chain - legal rights would be my primary concern. But I understand your point & to some gays, I'm sure it is all about being equal by using the same term. Almost seems that to those holding that position, they're doing it out of spite to some degree, and not looking at the big picture from a legal rights point of view ... which brings me back to my compromise theory ...

Yeah, just consider it from the religious perspective: you're a gay couple, members of a church that does not demonize homosexuality & you have a pastor/rector/priest/whatever who is more than willing to bless your partnership with an ancient spiritual sacrament ... BUT, the state steps in and prevents your priest/pastor and your church from performing that religious ritual for you and your partner ~ yet the state allows that same church & that same priest/pastor to perform that same ritual for some other couple.

That's what's going on now, and it's all kinds of wrong on several levels.

[draelyc]

ok so i have a question...and this is more of a curiosity than anything. but we know that the our founding fathers were very religious and the whole United States is founded ont he concept of "in God we Trust"...i mean, its printed on every f-ing piece of currency. but since it seems that we as a society have become less religious through the ages, what does that mean for the founding beliefs of our forefathers...do we have to adapt our beliefs based on how we are now versus them? i mean in all reality...we DID have to adapt and change laws about colored people and races. so my question is this, if the premise of our country being founded was based off of beliefs of religion/christianity, then i want to know the following...WHERE DO WE SEE THE GOVERNMENT CHANGING? DOES IT HAVE TO CHANGE BASED OFF OF 200 YEAR OLD BELIEFS? and im not looking for people telling me im a dumb shit or what not. i just wanna know what people think about this. does the change in society determine the future change in our country? or do we submit ourselves to the original concept of what this country was built for?

Dude. You should seriously do some research. None of the founding fathers that most people can name could really be considered religious. Unless you consider religious to mean that you speak out against organized religion, miracles, and deny the existence of an intervening god. Look up what Thomas Jefferson had to say about christianity. Or Thomas Paine. Most were Deists, at best, that had much to say about the dangers of religion and the nonsense found in the bible.

This country was not founded based off the beliefs of christianity. That doesn't even make sense. This is, and always has been, a secular nation. Try reading the constitution.

By the way, "in god we trust" was added to our money in 1956. Before that our motto was, "E pluribus unum" which means, "one from many". It should've stayed that way. Hell, even "under god" wasn't added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. One can make a very strong argument that we are much more religious now.

Werd. If the United States were *actually* a Christian nation, there would never have needed to be any debate at all over universal health care, and no one would be going to bed hungry in this country tonight.