Gay marriage

[moshe_levy]

I know your intent in all these examples was to point out that on many occasions, those who protested against homosexual causes turned out to be homosexuals themselves. In some cases, not just homosexuals, but pedophiles. Do you really think these are good examples to use in support of your cause? Couldn't they just as easily be used as examples that many homosexuals are hypocritical enough to turn against their own (or any) cause to further their own personal objective for power? Then you have to counter that by coming up with statistics that show that really, not that many homosexuals are psychopathic lyers, and besides, there are lots of heterosexuals who would be just as apt to cut their mother's throat to get ahead. Somewhere in there I think your message gets lost, and it would probably be better to stay away from the negative examples.

 

No, I believe the negative examples are critical, because in many cases as I highlighted to you, the hypocrites being "outed" are in fact in positions to do a great deal of harm to the homosexual population by virtue of their legislative power.

 

Turning that on its head, as you suggest, is not on the spectrum as I see it. I cannot think of an example, of the top of my head, where a closet hetero poses as a gay person and passes legislation to make hetero life miserable. That movie seems to only play in one direction. So it's important to bring it out.

 

Another reason it's important to bring it out is to hammer home that since there is no fact or reason to the anti-gay agenda, the only thing left is the moral argument. And so, the most powerful argument against that - which these hypocrites make against themselves, daily - is that they do the opposite of practicing what they preach.

 

And therefore, there is really NO argument left, on that side, which isn't easy to swat away.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

If I was working at the marriage license counter and someone checked either man or woman on the application, I would just want to take their word for it. I would have no desire whatever to be in the position of having to confirm or deny their selection.

 

 

[pbharvey]

Many regular people think this way, and they're not all rightwing nut jobs.

 

Perhaps many "regular" people think this way, but enough of the self-proclaimed leaders of the "defense of marriage" movement ARE hypocrites, to the point where when someone's on the public stage howling about the supposed immorality of gay people, any person with a scintilla of historical context asks himself, "OK, what's HE up to behind the scenes??" You guys bring up Jesse and Al constantly over on the Trayvon thread - doesn't the same apply to preachers and politicians looking to make hay at gay expense?

 

Of course it does. The Ted Haggards are the evangelical equivalent of the Al Sharptons.

 

 

Quinn asked for legal reasons why people oppose gay marriage. He wasn't offered any. He asked for reason, and for fact. He wasn't offered any of that, either. He was given a nice dose of biblical references. And I suppose that's where all of this comes from. After 13 pages, I guess he can judge - as we call can - what this vitriol and hatred of our fellow citizens is based on. Don't tap dance around it - be honest with your feelings and what's behind proposes legislation as "Nice 'N Easy Rider" posted above in NC. Be honest.

 

 

He also asked:

Also, are there any arguments in favor of gay marriages that wouldn't apply as well to incest, polygamy, or a "marriage of convience"?

to which he wasn't given a rational answer.

 

I certainly have no vitriol nor hatred towards my fellow man who happens to be a homosexual. My feelings behind the NC legislation is that it grants a privilege (not a right) to someone who isn't eligible to partake in that privilege...in the exact same way multiple people and closely related people cannot partake. I find inserting one's penis into another man's rectum repulsive although I find that no more a reason to deny him marriage any more that sticking it in an exceptionally ugly woman. How one likes his sexual activity doesn't deny his privilege of marriage; not meeting the one man-one woman criteria does. How's that for honesty?

 

And those of us who value reason and fact, and see history sadly repeating itself in this case as yet again, another minority in this "land of freedom and the individual" is persecuted for no valid reason beyond a backwards interpretation of a Bible that isn't even yours to begin with.

-MKL

 

I find your unwillingness to share the Bible disappointing. You may be surprised (even find it completely unbelievable) that people who think differently than you do so with reason and base their opinions on fact. Homosexuals have positioned themselves as a protected class, not a persecuted minority. You should give them more credit.

[moshe_levy]

You may be surprised (even find it completely unbelievable) that people who think differently than you do so with reason and base their opinions on fact.

 

It is often the case that this is true, but in this case, you will note two very important facts:

 

1) The side that has argued against me here in this specific case, has not presented reason, nor fact. They have presented the Bible.

 

2) The side that has argued against me here seeks, through legislation, to prevent law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country from enjoying the same rights as other law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country. I seek freedom and equality for all law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country.

 

These two points, based on the discussion thus far, are not in dispute. What I suspect you will find, over time, is that the majority of people in this country will come to the same conclusions. And so, over time - not quick enough, but eventually - marriage equality will be granted legally. And we will look back, and wonder once again how we could be so backwards for so long. Such is the cycle of history.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

To the mods / James - a question was asked. It is impossible to answer Mr. Harvery's question without naming names, and positions, to prove the point. This was not intended as a political post - just names, positions, and scandals. There are many more.

 

-MKL

 

I must commend all here for debating this subject in a relatively mature manner. And that's the point of all the sanctions and rules and barriers around here, they exist because at too many times people didnt know how to conduct themselves in a responsible and mature fashion.

 

Quite honestly, this thread has been a breath of fresh air; this is how debates are supposed to take place around here. We fight it out, then we go our and ride together and remind ourselves of the importance of having a sisterhood & brotherhood in life. I can assure you of this: no man is closer to me than my own brother, yet he and I have knock down drag 'em out wars on everything from politics to religion to family issues to... But you know what? He's still my brother and I love and respect him. We both know that in a few years we'll argue the subject again, only this time we will both have the opposite views on the subject!

 

That's how things should work among us, too. This is not the place to create enemies; there are plenty of other places on the Internet for that. This is the place to find brothers and sisters, people with whom you can very much disagree with, yet nonetheless continue to love and respect and ride with secure in the knowledge that they have your back out there

 

Having said all that :smirk: I would still encourage us to steer clear of the mine fields of politics, political ideologies, and political personalities. Moshe, I get your point and why you felt the need to go there, but you run a huge risk in doing so. What can happen is that your exhibits meant to back up your argument can become the argument! Now your original point is lost while a political battle rages on in it's place. This is what would have traditionally happened on this forum. It is a testament to the maturity and the level of personal security everyone here seems to have that kept this thread from flowing so terribly off course.

[pbharvey]

 

2) The side that has argued against me here seeks, through legislation, to prevent law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country from enjoying the same rights as other law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country. I seek freedom and equality for all law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country.

-MKL

 

I still can't get my arms around the idea that marriage is acceptable for two same-sex people yet not three people of any sex. I know you said because polygamy was illegal but despite that, it still seems to be the exact same denial of rights ie based on sexual orientation. I'm not trying to change the argument but honestly, if we want equal rights for all people, who are we to say that their sexual choices invalidate their right to marry?

 

 

 

 

[Scribner]

I have read most of the post in this thread over the past few days and I must say how impressed I am with the intellect and open minded nature of the group. A marriage is a long standing and well defined relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. The abysmal statistics on marriage prove the glue needed for a relationship is not found in a marriage certificate. There you will find governments and lawyers looking for money and property. I would suggest keeping government out of your life as much as possible. That being said, this fall I will celebrate thirty years in a relationship. We got together and made a gentleman's agreement, sat down three basic rules for ourselves, then went to a lawyer and drew papers protecting ourselves and our assets. We are taxpayers, business owners, property owners and godfathers to two very important and wonderful children. We find ourselves surrounded by a large group of loving, supportive family and friends. Its not a marriage by traditional standards but we are very happy and do not feel discriminated against by anyone that matters. On the marriage issue, thanks but no thanks, what I have is working just fine.

[ratfink]

. You're probably also aware that some people could care less if others have any type of sexual relationship they desire yet still believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Many regular people think this way, and they're not all rightwing nut jobs.

 

So what defines "man" and "woman"? Is it the gender identified on their birth certificate or does it involve certain societal milestones?

 

What if a person is born with a physical anomaly or a warrior that is altered due to war wounds. What about a person that just does not identify mentally with the gender designated by a doctor at birth?

 

Do you have to have a Bar Mitzvah to be a man? A quinceañera to be woman?

 

That's interesting you brought that up. Last night my oldest son and I were having that discussion. He's taking a sociology class as a college elective and he's writing a paper on "nature vs. nurture". His text for the class was the book about two twins where one of them had a very, very bad circumcision and the doctor ended up performing a sex change operation on the child - a horribly tragic story. The boy was raised as a girl yet still acted like a boy (aggressive, played with boy toys, sat with his legs apart, etc.) Eventually he got another sex change operation to return to a male. We had a very interesting conversation about homosexuality, gender identity and hermaphrodites.

 

Can a hermaphrodite be a homosexual? Can they be a heterosexual?

 

We also talked about homosexuality (or maybe better stated, apparent homosexual acts) occurring in the animal kingdom and what to make of it.

 

I bet soon, public restrooms will no longer be gender specific for the very reasons you state.

 

 

 

 

I went to one of those secular humanist, hedonistic, party schools.

 

The Bible was generally not regarded as a reference text that was worthy of citation in most papers.

 

Notable exceptions were made for: Comparative Religions, Philosophy and Creative Writing, especially.

[beemerman2k]

I still can't get my arms around the idea that marriage is acceptable for two same-sex people yet not three people of any sex. I know you said because polygamy was illegal but despite that, it still seems to be the exact same denial of rights ie based on sexual orientation. I'm not trying to change the argument but honestly, if we want equal rights for all people, who are we to say that their sexual choices invalidate their right to marry?

 

I think you ask a good, if not annoying, question. Annoying because gay marriage has nothing more to do with polygamy than hetero marriage does. Nonetheless, your question does ask, "if the basis for 'redefining marriage' is equal rights, then its equal rights for all, isn't it?". And let's face it, polygamy is not at all an unusual arrangement. Aside from the many biblical personalities who were so engaged, many societies practice it today.

 

As the West becomes more integrated with Africa and the middle east, this question of "equal marriage rights for polygamous families" just might become front page news. In fact, I wonder what happens today when a polygamous family migrates to this country? I imagine the husband lists his first wife was his wife and somehow sponsors the rest?

 

Anyhow, I think it's a question worth asking and contemplating.

[Whip]

I have read most of the post in this thread over the past few days and I must say how impressed I am with the intellect and open minded nature of the group. A marriage is a long standing and well defined relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. The abysmal statistics on marriage prove the glue needed for a relationship is not found in a marriage certificate. There you will find governments and lawyers looking for money and property. I would suggest keeping government out of your life as much as possible. That being said, this fall I will celebrate thirty years in a relationship. We got together and made a gentleman's agreement, sat down three basic rules for ourselves, then went to a lawyer and drew papers protecting ourselves and our assets. We are taxpayers, business owners, property owners and godfathers to two very important and wonderful children. We find ourselves surrounded by a large group of loving, supportive family and friends. Its not a marriage by traditional standards but we are very happy and do not feel discriminated against by anyone that matters. On the marriage issue, thanks but no thanks, what I have is working just fine.

 

Beautifully said.

 

Thanks for being part of this cyber family and I sure hope to meet you and your partner someday.

 

Larry

 

 

 

BTW...didn't you promise to share some home brew with me?

 

 

[pbharvey]

I still can't get my arms around the idea that marriage is acceptable for two same-sex people yet not three people of any sex. I know you said because polygamy was illegal but despite that, it still seems to be the exact same denial of rights ie based on sexual orientation. I'm not trying to change the argument but honestly, if we want equal rights for all people, who are we to say that their sexual choices invalidate their right to marry?

 

I think you ask a good, if not annoying, question. Annoying because gay marriage has nothing more to do with polygamy than hetero marriage does. Nonetheless, your question does ask, "if the basis for 'redefining marriage' is equal rights, then its equal rights for all, isn't it?". And let's face it, polygamy is not at all an unusual arrangement. Aside from the many biblical personalities who were so engaged, many societies practice it today.

 

As the West becomes more integrated with Africa and the middle east, this question of "equal marriage rights for polygamous families" just might become front page news. In fact, I wonder what happens today when a polygamous family migrates to this country? I imagine the husband lists his first wife was his wife and somehow sponsors the rest?

 

Anyhow, I think it's a question worth asking and contemplating.

 

Isn't equal rights the premise of gay marriage? And yes, my argument is not against gay marriage as much as it is against any marriage other than one man-one woman.

[pbharvey]

I have read most of the post in this thread over the past few days and I must say how impressed I am with the intellect and open minded nature of the group. A marriage is a long standing and well defined relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. The abysmal statistics on marriage prove the glue needed for a relationship is not found in a marriage certificate. There you will find governments and lawyers looking for money and property. I would suggest keeping government out of your life as much as possible. That being said, this fall I will celebrate thirty years in a relationship. We got together and made a gentleman's agreement, sat down three basic rules for ourselves, then went to a lawyer and drew papers protecting ourselves and our assets. We are taxpayers, business owners, property owners and godfathers to two very important and wonderful children. We find ourselves surrounded by a large group of loving, supportive family and friends. Its not a marriage by traditional standards but we are very happy and do not feel discriminated against by anyone that matters. On the marriage issue, thanks but no thanks, what I have is working just fine.

 

That's the most rational thing I've read in this thread...including what I wrote

 

I'm almost positive there is a correlation between IQ and K Bike ownership

[moshe_levy]

I still can't get my arms around the idea that marriage is acceptable for two same-sex people yet not three people of any sex. I know you said because polygamy was illegal but despite that, it still seems to be the exact same denial of rights ie based on sexual orientation. I'm not trying to change the argument but honestly, if we want equal rights for all people, who are we to say that their sexual choices invalidate their right to marry?

 

I think you ask a good, if not annoying, question. Annoying because gay marriage has nothing more to do with polygamy than hetero marriage does. Nonetheless, your question does ask, "if the basis for 'redefining marriage' is equal rights, then its equal rights for all, isn't it?". And let's face it, polygamy is not at all an unusual arrangement. Aside from the many biblical personalities who were so engaged, many societies practice it today.

 

As the West becomes more integrated with Africa and the middle east, this question of "equal marriage rights for polygamous families" just might become front page news. In fact, I wonder what happens today when a polygamous family migrates to this country? I imagine the husband lists his first wife was his wife and somehow sponsors the rest?

 

Anyhow, I think it's a question worth asking and contemplating.

 

Isn't equal rights the premise of gay marriage? And yes, my argument is not against gay marriage as much as it is against any marriage other than one man-one woman.

 

I would posit that the red herring polygamy argument - because honestly, that's what it is - is an absurd one to take, especially in the context of modern Western democracies. It is true that some third world Middle Eastern and African societies have polygamy as the norm there. What is obvious on the surface as a complimentary sociological factor here is that in such societies, women enjoy the same social status as donkeys. No, wait, that's too high. Make that cockroaches.

 

(Insert the hysterical Borat scene where he confront modern-day American feminism).

 

 

 

These two forces go hand in hand. You are not going to have mainstream polygamy and mainstream women's equality in the same sphere, and in this sphere, women are not about to go backwards without a MAJOr fight. So the polygamy may happen here and there, but not anywhere near mainstream. If you want proof, those of you who are married to or live with equal women in Western democracies, just ask the lovely lady how she'd feel about taking another wife on. If you're fast, you'll duck in time to avoid the frying pan she swings at your face. That will be your answer, and the end of this argument entirely. It's ridiculous just on the surface, nevermind below it.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

It's ridiculous just on the surface, nevermind below it.

 

 

That's exactly the kind of response you would have gotten from just about everyone 30-40 years ago, with the same level of implied confidence that their response was not only true then, but would be forevermore, regarding gay marriage.

[Couchrocket]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, its about acceptance.

 

 

I'll ask a question with the context of James' post to which you responded above in mind.

 

Acceptance of what?

 

In my opinion, acceptance of their lifestyle as normal and mainstream. Many of the rights people are harping about can be obtained through the current legal system. I think its more about making a bunch of noise to validate themselves.

 

I agree. The "same as marriage" is more about societal coercion than it is about rights.

 

Lest someone think the above is some sort of hate speech, I don't care one way or the other, from a government point of view, how this issue is resolved.

[ratfink]

I have read most of the post in this thread over the past few days and I must say how impressed I am with the intellect and open minded nature of the group. A marriage is a long standing and well defined relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. The abysmal statistics on marriage prove the glue needed for a relationship is not found in a marriage certificate. There you will find governments and lawyers looking for money and property. I would suggest keeping government out of your life as much as possible. That being said, this fall I will celebrate thirty years in a relationship. We got together and made a gentleman's agreement, sat down three basic rules for ourselves, then went to a lawyer and drew papers protecting ourselves and our assets. We are taxpayers, business owners, property owners and godfathers to two very important and wonderful children. We find ourselves surrounded by a large group of loving, supportive family and friends. Its not a marriage by traditional standards but we are very happy and do not feel discriminated against by anyone that matters. On the marriage issue, thanks but no thanks, what I have is working just fine.

 

Congratulations on your upcoming celebration.

 

I've seen news reports where folks in a situation similar to yours found themselves with one partner hospitalized with a serious condition. The condition was so serious that visitation was restricted to members of the immediate family. The partners were denied visitation. Of course if they had been

married this would not have been the case at least in their home state. Is there another way to prepare for such a situation. Even if folks thought they had it covered in their home state is it possible it might not be recognized elsewhere?

[beemerman2k]

I agree. The "same as marriage" is more about societal coercion than it is about rights.

 

Lest someone think the above is some sort of hate speech, I don't care one way or the other, from a government point of view, how this issue is resolved.

 

So this is an interesting sentiment. Personally, I don't recognize "hate speech"; it's either how you feel or it isn't. If it is how you feel, then all I seek to do is to discuss it in the interest of learning.

 

Maybe this overlaps with your question of definitions earlier in this thread, but I have been wondering what the ultimate deal is behind is marriage thing as well. What is the reason for gays wanting marriage? Is it:

 

- legal acceptance -- gays simply want the same rights as hetero sexual couples have?

 

- social acceptance -- gays want the same level of social recognition hetero sexual couples have?

 

If the mission is "legal acceptance", this is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

 

If it's social acceptance, then I hesitate, and here's why: I fear big time problems can result if gay sympathetic movements seek to force changes on the country that are not universally viewed as consistent with the nations values. For instance, are religious institutions going to face legal consequences if they don't honor gay marriage as they do hetero-sexual marriage? Are clergy-people going to be pressured into marrying same sex couples? Are literary works sympathetic to gay issues going to be forced upon churches and religious schools that receive government subsidies, even if those subsidies are merely in the form of tax breaks?

 

Honestly, I have no reservations about any of these issues with respect to my own children. I don't care one whit if their school teacher is gay, married, and kisses their same sex spouse right in front of the class room just before reading a story about how "Joey has 2 Dads". My girls know who they are, and they know they are living their own lives. There is no need to fear reality or to fear information, they will always be free to make their own decisions in life, and they will only ever have my full support and respect regardless of the direction they take. I know their hearts, and I know their formidable character. They are well aware of my sentiments and they are being raised well. But I know that there are many families out there who will have trouble with these ideas.

 

Right is right, and now is always the right time to do what is right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote a book called, "Why We Can't Wait", chronicling the circumstances that lead to the "Summer of our Discontent", the protests in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. He also gave a powerful speech entitled, "All, Here, and Now", where he argued for "all" of our civil rights, right "here" in the South, and not someday in the future, but "now". So I know that any comforts that amount to, "aww, just be patient, tomorrow will work itself out" ring hollow to those who are being discriminated against, but if certain movements are thrust upon people who feel they have no choice but to accept the cultural invasion, then it will probably lead to hostile reactions. Dr. King and many others decided that any negative reactions were worth the cost of equality, and that decision eventually cost him his life.

 

I have no doubt that the nation will mature and many of our ancient fears will eventually melt away as we come to appreciate the power of the individual to chart their own destiny. Some of the most violent enemies of the Gay Rights movement may well come around to support true equality for all Americans. I remember Gov George Wallace, before and after his awakening. It happens.

 

I just hope the nation is free to grow in its own time, although I do hope that time is near. In my view, freedom breeds maturity and true change from the heart. May our nation experience true changes from the heart.

[Dave McReynolds]

Maybe this overlaps with your question of definitions earlier in this thread, but I have been wondering what the ultimate deal is behind is marriage thing as well. What is the reason for gays wanting marriage? Is it:

 

- legal acceptance -- gays simply want the same rights as hetero sexual couples have?

 

- social acceptance -- gays want the same level of social recognition hetero sexual couples have?

 

If the mission is "legal acceptance", this is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

You equate the struggle for gay marriage with the civil rights struggle of blacks. But many of us are not convinced that the struggle of gays to be able to marry each other is a "right" at all. We view it as a power struggle and a marketing struggle, which doesn't make it wrong or immoral per se. We are all caught up in power struggles of some kind or another, and we all have to present our qualities in the best light possible.

 

For example, let's assume a group of poor people in the inner city claims that their rights are being abused because they have no access to national parks. They have no transportation to get there, no money to pay the entrance fees, no money to pay for lodging or food once inside, no tents or hiking shoes, etc. The national parks are owned by all of us, and yet they have no practical way to use them. They demand that some accomodation be made so that they can use the national parks, similar to ADA accomodation for access to public buildings. Do they have a "right" to that accomodation? I don't know; nobody has really given it any thought before, similar to gay marriage until a few years ago. Maybe if they could rally enough people to their cause or convince a court of their argument, they could create a power shift and get laws passed that would grant them the accomodation they were seeking. But if they were successful, I would call it a power and marketing struggle, and not a civil rights case, even though the participants might so characterize it if they felt it would help to create a favorable impression of their cause.

[beemerman2k]

I'm not sure that's the best comparison, although I think I understand your point. If the park had a policy that said something like, "no one under a certain income level allowed", then I'd say that's a fair comparison.

 

When the law and/or the government grants rights to one but not to another, that is wrong. This is the fundamental reason I was/is/always will be opposed to affirmative action -- it's wrong, it deny's rights, and most importantly, it is not necessary (if it ever was, it clearly isn't today). Let the most qualified always and ever get the job. No excuses.

 

The government needs to be impartial in their application of the law. Impartial. No excuses.

 

Socially? That's a completely different story. Churches, religions, individuals, families, Boy Scouts -- all need to be free to chart their own course and do their own thing. Sure, some might argue that some of these institutions receive tax dollars and therefore they have surrendered their autonomy from public policy makers, but that's an argument for the courts to settle (or us later in this thread :smirk:).

[beemerman2k]

It's ridiculous just on the surface, nevermind below it.

 

-MKL

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

I can easily imagine as the economy continues to weaken (if it does continue to weaken) where people come up with all manner of ways to leverage their combined incomes and buying power. I can see a group of young people deciding that they have much to gain if they could only be viewed as married, with all the rights and privileges and tax breaks and so on. Some of the spouses will earn the money, others will be responsible for daycare, others for bargain hunting, and so on. Purely functional, no sense of love as is typical in monogamous relationships, the ultimate "marriage of convenience".

[ratfink]

You equate the struggle for gay marriage with the civil rights struggle of blacks. But many of us are not convinced that the struggle of gays to be able to marry each other is a "right" at all. We view it as a power struggle and a marketing struggle, which doesn't make it wrong or immoral per se. We are all caught up in power struggles of some kind or another, and we all have to present our qualities in the best light possible.

 

For example, let's assume a group of poor people in the inner city claims that their rights are being abused because they have no access to national parks. They have no transportation to get there, no money to pay the entrance fees, no money to pay for lodging or food once inside, no tents or hiking shoes, etc. The national parks are owned by all of us, and yet they have no practical way to use them. They demand that some accomodation be made so that they can use the national parks, similar to ADA accomodation for access to public buildings. Do they have a "right" to that accomodation? I don't know; nobody has really given it any thought before, similar to gay marriage until a few years ago. Maybe if they could rally enough people to their cause or convince a court of their argument, they could create a power shift and get laws passed that would grant them the accomodation they were seeking. But if they were successful, I would call it a power and marketing struggle, and not a civil rights case, even though the participants might so characterize it if they felt it would help to create a favorable impression of their cause.

 

The gay struggle trancends: Gay can be any race, religion or nationality, rich or poor. I'm not sure of the timelines but I think Hitler started attacking the Jews. Once that happened Homosexuals were fair game along with Gypsies at some point in time. I suppose somewhere there may have been a homosexual Jew

that was involved with a band of Gypsies. Getting back to slippery slopes; if you deny equal rights to one class of citizens doesn't that make any other minority nervous? Who's next?

[Dave McReynolds]

Getting back to slippery slopes; if you deny equal rights to one class of citizens doesn't that make any other minority nervous? Who's next?

 

That might be true if anyone were talking about taking away the rights of homosexuals to do something they previously had the right to do. That is different from creating a right to do something nobody ever thought they had until a few years ago.

[moshe_levy]

It's ridiculous just on the surface, nevermind below it.

 

-MKL

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

I can easily imagine as the economy continues to weaken (if it does continue to weaken) where people come up with all manner of ways to leverage their combined incomes and buying power. I can see a group of young people deciding that they have much to gain if they could only be viewed as married, with all the rights and privileges and tax breaks and so on. Some of the spouses will earn the money, others will be responsible for daycare, others for bargain hunting, and so on. Purely functional, no sense of love as is typical in monogamous relationships, the ultimate "marriage of convenience".

 

And now you have hit upon another important issue.

 

Note how many angles we can approach this from. Economics / rational / factual / LEGAL basis. Social / moral / RELIGIOUS basis. Those are the two competing interests here. And when you have a bad economy, there are ALWAYS scapegoats. ALWAYS. And the scapegoats are blamed for the bad situation others find themselves in. All sorts of excuses and justifications are made to oppress the new scapegoat, because it's THEIR fault we're in this mess. It's their fault the nation's values are eroding away. Their fault I'm poor and stuck in this dead end job in this crappy house on the wrong side of this ramshackle town. (Individualism and self reliance? HA!)

 

Always the same old story. Us vs. Them. Why can't THEY be happy with the scraps we leave over? Why do THEY need the same rights we do? We're better than THEY are. They're LESS than we are. "Some animals are more equal than others." When the founding documents spoke of equality under the law, they meant US, not them!

 

Same old bullshit song and dance since the beginning of recorded history.

 

Even here on this board, we see this pathetic, pedantic attempt to equate what we heteros all take for granted under legal terms. I mean, why get married? They can do all that stuff legally without marriage! Right....

 

Let me ask you - why not go back to separate drinking fountains and bathrooms? Seriously. Think about it. I mean, THEY want to quench their thirst, so what the hell's the difference if THEY drink from THEIR fountains and not from ours? They want to piss in a stall - they've got their own stall. They never drank from our fountains, or pissed in our stalls, so why start now? Problem solved... Right? How'd that backwards mentality work out last time we tried it, eh?

 

It's a bad economic picture right now, and the ugliest side of American "redneckism" is out on full and proud display. It is sickening, it is contrary to all the principles this country was founded on, it's historically ALWAYS wrong, and to be perfect honest it makes me ashamed to call myself American.

 

Let me share something with my Christian friends out there. A very wise Protestant pastor named Martin Niemöller once settled this matter, and all similar matters, with his powerful sermon on the topic. It went like this:

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Think about it.

 

-MKL

[Huzband]

I wonder how that post would have gone over if I had posted it.

 

I've seen it before, & I've seen it tonight.

[Mike]

It's ridiculous just on the surface, nevermind below it.

 

-MKL

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

I can easily imagine as the economy continues to weaken (if it does continue to weaken) where people come up with all manner of ways to leverage their combined incomes and buying power. I can see a group of young people deciding that they have much to gain if they could only be viewed as married, with all the rights and privileges and tax breaks and so on. Some of the spouses will earn the money, others will be responsible for daycare, others for bargain hunting, and so on. Purely functional, no sense of love as is typical in monogamous relationships, the ultimate "marriage of convenience".

 

I'd be surprised if that wasn't happening already in states where same-sex unions are recognized. However, it's not unknown in the hetero world either. Sometimes it's a matter of convenience, other times it's to facilitate fraud.

[beemerman2k]

Ah, ok.

 

I was only making the point that I can see polygamy rising on the scene in America, that's all. Sorry if I offended -- bad beemerman

 

OK, in all seriousness, I think that if you want people to consider an issue, then you must create an environment that lets them consider an issue. In other words, it's one thing to disagree, but it's another to discourage disagreement. Words such as racist or sexist or homophobe or...might describe exactly how you feel, but even those sentiments that would otherwise be so characterized also must be freely expressed, discussed, and successfully confronted with logic and rational views.

 

So if some have views that might come across as homophobic, I say "fine, you've come to the right place to open up about such views!". And rather than try to attack them for their refusal to see things my way, I think it's better that we fight it out and then I ask myself why we don't understand one another. That very factor, that missing piece in the puzzle might just be the gap in our communications. And who knows, once we can define the ultimate points of disagreement, we can all better appreciate the issues that must somehow be resolved before this matter can be successfully resolved.

 

So there is something for everyone when there is open communications taking place. Everyone has a chance to open their minds and to learn something.

 

Personally, I wouldn't doubt for one second that views will change as a result of this conversation. Maybe not today, but someday. In fact, 10 years ago this time, I doubt I would have een bothered to engage in this thread. "Gays getting married? Are you crazy?", would have been my shocked, knee-jerk response. Now, not so much.

 

Why my old views? I had young children, and I didn't want them growing up in a world where they were being taught that every action is fine, there is no morality, all actions are equal in nature. I did not want then to grow up with that impression. There is right and wrong! There are standards of conduct! You do reap what you sow!

 

The older I get, however, the more I realize that I need not fear. "Gods law" is written on their hearts, too. They must come to their own realization as to what that means for their lives. Their meaning might differ from mine, so let me make sure they know the most sacred law--unconditional love and the respect to honor your decisions in life.

 

Finally, gay people, like everyone else, are living their lives with a desire to live up to only one persons standards, their own. I respect that. They can choose to live a lie and seek a life that is socially acceptable, but they have decided to be honest with themselves and with us. Good for them. Ultimately, this is what I want for my own children: the integrity to live their own lives honestly with themselves and with others.

 

So there is nothing to fear but fear itself

[beemerman2k]

What I would like to see my country come to understand is this: Gay people are not the moral monsters we've been lead to believe they are. They are not moral monsters that should be feared, shunned, and kept separate. They are normal people just like you and me. Just like you and me!

 

One advantage we have as hetero's is that we can hide our true nature. Like someone said a few posts ago to Scribner, "what if your partner is in the hospital, sick and bed, and only family can see her?" Odds are, the staff will just assume he's her husband! They aren't going to ask for a notarized affidavit stating that they are married! They'll be given the benefit of the doubt. In fact, there will be no doubt!

 

You can I can actually be sick moral monsters and sleep with all manner of women, and church aside, society will simply say, "boys will be boys". In this society, you can I can never be moral monsters.

 

Gay people are simply people. They are not moral monsters. They are not a group to be feared, separated, treated differently, labeled, categorized, nothing. Would I entrust the care of my children to a gay couple? Absolutely. I would only want the same assurances I would want from a hetero-couple: they are people of fine moral character and completely trustworthy. Gay teacher? No problem. Babysitter? Sure. Relative? Yep. Riding partner? BMWST.COM friend? Facebook friend? Absolutely. They are just people -- nothing more, nothing less.

 

Someday we will all come to realize this fact.

[Couchrocket]

I have read most of the post in this thread over the past few days and I must say how impressed I am with the intellect and open minded nature of the group. A marriage is a long standing and well defined relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. The abysmal statistics on marriage prove the glue needed for a relationship is not found in a marriage certificate. There you will find governments and lawyers looking for money and property. I would suggest keeping government out of your life as much as possible. That being said, this fall I will celebrate thirty years in a relationship. We got together and made a gentleman's agreement, sat down three basic rules for ourselves, then went to a lawyer and drew papers protecting ourselves and our assets. We are taxpayers, business owners, property owners and godfathers to two very important and wonderful children. We find ourselves surrounded by a large group of loving, supportive family and friends. Its not a marriage by traditional standards but we are very happy and do not feel discriminated against by anyone that matters. On the marriage issue, thanks but no thanks, what I have is working just fine.

 

Very well said. Props, respect, and good will.

Scott

[Ken H.]

So what defines "man" and "woman"? Is it the gender identified on their birth certificate or does it involve certain societal milestones?

 

What if a person is born with a physical anomaly or a warrior that is altered due to war wounds. What about a person that just does not identify mentally with the gender designated by a doctor at birth?

Sexual orientation has zero to do with physical attributes. That’s why it is called sexual orientation. It’s about what’s in your head not below it.

 

Transgender is a different subject. There are transgender heterosexuals and transgender homosexuals. Transgender is when you believe you are of the opposite sex that your body would lead you/some one to think.

 

[Ken H.]

Can a hermaphrodite be a homosexual? Can they be a heterosexual?

Absolutely. Again confusing sexual orientation with physical characteristics.

[Ken H.]

In fact, 10 years ago this time, I doubt I would have een bothered to engage in this thread. "Gays getting married? Are you crazy?", would have been my shocked, knee-jerk response.

And hopefully 10 years forth you’ll say, "Gays are married, why were we so all crazy about it?"

 

So there is nothing to fear but fear itself

And on this subject there is REALLY nothing to fear. Especially re: the slippery slope arguments. You all need not look any further than your neighbor to the north. Despite gay marriage being legal for some years now the opposition to polygamy is as strong as ever, maybe even more so. It’s a really hot topic in particular in BC. And the discussions have nothing to do with gay rights. Rather they are centered around oppression of women, abuse of underage (legal marriage age) female children, unlawful coercion of free movement, free will, abuse of the tax code and other issues legitimate for discussion. “The gays got it so why shouldn’t we?” has never ever been a point of the conversation/argument, even by those few on the pro-polygamy side.

 

I’ve said before, you USAmericans really need to get out more! It’s a big world out there, look around at what works. Listen and learn.

 

[Ken H.]

More on Zach Wahls - The Metro

 

And more from Zach Wahls - On Family Values It's only 3:22, take the time.

[ratfink]

I'm glad that we can pat ourselves on the back for our amazing display of tolerance in this discussion. Tolerance is a step in the right direction but it is kind like "we'll put up with it if we have to". The goat can't eat the same grass as the Sacred Cow.

 

It's sad to see that pretzel logic is used to rationalize bigotry.

Condescension and flippant intransigence are not attractive but I guess they must be tolerated.

[Ken H.]

Let me ask you - why not go back to separate drinking fountains and bathrooms? Seriously. Think about it.

That’s really the core issue right there: Same but separate does not = equal.

[moshe_levy]

The issue of tolerance has indeed been twisted by the separate and unequal crowd. In a perverse reversal of the social intention of tolerance, we are now told that citizens should tolerate outright bigotry.

 

If I'm arguing with someone who comes from this mindset, it is true, it must be tolerated or the conversation will end. If we're talking legislation, however, there is NO tolerance coming from me. If you aim to take away law-abiding tax-paying citizens civil rights OR alternatively, seek to keep them from enjoying the same civil rights as all other law-abiding tax-paying citizens, expect a very high degree of intolerance.

 

Tolerance of legal intolerance is the same as accepting a formal suicide. So two of my most prized assets - my time and my money - go to helping those forces that are stuck in the 19th century swallow a very bitter pill at the voting booth.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

So, we as Americans have mostly done a good job of writing and amending our state constitutions to provide as much as possible a level playing field. An overwhelming number of states in the last few years have amended their constitutions to tilt the field in order to "defend" a sanctimonious figment. It results in discrimination to a class of citizens. The majority has ruled even in states highly regarded for tolerance, like Oregon.

 

Hopefully the courts will intervene and overturn these amendments.

 

If not, I am optimistic that coming generations will because I see evidence that youth are seeing things differently. They can learn from bad examples as well as the good ones.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Hopefully the courts will intervene and overturn these amendments.

 

If not, I am optimistic that coming generations will because I see evidence that youth are seeing things differently. They can learn from bad examples as well as the good ones.

Interestingly, regarding the North Carolina amendment to the NC Constitution:

 

At an appearance from N.C. State University, House Speaker Thom Tillis, a primary proponent of Amendment One, acknowledged that the next generation is largely opposed to the constitutional rewrite on the May 8, primary ballot, and that it would be repealed.

 

“It’s a generational issue,” Tillis said. “The data shows right now that you are a generation away from that issue.”

 

According to Tillis, researchers have predicted Amendment One will pass with approximately 54 percent, but Tillis, who voted to pass the amendment, believes it won’t remain long.

 

“If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years,” Tillis said.

 

Makes a lot of sense to me: amend your constitution with a law that you think will barely pass and that you think has no staying power with future generations.

[Scribner]

/quote]

 

Congratulations on your upcoming celebration.

 

I've seen news reports where folks in a situation similar to yours found themselves with one partner hospitalized with a serious condition. The condition was so serious that visitation was restricted to members of the immediate family. The partners were denied visitation. Of course if they had been

married this would not have been the case at least in their home state. Is there another way to prepare for such a situation. Even if folks thought they had it covered in their home state is it possible it might not be recognized elsewhere?

 

A good power of attorney should prevent this from happening.

[Scribner]

I have read most of the post in this thread over the past few days and I must say how impressed I am with the intellect and open minded nature of the group. A marriage is a long standing and well defined relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. The abysmal statistics on marriage prove the glue needed for a relationship is not found in a marriage certificate. There you will find governments and lawyers looking for money and property. I would suggest keeping government out of your life as much as possible. That being said, this fall I will celebrate thirty years in a relationship. We got together and made a gentleman's agreement, sat down three basic rules for ourselves, then went to a lawyer and drew papers protecting ourselves and our assets. We are taxpayers, business owners, property owners and godfathers to two very important and wonderful children. We find ourselves surrounded by a large group of loving, supportive family and friends. Its not a marriage by traditional standards but we are very happy and do not feel discriminated against by anyone that matters. On the marriage issue, thanks but no thanks, what I have is working just fine.

 

Beautifully said.

 

Thanks for being part of this cyber family and I sure hope to meet you and your partner someday.

 

Larry

 

 

 

BTW...didn't you promise to share some home brew with me?

 

 

Just bottled ten gallons of mead!! Get up this way let me know!!

[moshe_levy]

Makes a lot of sense to me: amend your constitution with a law that you think will barely pass and that you think has no staying power with future generations.

 

Beyond stupid. Go a step further. You can use BMW as an example. Why Camp Gears? Why the sharp styling, high technology, new hi-po sportbike, and lighter and less expensive models in the lineup? Because the customer base was old, and getting older. In a generation, if no new potentially loyal customers are added, the brand dies. Pure and simple. BMW was smart enough to understand this and act accordingly.

 

What you are seeing here is a group that is too dumb to understand this and act accordingly. It is self-extinction, even by its own proponents' admission. Let's just make a segment of the population miserable for just a little longer, while we can still get away with it! Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

-MKL

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

House Speaker Thom Tillis, a primary proponent of Amendment One, acknowledged that the next generation is largely opposed to the constitutional rewrite on the May 8, primary ballot, and that it would be repealed.

 

“It’s a generational issue,” Tillis said. “The data shows right now that you are a generation away from that issue.”

It is. I find great hope in this chart – Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

 

Actually all eight slides in the series are pretty interesting.

 

In some sense it’s much like the legalize marijuana discussion. As the old stuck in the past generations slowly fall away the next generation with more modern ideas will slowly take over and make the decisions. It’s the way it’s always been on most any subject and always will be. The noise of the past becomes just that, fading noise.

 

[Selden]

[Dave McReynolds]

Makes a lot of sense to me: amend your constitution with a law that you think will barely pass and that you think has no staying power with future generations.

 

Beyond stupid. Go a step further. You can use BMW as an example. Why Camp Gears? Why the sharp styling, high technology, new hi-po sportbike, and lighter and less expensive models in the lineup? Because the customer base was old, and getting older. In a generation, if no new potentially loyal customers are added, the brand dies. Pure and simple. BMW was smart enough to understand this and act accordingly.

 

What you are seeing here is a group that is too dumb to understand this and act accordingly. It is self-extinction, even by its own proponents' admission. Let's just make a segment of the population miserable for just a little longer, while we can still get away with it! Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

-MKL

 

-MKL

 

Ironically, under other circumstances many of you would applaud someone who acted in accordance with his principles without regard to current trends.

[moshe_levy]

Makes a lot of sense to me: amend your constitution with a law that you think will barely pass and that you think has no staying power with future generations.

 

Beyond stupid. Go a step further. You can use BMW as an example. Why Camp Gears? Why the sharp styling, high technology, new hi-po sportbike, and lighter and less expensive models in the lineup? Because the customer base was old, and getting older. In a generation, if no new potentially loyal customers are added, the brand dies. Pure and simple. BMW was smart enough to understand this and act accordingly.

 

What you are seeing here is a group that is too dumb to understand this and act accordingly. It is self-extinction, even by its own proponents' admission. Let's just make a segment of the population miserable for just a little longer, while we can still get away with it! Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

-MKL

 

-MKL

 

Ironically, under other circumstances many of you would applaud someone who acted in accordance with his principles without regard to current trends.

 

Yes, in cases where his principles are to be admired, but certainly NOT in cases where his "principles" are to be loathed and rejected by those who cherish freedom and individual liberty.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

Yes, in cases where his principles are to be admired, but certainly NOT in cases where his "principles" are to be loathed and rejected by those who cherish freedom and individual liberty.

 

...only principles that meet your approval need apply?

[moshe_levy]

Not necessarily, no.

 

But his statement on its own just isn't universally true. It's true, for example, if the person is the lone "voice of reason against the howling mob." (Neil Peart's words, not mine). It's not true, for example, if the person is the lone howling loon going against the grain of reason, fact, and basic fairness.

 

Certainly as you see the opposition to homosexuals in this country is not limited to one lone howling loon. So going against the grain doesn't mean much, whether it's an anti-gay protestor in San Francisco or a pro-gay rally in North Carolina. The grain is very regional, obviously.

 

The issue here is law, and whether it applies equally to all tax-paying law-abiding citizens, or not.

 

-MKL

[Roadwolf]

 

...only principles that meet your approval need apply?

 

Uh, yeah... what part of the false equivalency of "standing on principles that discriminate against a class of people based upon your religious ideology" as being the same as equal rights don't you understand? It's not really that hard to figure out. One of our opinions is not equal to the other's. Bigotry, either masked by religious fervor or some other archaic viewpoint will always be on the losing side of history. Just a matter of time when more people with your views fade into the dust bin of those who fought against: civil rights for blacks, women's rights, etc. Your religious views or whatever source of any animosity towards gay marriage is fine to hold as long as it does not interfere with those who want to enjoy what you have, the legal observance of marriage and all it's benefits. To go further and to side with those who want to "protect" either the definition of marriage as they see it or to, more importantly, fight against equality under the law, well, then we have a problem. As has been stated earlier in this thread, it really is a matter of time before this will be resolved and we will wonder why it took so long. And will look back in bewilderment as well.

[beemerman2k]

OK, I'm going to change gears here and take the other side.

 

I do agree that religion has a lot to do with the public's general opposition to homosexuals, but sometimes it's more of a latent side effect as opposed to an all out barrier. What I mean is this: opening the door to gay marriage is an awfully big door on the country; it can have a significant impact on the culture of America. I'm not arguing against gay marriage, my point is only that I can see why some might oppose it for reasons other than bigotry. As Dave McReynolds has been trying to point out for practically this entire thread, this is a relatively new and untested social change that is being phased into the mainstream (to the many Americans who have not been exposed to this issue, it is "new"). Therefore, it is only wise to think this thing through, to consider the sum total of the effects, before enthusiastically supporting this movement.

 

This is not to say that one is opposed to equal rights more than to recognize that if the country hasn't thought things through, then there can be many unintended consequences that result. For instance, just thinking out loud here, let's say that nation wide, marriage is now legally defined as the union of two people, regardless of race, gender, religion -- whatever. And this is exactly what we are arguing for here, no question about it. As Dr. King would say, "All, Here, and Now". But OK, so now we have true equality with respect to gay marriage.

 

Uh oh, the Child Protection Agency removed children from an abusive home and now they are at the home of a gay married couple, presumable while the birth parents get their act together. But what do you know, the birth parents found out and now they're going ballistic -- Boom-Boom!

 

"Americans are once again asking themselves why mentally unstable people have such easy access to guns"

 

Mary comes home to tell her parents their male teacher has a husband, parents go ballistic!

 

"Americans are once again asking themselves why mentally unstable people have such easy access to guns"

 

Joey is suspended from school because he expressed disdain for same sex marriage (which he learned about at home and at church). Parents go ballistic!

 

"Americans are once again asking themselves why mentally unstable people have such easy access to guns"

 

OK, you can attack my lame examples, or you can consider the point I am trying to make. With any action, there are always going to be unintended consequences. Not that there is ever a justifiable reason to deny anyone their civil rights, ever, but it wouldn't hurt us too much to think through the implications of the change.

 

This is exactly what some have been doing in this thread by introducing the idea of polygamy and other forms of marriage. The point in bringing those up is not to suggest that gay marriage is somehow morally equivalent to those other arrangements; after all, polygamy was practiced by some of the most Godly men in the Bible! The reason those issues were raised is simply to ask:

 

"What are the implications of this change, and have we considered them, thought them through, and adequately prepared for them as a nation?"

 

Therefore, we need to welcome all inputs and seriously consider everyone's viewpoint. Sure, from one point of view, some might seem intolerant -- and in fact, might just be! From another viewpoint some might seem so gung-ho for this abstract notion of "fairness" that they have lost touch with the reality of what could be unintended consequences.

 

Put another way, if the change leads to a net negative impact on the Gay community, was it really progress?

 

None of this is to argue the case of denying anyone their rights. I am simply arguing that we must always remember that oftentimes, the opposition has something of great value to add to the conversation! So let's listen to all and consider what everyone has to say

[ratfink]

OK, I'm going to change gears here and take the other side.

 

I do agree that religion has a lot to do with the public's general opposition to homosexuals, but sometimes it's more of a latent side effect as opposed to an all out barrier. What I mean is this: opening the door to gay marriage is an awfully big door on the country; it can have a significant impact on the culture of America. I'm not arguing against gay marriage, my point is only that I can see why some might oppose it for reasons other than bigotry. As Dave McReynolds has been trying to point out for practically this entire thread, this is a relatively new and untested social change that is being phased into the mainstream (to the many Americans who have not been exposed to this issue, it is "new"). Therefore, it is only wise to think this thing through, to consider the sum total of the effects, before enthusiastically supporting this movement.

 

This is not to say that one is opposed to equal rights more than to recognize that if the country hasn't thought things through, then there can be many unintended consequences that result. For instance, just thinking out loud here, let's say that nation wide, marriage is now legally defined as the union of two people, regardless of race, gender, religion -- whatever. And this is exactly what we are arguing for here, no question about it. As Dr. King would say, "All, Here, and Now". But OK, so now we have true equality with respect to gay marriage.

 

Uh oh, the Child Protection Agency removed children from an abusive home and now they are at the home of a gay married couple, presumable while the birth parents get their act together. But what do you know, the birth parents found out and now they're going ballistic -- Boom-Boom!

 

"Americans are once again asking themselves why mentally unstable people have such easy access to guns"

 

Mary comes home to tell her parents their male teacher has a husband, parents go ballistic!

 

"Americans are once again asking themselves why mentally unstable people have such easy access to guns"

 

Joey is suspended from school because he expressed disdain for same sex marriage (which he learned about at home and at church). Parents go ballistic!

 

"Americans are once again asking themselves why mentally unstable people have such easy access to guns"

 

OK, you can attack my lame examples, or you can consider the point I am trying to make. With any action, there are always going to be unintended consequences. Not that there is ever a justifiable reason to deny anyone their civil rights, ever, but it wouldn't hurt us too much to think through the implications of the change.

 

This is exactly what some have been doing in this thread by introducing the idea of polygamy and other forms of marriage. The point in bringing those up is not to suggest that gay marriage is somehow morally equivalent to those other arrangements; after all, polygamy was practiced by some of the most Godly men in the Bible! The reason those issues were raised is simply to ask:

 

"What are the implications of this change, and have we considered them, thought them through, and adequately prepared for them as a nation?"

 

Therefore, we need to welcome all inputs and seriously consider everyone's viewpoint. Sure, from one point of view, some might seem intolerant -- and in fact, might just be! From another viewpoint some might seem so gung-ho for this abstract notion of "fairness" that they have lost touch with the reality of what could be unintended consequences.

 

Put another way, if the change leads to a net negative impact on the Gay community, was it really progress?

 

None of this is to argue the case of denying anyone their rights. I am simply arguing that we must always remember that oftentimes, the opposition has something of great value to add to the conversation! So let's listen to all and consider what everyone has to say

 

Thank you for not linking gay people to sheep boinkers, old boys with sister wives and impoverished people that want to go camping at the Grand Canyon.

[beemerman2k]

Thank you for not linking gay people to sheep boinkers, old boys with sister wives and impoverished people that want to go camping at the Grand Canyon.

 

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or literal, but I hope you really do understand the point I am trying to make. When one asks, "what about polygamy", they might see that type of arrangement as somehow equivalent to gay marriage, or they might really be asking, "are the implications of the change being made going to open the door to unintended consequences?". And that's not only a fair question, but it's always a good idea to consider the implications of a move and not simply the move itself. Once defined, everyone involved will at least appreciate what might possibly happen and then prepare for it.

 

During the Civil Rights movement, there were many black voices who argued this very point. They were often criticized and marginalized, called "Uncle Toms" and "Mental Slaves" and so forth. Their objections were not to the idea of Civil Rights, their objections were over the fact that the nation is rushing headlong into this thing that hasn't been adequately examined and thought through. As a result, there have been negative effects, or unintended consequences, that have fallen upon the nation as a whole, and black Americans in particular.

 

Affirmative Action is one example. Great in its intent, terrible in its implementation. This program would have caught much less criticism if it did not compromise on standards. If only the most qualified always and ever got the job, and the point of the program was simply to ensure that if the black applicant was more qualified then the black applicant should get the job. If that was how the program was implemented, I think it would have been far more welcomed into American society than what we all experienced. Furthermore, it would have sent a powerful message to the black community that was lacking. I saw with my own eyes blacks suggesting that they'd get access to certain opportunities simply because the law would force the employer to hire them and not because they had busted their butts to train or educate themselves properly. The net effect has been to send the wrong message to the nation, and it hasn't helped us to prepare for the globalized world that was to come, where in this arena only the most excellent survive regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, etc etc etc.

 

In fact, to this day this is the overwhelming point of the many black conservative voices in our country today: let's think through what it is we think we want, and ensure we are ready to pay the price that what we want will entail! Many of these conservative voices are so upset simply because these issues have not been thought through, and that people are living under a false impression that if they simply protest enough, riot enough, or kick and scream enough, that the country will give them what they want! If that's how our nation has come to behave over the past 50 years, I can assure you that this is not how the rest of the world works! Kick and scream all you want, if you don't deserve it, you ain't gettin' it. In fact, even if you do deserve it you might not get it!

 

So all I am arguing is that some of the counter-voices registered in this thread are only asking us to consider the implications of this move before we rush headlong into massive, nationwide changes. Not in the interest of denying anyone anything, but only in the interest of doing this in a way that ensures a positive outcome for all involved.