since this is a hot topic, i thought i would see what the important people have to say about it.
i am all for it. especially the benefits awarded to being married. alot of conservatives hav esaid that it changes the traditional definition of marriage, that it is only between a man and a woman.
Well HELLO! what constitutes normal these days anyways. as we americans become more tolerant and open minded about things, i think old ideas ansd assumptions should be thrown out...but easier said than done.
doesn't this violate civil rights? Why not just revert back to slavery, and condem all who are not wealthy white christian males?
__________________
In life the answers are always present, the challenge is to associate the proper questions.
Wow tatoo, you cast a pretty wide net there- gay rights, racism, and christianity. I happen to be a relatively wealthy, white christian male who has never owned a slave and has no problem with gay marriage. Gays and Lesbians should have all of the rights, priviledges and drawbacks, with respect to marriage, that are afforded to heterosexual couples. Period.
i am not trying to stereotype wealthy white males, or christians, or LBGT's... i wanted to make the point that we have, for the most part, moved past that older way of thinking, in the US, and have "changed with the times".
history has shown that these changes do not always come easily or peacefully, but it seems to me that americans do need to realize that people are different, everyone has different ideas and/or beliefs, and that we should be tolerant citizens and strive for justice for everyone. thats what i wanted to convey.
So far, so good. Now, hang on a tick and see what other opinions you'll get. For a preview, do a search on 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' and read some of the recent threads on the subjects.
You'll find that not everyone has "for the most part, moved past that older way of thinking, in the US", unfortunately
__________________
I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness that I can show to my fellow creatures, let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
Originally posted by moimeme So far, so good. Now, hang on a tick and see what other opinions you'll get. For a preview, do a search on 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' and read some of the recent threads on the subjects.
You'll find that not everyone has "for the most part, moved past that older way of thinking, in the US", unfortunately
You'll probably have to wait until at least 1:00 a.m. to hear the good stuff...tee hee...giggle (moimeme)
My opinion = live and let live. Whatever makes you happy. We should all have the same rights.
Like it or not, religious beliefs and practices have a lot to do with it, and so does politics. For someone whose God has told them that homosexuality is a sin, it will never be okay to have same-sex marriages. It is an affront to God and their beliefs. Even if it is not their personal business - it does have an impact (financial, social, ethical, moral, etc.) on all parts of society.
Homosexuals and their supporters have spoken out and fought back against prejudice and demand tolerance, if not acceptance, from everyone. However, if a Christian or anyone who has firm beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or deviant, speaks up in protest of gay rights, they are labeled a bigot and ridiculed, sometimes they lose their jobs, sometimes they are the victims of violence. Their views are not accepted or tolerated. They have every right speak their mind, and protest - and yet they are punished when they do. Instead of creating harmony and actually progressing our society away from civil unrest, it is just swinging around so that those who were victims are now the aggressors, and those who were aggressors are now victims. People fear retribution from individuals, and also from society in the form of lost jobs, etc.
If the government wants to legalize gay marriage - then the spouses need to be bound to the same laws and taxes that other married couples are bound to. If they are a higher-risk for STD's then their insurance premiums should be higher -- just as they are for smokers vs. non-smokers. I think that stats still show that gay men are at a far higher risk for AIDS then others? Maybe that has changes recently--I don't know. But if a valid marriage license is societal proof that two people are committed to each other, thereby a lower risk for STDs, then their premiums should be lowered. But that would hold true for single straight people too. There are some insurance carriers and companies that are beginning to structure their premiums on these issues.
It doesn't matter what the government does - if a religion does not sanctify a marriage no piece of government paper is going to change that.
how does my disagreeing with the "need" for legalizing same-sex marriages violate someone's civil liberties? Aren't mine being violated because I'm being forced to accept something I don't believe in?
I feel violated every time I read a statement like the one posted above, "Why not just revert back to slavery, and condem all who are not wealthy white christian males?" (squawk) I'm not white, I'm not male and I've never owned slaves, but still I am insulted when I'm told that I'm "wrong" for believing that marriage is a union that shouldn't be dealt with lightly or that I don't think a same-sex relationship should be put on equal footing as a marriage between a man and a woman.
Why? because there are too many things working against this kind of relationship to begin with. From my observations, it doesn't matter how loving or devoted that gay/lesbian couple is, overall, there's more to it than wanting to be accepted socially.
If people are writing in about their problems with their relationships being accepted because their partner is the wrong age, the wrong color, the wrong ethnic background or the wrong age, how is it going to be any easier for a gay person to validify their relationship? If anything, there's even more of a battle in store trying to defend that relationship. And legalizing a gay union isn't going to make it any easier for homosexual couples.
In addition to that, consider the "serial bride" factor: If a straight man or woman can't get marriage to work for them the first couple of times around, how is it any easier for a person in a same-sex union? You can't mean to tell me that you can choose your same-sex spouse from a very small pool of people and try to make that relationship survive in the climate that doesn't support homosexuality. With the exception of a family friend who was one of the "lucky ones," I've yet to hear of or see a long-lasting homosexual relationship. Mostly, I hear tales from gay friends of the never-ending dating scene and the endless quest to try to find "the one" for them ... and these are men in their 40s. How much easier is it going to be for them to find that life-mate as they get older? And then have it successfully last as a committed, monogamous relationship like marriage is supposed to be?
Yeah, it'd great to say that legal recognition of committed gay relationship would solve the problems of the homosexual community and make that lifestyle more acceptable to people, but realistically, it's like trying to build a palace on quicksand. It can be a lovely structure, but unless the ground is stable, it's not going to be a structure that'll be around long.
quank, the opinionated
__________________ Get out there and rub a little sunshine on your face. – gunny376
Last edited by quankanne; 19th November 2003 at 2:11 PM..
I have absolutely no problem with same sex marriages.
I honestly believe that people who do not agree with this assessment are living in the dark ages and need to upgrade their beliefs. I hate to think people are walking around who think like this, who think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people. It's disgusting.
whose God has told them that homosexuality is a sin
Nobody's GOD ever said any such thing. Rather, people claiming to speak for God have said this. And people claiming to speak of the Bible have bastardized that same holy book to put forward their policies of hate while ignoring their own hypocricy.
I will again insist that anybody who says he or she lives by 'every word of the Bible' turn to Leviticus - the same chapter in which homosexuality is 'condemned' - and live by EVERY WORD IN THAT CHAPTER. Which means, while they condemn homosexuals they must also stone their disobedient children to death and stone adulterers to death. You either walk your talk or you are a hypocrite. Period.
quankanne, Unfortunately there are those who will say that you are "wrong" simply because you voice an opposing view. There is nothing wrong with that. It is your opinion and we are all entitled to an opinion. I sense that it's not that you're necessarily opposed to gay marriages, but you question whether or not they can actually succeed. There is a big difference there. Your points are valid with respect to the societal difficulties that would be faced by gay couples, but the same could be said for interracial, May-December and inter-faith marriages.
ANY marriage is a never-ending project. They take commitment, dialog and give-and-take on a daily basis. I cannot sit here and say that I'm any better at handling the project than a gay couple would be.
Fundamentally, I hold the belief that gay/lesbian couples should have the same fundamental rights that I have as a heterosexual and I can't predict the success or failure of their marriage any more than I could for a hetero couple.
If I were to ask most people what they did in the bedroom they would say it's none of my business. If I were to ask most people why they married the person they did, even though I told them that person was wrong to marry, they would say it's none of my business.
And they would be right.
It is none of my business. I am in a 3 year relationship with a man (I am a woman), but if I wanted to be a relationship with a woman, it would be none of YOUR business. I don't think it's right for the goverment or my neighbors to tell me that they feel violated because Dick decided to marry Harry instead of Jane. They certaintly do NOT have the right to tell me that they have decided Dick will NOT be allowed to marry Harry.
People who think that they have to have a say in who another can love, have a "I am God" complex.
the question of rights being granted isn't the issue I have, but that the idea of people thinking that certain changes mean across-the-board improvement. There still is going to be large number of people in this country who will refuse to accept same-sex marriage, not because they "live in the Dark Ages," but because it goes against their personal moral code. And that code cannot be discounted any more than can be that of the person who stands up for gay rights ...
it's not a 100-percent, 'let's all get on the same bandwagon' kind of thing. Nothing is.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
So far, so good. Now, hang on a tick and see what other opinions you'll get. For a preview, do a search on 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' and read some of the recent threads on the subjects. 
Linear Mode
