The President comes out in support of gay marriage!

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

10 May 2012, 12:32 pm

PM wrote:
This being politics, The Republican Party is going to take advantage of this as is the Christian Right.


I doubt it, for the simple reason that those opposed to gay marriage are likely already in the Republican column.

One exception: BO will still get 98% or whatever of the African-American vote, This despite the fact that it was (ironically) the high turnout of African-Americans in 2008 that sank California's gay rights law.

BTW, I thought he said he OPPOSED gay marriage in the 2008 election, rather than just keeping silent about the issue? Am I not remembering correctly?


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 12:37 pm

If a constitutional amendment was proposed that said "heterosexuals cannot bear arms; the right to bear arms only extends to homosexuals" you see the ridiculousness of the argument...



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,471
Location: PA, USA

10 May 2012, 1:22 pm

mushroo wrote:
If 98% thought it should be illegal and only 2% supported it, I would still argue it should be legal, as a civil rights issue. An unpopular minority should not be denied equal civil rights simply on the basis of being an unpopular minority, in my opinion. Our legal system is not based on "what is 51% popular?" as a guiding principle!


Pretty much.

I don't see gay marriage as a moral issue-- although, being neither gay nor God, it's really none of my business what God thinks of gay people.

I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried-- although I suppose you could argue that it's immoral to treat part of the population as lesser persons under the law simply because you, personally, are not comfortable with their personal lifestyle choices.

Kind of like certain other social minorities that find themselves being told they deserve to be s**t upon for being overtly different...

In the end, it's all about if there should be a box, how big it should be, what shape, and who gets to decide. I can't believe we're still fighting about this stuff. Humans suck.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,008
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 May 2012, 3:57 pm

mushroo wrote:
I think I understand the timing of Obama's comment now.

His contacts at the Washington Post probably tipped him off they were working on this story:

Quote:
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. — Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors...


Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html


Mitt Romney was one of those pricks who I hated back in school. He was doubtlessly the poster boy for NT bullies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 4:06 pm

It is a gender discrimination issue pure and simple, you don't even need to use the words "gay" and "straight" to make the argument.

If my friend can marry a man because she is a woman, but I cannot marry a man because I am a man, then I am being discriminated against because of my gender. It falls under the same category as women being allowed to vote, men being allowed paternity leave, etc.

I think the only reason people do not see it as a simple gender discrimination issue is that they are squeamish about the mechanics of gay sex and/or hung up on a couple of bible passages. Thus all the arguments about the "gay lifestyle," the "sanctity of marriage" and so forth, instead of simply coming out (no pun intended) and calling it what it is: telling Americans they must discriminate by gender when making the most important decision of their private lives.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

10 May 2012, 4:49 pm

BuyerBeware wrote:
I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried--

I've always been bothered by this sort of thing. I mean, I can see how you might see it as a civil rights issue, but how can it seem cut and dried? I see people declaring it to be a right or a civil right all over the place, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to explain why.

mushroo wrote:
I think the only reason people do not see it as a simple gender discrimination issue is that they are squeamish about the mechanics of gay sex and/or hung up on a couple of bible passages.

Neither of those two things apply to me, but I can't see how it could be called a gender discrimination issue. No one gender is being forbidden anything.

I think you (and by 'you' I mean all the people who agree with you on this, not just you personally) should be careful when guessing other people's motivations. Especially people who you disagree with.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 5:00 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried--

I've always been bothered by this sort of thing. I mean, I can see how you might see it as a civil rights issue, but how can it seem cut and dried? I see people declaring it to be a right or a civil right all over the place, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to explain why.

mushroo wrote:
I think the only reason people do not see it as a simple gender discrimination issue is that they are squeamish about the mechanics of gay sex and/or hung up on a couple of bible passages.

Neither of those two things apply to me, but I can't see how it could be called a gender discrimination issue. No one gender is being forbidden anything.

I think you (and by 'you' I mean all the people who agree with you on this, not just you personally) should be careful when guessing other people's motivations. Especially people who you disagree with.


Apologies for putting words in other people's mouths... allow me to retract that and focus on explaining my own thoughts... it is tricky, but here it goes:

1) I don't really care about other people's prejudices and stereotypes. Changing how other people see the world is not my mission in life.

Likewise I expect to be left alone to believe what I want to believe and think what I want to think.

Many Americans discriminate by gender and/or sexual preference when they choose a spouse, for example a man might only marry a heterosexual woman, or a woman only marry a heterosexual man. They might even think it is "wrong" to be homosexual and marry someone of the same gender, and so they publicly speak out against it. That's OK with me!

What I do not appreciate is being legally required to adopt someone else's prejudice. Maybe I don't care whether my spouse is a man or woman; I just want to find someone nice who respects me. But if the law requires that I must discriminate against 50% of the population when choosing my spouse, then I believe my freedom, to be the type of person who does not discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, is being violated.

It is illegal for a landlord or employer to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual preference. But it is also illegal to not discriminate by gender or sexual preference in the bedroom or wedding chapel??? That seems absurd to me!

2) If a woman has a legal right to do something (marry a man), but a man does not have the same right, then how is that not gender discrimination? How is that not in the same category as mandating that gender pre-determines one's education/career/voting rights/social status?

(edit to say that I live in a state where same-sex marriage has been legal for years, therefore I tend to agree with the "states' rights" argument here)



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

10 May 2012, 5:17 pm

I honestly do not understand what the big deal is about gay marriage. I'm for it being legal, and even if I was against the idea I don't see how it being legal would hurt me. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't force people to be in one. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights for a gay couple to marry. Somebody on Fox (saw it at my Mom's) today was talking about how legalizing it would imfringe on people's religious rights. How? Exactly how? They are still free to think it's wrong, not do it themselves, be haters and sit back and smile because they believe the gay people will go to hell. Their rights aren't touched by it at all.

If you are against gay marriage, don't be in one. Simple as that.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 5:22 pm

If a religion sanctifies same-sex marriage (and lots of them do, these days) then it is an invasion of religious freedom for the government to interfere.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,008
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 May 2012, 5:29 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
I honestly do not understand what the big deal is about gay marriage. I'm for it being legal, and even if I was against the idea I don't see how it being legal would hurt me. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't force people to be in one. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights for a gay couple to marry. Somebody on Fox (saw it at my Mom's) today was talking about how legalizing it would imfringe on people's religious rights. How? Exactly how? They are still free to think it's wrong, not do it themselves, be haters and sit back and smile because they believe the gay people will go to hell. Their rights aren't touched by it at all.

If you are against gay marriage, don't be in one. Simple as that.


The fact is, I don't think homosexuals make up even three percent of the American population, but listening to gay marriage opponents, you'd think every other marriage would be same sex! I think they're starting to believe their own BS.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

10 May 2012, 5:48 pm

mushroo wrote:
Changing how other people see the world is not my mission in life.

Fair enough.

Quote:
What I do not appreciate is being legally required to adopt someone else's prejudice.

I don't see what prejudice has to do with it.

Quote:
2) If a woman has a legal right to do something (marry a man), but a man does not have the same right, then how is that not gender discrimination?

It cuts both ways. The man is forbidden from something, but the woman is also forbidden something in an entirely symmetric way.

Quote:
If a religion sanctifies same-sex marriage (and lots of them do, these days) then it is an invasion of religious freedom for the government to interfere.

This is actually a very good argument for it, thank you. The first I've seen, IIRC.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,680
Location: The Oort Cloud

10 May 2012, 6:01 pm

I have yet to see any decent arguments against gay marriage.

It generally all comes down to, "It's against my religion," or "It will make heterosexual marriages less special."

All garbage.

Time to move into the 21st century.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 6:16 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
What I do not appreciate is being legally required to adopt someone else's prejudice.

I don't see what prejudice has to do with it.


That you don't see your belief as a prejudice, does not mean that I must adopt a belief I do not personally agree with.

Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
2) If a woman has a legal right to do something (marry a man), but a man does not have the same right, then how is that not gender discrimination?

It cuts both ways. The man is forbidden from something, but the woman is also forbidden something in an entirely symmetric way.


Exactly. Your choice of the word "cuts" is an acknowledgment that discrimination causes pain and suffering to the victims.



mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 6:40 pm

Fascinating article:

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Quote:
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)...



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

10 May 2012, 6:40 pm

mushroo wrote:
That you don't see your belief as a prejudice, does not mean that I must adopt a belief I do not personally agree with.

Calling it "my belief" wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure whether you're assuming that my belief is that gay people are horrible or lesser beings or something (which I've never believed) or that my belief is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. If it's the second, I've pretty much held that position as a default, since I hadn't seen any good arguments against it, and the rather good point you made above might well end up making me change my mind. In either case, "belief" is too strong a word.

Quote:
Exactly. Your choice of the word "cuts" is an acknowledgment that discrimination causes pain and suffering to the victims.

The phrase "cuts both ways" just means that something works the same in either direction.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

10 May 2012, 6:47 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
mushroo wrote:
That you don't see your belief as a prejudice, does not mean that I must adopt a belief I do not personally agree with.

Calling it "my belief" wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure whether you're assuming that my belief is that gay people are horrible or lesser beings or something (which I've never believed) or that my belief is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. If it's the second, I've pretty much held that position as a default, since I hadn't seen any good arguments against it, and the rather good point you made above might well end up making me change my mind. In either case, "belief" is too strong a word.


No, I do not get the impression you are a hateful person. :) My impression of your "position" (let's drop the word "belief") is "marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman" but I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you...