Gay marriage

[Quinn]

A lot of sour grapes because the majority of voting citizens of North Carolina chose to join 29 other states. I'll admit to being disappointed. The tyranny of the majority is no prettier than then tyranny of the minority. I just wish that the oppostion had presented more effective advertisements to state their case. For me, the reactionary, irrational ads of the pros turned me off to their view more than the antis' ads swayed me to theirs. Someone should have at least read Shylock's soliloquy from the Merchant of Venice.

 

I suspect that the next step will be Federal legislation, maybe allowing gay marriages in the military, and a Supreme Court decision or two to get recognition. Integration didn't happen because the majority suddenly woke up one morning and said, "Hey, it's the right thing to do."

 

-----

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Quinn,

 

Those of us outside of NC may not have seen the ads. I have not, at least. Do you have links for any of them that were shown in your state? I have seen such ads in general but am not sure if they were specific to this state amendment issue.

 

-MKL

[SANTA]

society is build on the family, as the family go (fails) so does the society, just look around you and tell me that all is well in America. two moms or two dads, don't make a better place to grow up than a complete home with a mom and a dad, two same sex partners do not present real family values, which will have further consequences down the road.

 

the bible clearly states God's view of the situation, i will not add anything further to it

Once again I refer to excellent work by Zach Wahls on just this subject. There is no data what-so-ever to support a decline in ‘family values” in same sex parented families. It just plain doesn’t exist, zero, nada, zilch, nothing.

 

ISFA the religious/immoral argument/position; of course anyone is free to have that opinion and argue against gay marriage from there. If someone wants to argue, ‘but, but, but you’ll go to hell’, well, then at least their being honest about their reasoning. But do so knowing full well the social arguments fall flat.

 

 

BTW, in Wahls' book he used the 10 characteristics of a Boy Scout's honor as his definition of "family values.” Of course a list could always be debated, but not a bad starting point.

 

go to work for a couple of days, and this is discussion has moved on.

 

i would like to just pull back a step if allowed,

 

firstly i agree with Bedford Bruce's assessment (totally) i fully agree that I am just as much a sinner as any of those Bruce listed of,

 

my second thought which was the "slippery slope" was more aimed at the results of the breakup of the family, and in that regard, a same sex couple of parent cannot function as well as a hetrosexual set of parents. I have nothing to base this on, sorry just my gut take on what i see around me.

 

I am not fully aware of the issue in NY, and how it affects this discussion, has there been any thought about an acceptance of a civil union in lieu of marriage?

 

 

 

 

[StuGotz]

my second thought which was the "slippery slope" was more aimed at the results of the breakup of the family, and in that regard, a same sex couple of parent cannot function as well as a hetrosexual set of parents. I have nothing to base this on, sorry just my gut take on what i see around me.

 

Can't disagree more Santa, and I hope I don't get taken off the list for presents next Xmas...

 

Funny how we trot these issues out at election times. Each and every cycle. Same old issues, never resolved, cause after an election they are forgotten. Fodder by which they divide and line up voters.

 

Let me know when we get to abortion and a woman's right to choose.

 

Should be in about 2 months.

 

MB>

[Quinn]

Quinn,

 

Those of us outside of NC may not have seen the ads. I have not, at least. Do you have links for any of them that were shown in your state? I have seen such ads in general but am not sure if they were specific to this state amendment issue.

 

-MKL

 

Just go to youtube and search for marriage amendment nc. All of the FOR ads that I saw were religious appeals to "save marriage." Even had Billy Graham's son making a direct plea. All of the AGAINST ads were single mothers who couldn't get health insurance for their kids or restraining orders against their abusers because they weren't married. Noone's ads had any logic behind them.

 

-----

 

 

[Ken H.]

It's a sad day for many of us North Carolinians

What’s really sad is it won’t accomplish a damn (positive) thing. No marriages will be ‘saved’ or be more stable even or the number of male/female only ones increase, family values won’t be better upheld or taught, divorce rates won’t decline, religious participation will not go up, no state funds will be saved, sexual activities or orientations will not change. Nothing.

 

A group of people has lashed out at another group of people further dividing society. They’ve had their little temper tantrum and for them today is no different than yesterday nor tomorrow as the go on about their day feeling smug and all about themselves.

 

For those they pissed on at the polls however; it’s a much sadder day with some real consequences.

 

[moshe_levy]

OK, now I saw them and understand. To me it is even more depressing than I originally thought. So backwards is the electorate in that state, that instead of appealing to basic fairness and equality under the law (i.e., reason, fact, logic, and history) the against side marketed its message in terms of fringe effects the amendment may have on hetero situations (single moms, child support, arrears, custody, restraining orders, etc.). The issue is re gay marriage and yet that issue is sidestepped altogether.

 

Incredible. Sad. I can't even think of an analogy. Maybe framing the argument for black civil rights in terms of reduced wear and tear on the firehoses and dogs police used to break up peaceful marches? Taxpayers, you can save some money here if we just let these pesky people get treated like everyone else! Nothing about fairness, equality - the human ideal. Nothing. Wow.....

 

What a message that sends! What a sad, pathetic state of affairs. Shameful.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

A lot of sour grapes because the majority of voting citizens of North Carolina chose to join 29 other states.

30 states now, wow.

 

For all the same-sex couples facing persecution in the United States of America, I have a suggestion – Come to Canada! Canada is looking for progressive thinking, ambitious people who have a sense of independence and willingness to ‘colour outside of the box’ so to speak - to find new and better paths forward. You’ll be greeted with open arms!

 

On second thought, no you won’t. You’ll be greeted just like anyone else. Which I guess is the whole point.

 

[tallman]

Moshe,

 

I would think that calling people "fools", backward electorate" doesn't go far in bringing understanding and building consensus.

 

To be fair, you are the one who posted about all of the corruption in public office in New Jersey, all the mismanagement by elected officials there, so it would seem NC isn't alone in having a backwards electorate.

 

Seems like it is ok to call groups names and belittle their intelligence (or perhaps accent) if it serves a purpose?

Again, I challenge that behaviour citing it as counterproductive, short sighted, and divisive.

 

Since the NJ Senate passed a bill on February 13, 2012, wrt this subject.ould that make the people of NJ fools/backwward up until that date?

 

And now, suddenly, everyone in NJ supports that bill, right?

Or just the ones who used to be fools and backward memebers of the electorate?

 

For an interesting POV, google Matthew Vines, Hardard student who did a 2 year study on the Bible and religion wrt homosexuality.

[beemerman2k]

Me and my girls love the animated movies, "Madagascar".  There are currently 2 movies in the franchise out now, 1 & 2, and #3 is due to hit the theaters this summer.  These movies feature the voices of Ben Stiller (Alex the Lion), Chris Rock (Marty the Zebra), Jada Pinkett Smith (Gloria the Hippo), David Schwimmer (Melman the Giraffe) and Sacha Baron Cohen (King Julian the Lemur).

 

Anyhow, in the second Madagascar movie, the animals who live in the wildlife sanctuary experience a life threatening problem:  the river has run dry and therefore there is no water to drink!  Since Alex the Lion actually spent most of his life living in a New York City Zoo, he knows that the probable cause is that something is blocking the flow of water, so he sets off with Marty the Zebra to remove the obstacle and free the flow of water once again.  At the same time King Julian, a lemur so full of himself he actually considers himself to be a real king, calls upon the other animals to select someone to sacrifice to the water gods.  King Julian assures them that he personally knows the water gods and that a sacrifice will appease them enough to restore the flow of water.

 

Well, wouldn't you know it, Alex and Marty go off alone, unsupported and unrecognized by the masses.  Meanwhile, everyone crowds around their savior, King Julian, who is going to sacrifice Melman to the water gods by dropping him into a volcano.  Surely the problem at hand, given its severity and life threatening nature, has something to do with the gods and nothing to do with reason or rational thinking.  Therefore, they sing and dance in celebration of King Julian and his great sacrifice to the water gods.

 

Not to spoil the movie or anything, but Alex and Marty manage to unblock the flow of water and life is restored to the animal preserve.  And of course, the masses believe that the reason water is flowing is because King Julian offered a sacrifice to the water gods.  Mixed in with all this is tons of adventure and humor, which makes for a really great movie.

 

This is what America looks like to me at times like this.  We fret the economy more than anything as deficits run amok, jobs grow scarce, and resources we traditionally relied upon (education, medical care, retirement, infrastructure, energy) dwindle.  The river of the American way of life has gone dry -- it is blocked.  In general, we have decided to respond to this problem in much the same way the animals on the game preserve chose to respond to their problem, by assuming behind all the trials is a God who needs to be appeased, and therefore we shall offer up a sacrifice -- in this case, it's our gay brothers and sisters -- to free the flow of prosperity once again.  Our reasoning boils down to this: perhaps the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is the same God who destroyed Rome and the same God who brought down the mighty British Empire is the same God bringing us down, too, and it’s all because we tolerated the homosexual lifestyle.

 

Therefore, we rally around the "King Julian’s" of our society who claim to know this "water god" and will therefore mediate on our behalf and save us from the wrath to come.  If we can simply turn the clock back to a 1950's American suburban middle class lifestyle, where the man was dominant both at home and in society and the woman stayed at home and labored in the kitchen, when we didn't have such complex and Deity angering issues such as women’s rights, equal pay acts, gender equality, illegal immigration, abortion, and especially gay rights, then God will be appeased and the waters of prosperity will freely flow once again! :clap:

 

OR, alternatively, we can go upstream and find out what is actually blocking the river.  Just sayin'

 

We might find issues such as the lower cost of doing business elsewhere, the lack of labor rights elsewhere, the lack of environmental laws elsewhere, and other factors that prompt the investors of America to place their money in foreign countries and not here.  In fact, we might even discover that all the things we feel guilty about in this country have nothing to do with why prosperity is raining down on countries like Communist China: where any and all religions are strictly forbidden, Pakistan: where Christianity is not tolerated, India: which has very little in the way of America's "water god" represented in society.  If we but step back, think rationally, and look at the facts, we might find out that our problems have little to nothing at all to do with a "water god" and everything to do with issues we are more than capable of identifying and addressing all by ourselves.

 

In any case, this is what I mean when I said that Americans are living in fear, and that fear is what leads to actions like what we see taking place in North Carolina and in other states throughout the nation.  We see ourselves as trying to stop a social tide of actual diversity, acceptance, and equal treatment under the law because we fear these things anger our "water god". These ideals of "all men are Created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are nice and all, and we thank the Founding Fathers for introducing them to us, but ultimately the "water gods" rule!  If they say "no" to America's core principles, then No it is.

 

So let’s get busy with that sacrifice

[moshe_levy]

Moshe,

 

I would think that calling people "fools", backward electorate" doesn't go far in bringing understanding and building consensus.

 

To be fair, you are the one who posted about all of the corruption in public office in New Jersey, all the mismanagement by elected officials there, so it would seem NC isn't alone in having a backwards electorate.

 

Seems like it is ok to call groups names and belittle their intelligence (or perhaps accent) if it serves a purpose?

Again, I challenge that behaviour citing it as counterproductive, short sighted, and divisive.

 

Since the NJ Senate passed a bill on February 13, 2012, wrt this subject.ould that make the people of NJ fools/backwward up until that date?

 

And now, suddenly, everyone in NJ supports that bill, right?

Or just the ones who used to be fools and backward memebers of the electorate?

 

For an interesting POV, google Matthew Vines, Hardard student who did a 2 year study on the Bible and religion wrt homosexuality.

 

Tim,

 

There is no consensus to be built with people who see other people as "less than." Such people need to be defeated, because there is no compromise with them to begin with. There is no compromise, because there is no reason, no logic, no fact, and no history. There is only their false interpretation of mysticism. There is no argument you can have with such people to sway them because they are closed to the idea to begin with. Because their agenda is to put the boot of the state on the throats of law abiding, ta paying citizens, I will continue to refer to them as "backwards" and "fools," because that's in fact what they are. Backwards and fools from all the trends of history that should have taught them better.

 

Second, you list actions by the NJ Senate, which did pass legislation which is pro gay marriage. The Senate of this state, and the people of this state, are overwhelmingly in favor of equal rights under the law. The governor vetoed it, as he said in his own words, because his faith won't let him agree. Once again - faith. Not reason, logic, fact, or history. So there is no compromise, and the will of the people is ignored.

 

Re corruption, hey man, we put the Sopranos on the map! Of course there is corruption here! Maybe worse than NC, who knows. That does not make the voters here backwards, because by that guide all voters everywhere are backwards, since there is no politics without corruption. (By the way, in that previous thread you refer to which I don't believe for the record, it listed NJ as one of the LEAST corrupt states. Again, I don't believe it, but there it is).

 

Political corruption is a function of politics, not of voters willing voting for it! What happened in NC, and Colorado, and elsewhere, is a backwards, foolish electorate or political class that puts ideology and "faith" over the rule of law, and slams the heavy hand of the state into a minority segment of the population without a hint of reason, logic, fact, or history. And so, when one ignores reason, logic, fact, and history, he will remain backwards, and foolish.

 

-MKL

 

 

[tallman]

Perhaps I have more "faith" in reason as opposed to argue and belittle.

 

Matthew Vines

pro

 

and con

 

change comes from within, wheter based on faith, or logic.

[Dave McReynolds]

Therefore, we rally around the "King Julian’s" of our society who claim to know this "water god" and will therefore mediate on our behalf and save us from the wrath to come. If we can simply turn the clock back to a 1950's American suburban middle class lifestyle, where the man was dominant both at home and in society and the woman stayed at home and labored in the kitchen, when we didn't have such complex and Deity angering issues such as women’s rights, equal pay acts, gender equality, illegal immigration, abortion, and especially gay rights, then God will be appeased and the waters of prosperity will freely flow once again!

 

OR, alternatively, we can go upstream and find out what is actually blocking the river. Just sayin'

 

I enjoyed reading your post, but where your analogy breaks down is in assuming that economic hard times have caused people to go looking for the scapegoats you mention. Limiting the discussion to gay rights, there was much more prejudice against homosexuality during the best of economic times, the '50's, than there is now. There was no "gay rights" then, because proclaiming such would be the same as drawing a target on your back. If anyone had raised the gay rights banner during the prosperous '50's, they would have likely been answered with violence, whereas during today's difficult economic times, they are either supported or met with passive resentment, but are much less likely to be "thrown into the volcano."

 

So why was their a civil rights movement in the '50's, but no gay rights movement in the '50's, when prejudice against homosexuals had been around as long as prejudice against blacks? I think the reason is that a significant part of society already recognized the unfairness of racial segregation, and had written and talked about it for many years. Blacks in parts of the country that were not segregated communicated with those in segregated parts of the country, and provided a base for action. There was no similar discussion taking place about homosexuality, and if there were enclaves where homosexuality was permitted, nobody advertised it. There was really no part of society, the wealthy, the poor, blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, the north, or the south, that was not overwhelmingly prejudiced against homosexuality. So there was no base from which to build a movement at that time. Since that time, probably starting within the creative arts and academia, homosexuals found places where they felt safe enough to speak out, and may now be in about the same position the blacks found themselves a number of years earlier.

 

I think the history of the blacks since the '50's would be instructive for the gay rights movement. The blacks didn't wait for popular acceptance; they used the courts, and the courts ruled in their favor. This created a great deal of resentment among some whites at first, but as people observed blacks taking their rightful place in society, most people, even a lot of those who resented court decisions being imposed on them, came to accept the changes. Not that anything about basic human nature has changed; people still pick their friends and associates primarily from others who look, think, and act like they do. Many times these days, that might mean having black friends and associates if one is white, which would certainly have surprised a lot of people 50 years ago. Very few people today would openly object to blacks having the same protections under the law that everyone else does.

 

My assumption is that the same natural transition would happen with homosexuals, and is already happening in many places. As people actually begin to know and associate with gay people, many of whom they may have already been associating with without knowing that they are gay, they will come to the conclusion that there is nothing to worry about, and the changes they are seeking will come. I see nothing wrong with seeking those changes through court action, even though this inevitably causes a little resentment at first. The Supreme Court will probably hear this issue in the near future, and may or may not rule that the cause of gay marriage is equivalent to other civil rights cases it has heard in the past. While a defeat in a NC election or a negative ruling by the Supreme Court would be a temporary setback for the gay rights cause, it really doesn't matter in the long run; if people experience positive changes in society from open inclusion of homosexuals, then it is inevitable that the remaining barriers will fall. Building on what James said in an earlier post, the very people who rule against you in the Supreme Court or who vote against you in the polls today are the same people who may help you or your cause to accomplish some objective tomorrow, if you leave the bridges open for them to do so.

[Ken H.]

Me and my girls love the animated movies, "Madagascar".

James, I don’t know whether to be impressed or slightly concerned that you know the story line to “Madagascar” so well!

 

But more to your point, someone once said, “Simple people seek simple answers.” That’s what I see going on. People trying to find that one simple topic, and that one silver bullet, that will explain and reverse the decline of USAmerica. Sorry people, it isn’t that simple, not by a long shot.

 

“Correlation does not mean Causation” is another favorite of mine.

 

 

[Ken H.]

I enjoyed reading your post, but where your analogy breaks down is in assuming that economic hard times have caused people to go looking for the scapegoats you mention.

I think few people would rationally argue that gay rights are the root cause of the decline of USAmerica. Nor do I think that some people think that was James’s point.

 

Rather, I think some people thing the decline of USAmerica is due to a moral decline, of which gay rights is one element of.

 

They (IMHO of course) would be wrong. The decline of USAmerica is due to a whole smorgasbord of reasons, some of which James touched on above.

 

And people DO seek out scapegoats and targets for their anger. They’re angry and venting that anger is a typical, if unproductive, reaction. Instead of seeking to understand, seek to target, is the mantra. All the more better if it is a group of people at which it is hard to define an actual causation to. That just makes it hard to repudiate.

 

 

[ratfink]

This discussion was real I opener for me and I had to face my own prejudice. The only place I've visited in NC is Charlotte and I really liked that city. For someone used to Portland and Seattle I felt very much at home, vibrant downtown scene, wonderful architecture and basketball and soccer to boot.

 

But when this topic came up I started thinking of Southern Man by Neil Young. I have a bias about southern politics. Then I looked at a map showing all the states and the majority have amendments like #1. I was reminded even my beloved native Oregon has had such law for quite some time now a referendum by the voters. Oregon...liberal stronghold. Highest percentage of unchurched peoples. Top rated for gay friendly live, work and visit. I live in Washington, recently the legislature approved gay marriage here. I wouldn't be surprised if it was overturned by referendum.

 

Well anyway I still lke NC and would visit again, it is not alone in this situation. I especially enjoyed the posts from Chapel Hill, very educational to me. If they have separate drinking fountains I will get in line at the gay one, the line may be shorter, the conversation will be more lively and interesting and maybe the younger folks will think I'm cool.

[Ken H.]

Let’s put this discussion in the context people seem best able to frame most everything these days; it’s all about me.

 

All concerns about the decline of society, its moral decay and such aside, all of you who oppose gay marriage - how would granting same sex couples the right to marry personally negatively effect you?

 

The way allowing gay people to marry will negatively affect me is ____________________________________.

 

I want to see the list.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Well Ken, I asked this exact question much earlier. The answer we got was that it would negatively affect "society." Some of us somehow feel that we have been annointed the spokesmen for "society" and despite not being able to list a single reason per individual, the nebulous "society" somehow is doomed.

 

I also asked a second queston based on historical context: When was it RIGHT to discriminate legally against a minority group? Indians? Women? Blacks? Nobody could answer there, either.

 

Simple questions to illustrate the depth of conviction people have. If the other side had a reasonable response, perhaps there would be a shred of merit to their cause. Of course, there is no response. Don't hold your breath for one here either, Ken.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

By the way... Breaking news, a prominent individual has just affirmed his support for this issue. An individual with a pretty good amount of influence. About time.

 

-MKL

[Scribner]

By the way... Breaking news, a prominent individual has just affirmed his support for this issue. An individual with a pretty good amount of influence. About time.

 

-MKL

 

 

"I'm with the government and I'm here to help you."

[John Ranalletta]

By the way... Breaking news, a prominent individual has just affirmed his support for this issue. An individual with a pretty good amount of influence. About time.

 

-MKL

 

 

"I'm with the government and I'm here to help you."

 

Never underestimate what a person will do for votes and money.

[pbharvey]

By the way... Breaking news, a prominent individual has just affirmed his support for this issue. An individual with a pretty good amount of influence. About time.

 

-MKL

 

Is this the guy?

 

...a backward fool

[moshe_levy]

By the way... Breaking news, a prominent individual has just affirmed his support for this issue. An individual with a pretty good amount of influence. About time.

 

-MKL

 

 

"I'm with the government and I'm here to help you."

 

Nah. More like "getting government out of your personal life." No help required. Just getting out of the way. Isn't that a virtue?

 

-MKL

[tallman]

By the way... Breaking news, a prominent individual has just affirmed his support for this issue. An individual with a pretty good amount of influence. About time.

 

-MKL

 

 

Prolly someone just asked nicely...

[beemerman2k]

Gay Americans carry a particularly difficult challenge because they are specifically singled out as sinful in the Bible. The Sodom and Gomorrah story, the Law of Moses, and some of the Apostle Paul's writings condemn their lifestyle. Therefore, they make for an easy scapegoat for what is viewed at the moral decline in America.

 

I do personally associate any declines in this country with our economic decline, not some sort of religious or moral decline. The loss of millions of jobs that were specifically off shored, or that were never created here in the first place by American firms, is having a huge impact on society. Governments are broke because of the lack of tax revenues, and therefore government services are broke -- schools, hospitals, police forces, fire departments, social service agencies. Our young cannot find jobs and college tuition is ultra-expensive. Opportunities that used to go to American kids now go to Chinese, Indian, Thai, Vietnamese, and other foreign kids. There is a hiring binge going on in these countries being put on by American firms, and that's a fact.

 

You need only consult some of the posts in this thread to see that people are concerned about a moral decline, that the 50's image is seen as ideal, and part of the reason it is seen as idea is because the standard of living was great and gays were in the closet back then. This is why the religious leaders spearhead these efforts to ban gay marriage, which is really a ban on gay legitimacy. Religious leaders seem to always want to go back in time, and not boldly forward. Just a generalized observation of mine, certainly nothing to bank on. I say let's go forward and create a future we never had: just, peaceful, impartial, free, prosperous, open, knowledge based, and inclusive.

 

 

BTW, I have 3 young daughters, so I see all the animated movies. Some of my favorites include:

 

- Lion King of course

- Kung Fu Panda series (2nd only to Lion King in my book)

- Madagascar series

- Prince of Egypt (far better than that "10 Commandments" movie)

- Bambi (great movie! Never saw it until I became a father)

- Marry Poppins (Dick Van Dyke is a talent!)

- Night at the Museum series

- A Bugs Life

- Spirit (very good animation that juxtaposes Native American culture with the West)

- Shrek series (a total riot and irreverent fun. 1 & 3 are good. 2 & 4 are so-so)

- Bolt

 

I like the movies that encourage you to follow your heart and to believe in yourself. These are vital messages because there's no telling what challenges tomorrow holds for your kids. So if they can learn to believe in themselves and to confidently work with very limited information and no clue as to what tomorrow holds, then they will do will, learn, and over come.

[Boffin]

Okay guys, back away from the politics.

[Ken H.]

Is this the guy?

 

...a backward fool

Personal opinion – this is crossing the “No Politics” rule here. Mods why hasn't that post been edited?

[moshe_levy]

I may have opened the door to the politics by issuing the breaking news. Sorry about that. I'm not going to touch that aspect of it for fear of crossing the line. I would only be repeating myself anyway.

 

James, off topic for a sec, although all of those movies are good, the best is Pocahontas (Disney, 1995). Your daughters AND you will love it, absolutely guaranteed.

 

 

-MKL

 

[beemerman2k]

APOLOGY TO THIS THREAD

 

I should have addressed matters as the topic changed to focus on the President, but I was too busy thinking about my post that I didn't really consider what was being said. Nonetheless, I dropped the ball on this one. This is important because moderators are often accused of playing ideological favorites, leaning left or leaning right. We like to think we lean neither, at least with respect to this board.

 

Anyhow, thank you Andy for addressing it, and thank you Ken H. for calling attention to it

[beemerman2k]

James, off topic for a sec, although all of those movies are good, the best is Pocahontas (Disney, 1995). Your daughters AND you will love it, absolutely guaranteed.

 

 

-MKL

 

OK, just one more off topic post, then its back to our regularly scheduled broadcast

 

I haven't seen Pocahontas though I know my girls have. In fact, my youngest daughter was in her school play, "Pocahontas", so I guess I can say I saw the play . If its still out on DVD I'll have to pick up a copy at Targets or someplace.

[Selden]

[moshe_levy]

Selden,

 

Were it so easy. Anti-gay amendments are passing all over, even in traditionally liberal and very pro-gay states. There is some disparity between the support the issue supposedly has and what actually happens at polls. The disparity is likely due to political correctness - it's not PC to tell a pollster you're anti-gay, but in the voting booth when nobody's looking......

 

-MKL

[tallman]

Bradley effect from 30 years ago, but evident in many areas.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Selden,

 

Were it so easy. Anti-gay amendments are passing all over, even in traditionally liberal and very pro-gay states. There is some disparity between the support the issue supposedly has and what actually happens at polls. The disparity is likely due to political correctness - it's not PC to tell a pollster you're anti-gay, but in the voting booth when nobody's looking......

 

-MKL

 

Probably more of a difference between who talks to pollsters and who actually votes. Older people and more conservative people are known to vote in higher proportions than other groups.

[pbharvey]

Gay rights now, gender rights next?

 

If everyone should be able to enjoy the "right" of marriage, shouldn't everyone be able to enjoy the "right" of being whatever gender they think they are?

 

Slippery slope and all that.

[majrosebud]

Just an observation. One of my best friends from childhood and his partner came over to my house for my youngest kids' graduation party. There were at least a 100 people in my house at that time. My words can not describe how much admiration these two recieved from people who know them. My friend Bill is a good person who walks the walk. He has come through for me in a time of crisis like no other.

 

I had no idea he way gay until he told me about 15 years ago. I am a pretty open minded person. When he came out I was totally flabergasted. It took me some time to get use to the idea, of which I am not very proud of. Some of our mutual friends made a big deal about it. I didn't. A few never got over it. Thank god I did. My life is better because I know him. I have a wonderful friend in Bill.

 

My how times have changed. These for the better.

 

 

 

 

 

[Selden]

Probably more of a difference between who talks to pollsters and who actually votes. Older people and more conservative people are known to vote in higher proportions than other groups.

Everybody gets older eventually. Not everybody gets more conservative as they age.

[majrosebud]

Roger that, Selden.

[Ken H.]

Gay rights now, gender rights next?

 

If everyone should be able to enjoy the "right" of marriage, shouldn't everyone be able to enjoy the "right" of being whatever gender they think they are?

 

Slippery slope and all that.

Well two can play the slippery slope game. The NC amendment goes farther than most others in that it not only defines marriage as strictly between a male and a female*, it also prohibits civil unions and common law marriages. So should everyone have to get married in a Christian church? I ask that tongue in cheek, but only partially. It seems from here THAT’S the slippery slope the USA is heading down – government sanctioning of the Christian faith. E.g. if you get married by a rabbi it’s not valid.

 

*But what about transgender, does the NC law (and others like it) prohibit someone who used to be of a different sex from marrying someone of the opposite sex? I.e. in NC is it only the plumbing you were born with that defines if you can get married? Of course I don’t suppose they thought that part through.

 

[beemerman2k]

So where do we go today to escape religious persecution

[Nice n Easy Rider]

So where do we go today to escape religious persecution

We could flee to England and complete the 400-yo circle.

[Whip]

So where do we go today to escape religious persecution

 

Torrey

 

Next week.

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Anti-gay amendments are passing all over, even in traditionally liberal and very pro-gay states.

 

I think a distinction needs to be made between being anti-gay and being anti-gay marriage. You may think this is a distinction without a difference, but I think there are a significant number of people, maybe enough to tilt elections one way or the other, who don't perceive themselves as being homophobic, but do believe that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Whether you think this is a meaningful distinction or not, perhaps it should effect the message: i.e. a message aimed at reducing homophobia will not be effective in reaching this segment of the population, and may even backfire if people in this segment feel they are being painted with the same brush as homophobics.

 

In the end, I don't know if it's any easier to convince someone who is anti-gay marriage to change their mind than it is to convince someone who is anti-gay in general to change their mind, but I do know that a message always has a better chance of a positive response if it addresses the issue rather than something that isn't the issue.

[pbharvey]

Anti-gay amendments are passing all over, even in traditionally liberal and very pro-gay states.

 

I think a distinction needs to be made between being anti-gay and being anti-gay marriage. You may think this is a distinction without a difference, but I think there are a significant number of people, maybe enough to tilt elections one way or the other, who don't perceive themselves as being homophobic, but do believe that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Whether you think this is a meaningful distinction or not, perhaps it should effect the message: i.e. a message aimed at reducing homophobia will not be effective in reaching this segment of the population, and may even backfire if people in this segment feel they are being painted with the same brush as homophobics.

 

In the end, I don't know if it's any easier to convince someone who is anti-gay marriage to change their mind than it is to convince someone who is anti-gay in general to change their mind, but I do know that a message always has a better chance of a positive response if it addresses the issue rather than something that isn't the issue.

 

Well said

[ratfink]

I used to work with materials that were classified hydrophobic or hydrophillic. Hydrophobic meant that the material was a barrier to water in the liquid phase.

 

A person that acts as a barrier to homosexuals is probably going to be classified as homophobic whether they are in denial or not.

Sorry that's just how definitions work.

 

[moshe_levy]

Anti-gay amendments are passing all over, even in traditionally liberal and very pro-gay states.

 

I think a distinction needs to be made between being anti-gay and being anti-gay marriage. You may think this is a distinction without a difference, but I think there are a significant number of people, maybe enough to tilt elections one way or the other, who don't perceive themselves as being homophobic, but do believe that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Whether you think this is a meaningful distinction or not, perhaps it should effect the message: i.e. a message aimed at reducing homophobia will not be effective in reaching this segment of the population, and may even backfire if people in this segment feel they are being painted with the same brush as homophobics.

 

In the end, I don't know if it's any easier to convince someone who is anti-gay marriage to change their mind than it is to convince someone who is anti-gay in general to change their mind, but I do know that a message always has a better chance of a positive response if it addresses the issue rather than something that isn't the issue.

 

Well said

 

Is it? I would argue it's a semantic two-step shuffle that tries and fails to cover up the underlying and very ugly prejudice that is inherant in that stance. It is true only insofar as indeed, in some areas you cannot stay on true message and sell it. This is more a testament to the backwards electorate you're selling to than the central point you're trying to make.

 

Were I to say for example, that just because I feel blacks should drink at separate fountains, doesn't mean I am racist - would you believe it? Were I to substitute any other race / creed / religion for "gay," proceed to tell you how they should be denied their civil rights, and then in the same sentence tell you I am not discriminating make any sense to anyone who is actually paying attention?

 

Of course not. One of Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths is "Words mean things." Absolutely, undeniably true! Homophobic literally means "afraid of homosexuals." It's a perfect description of those who seek through big government to deny law abiding tax paying gay people their civil rights. Why is it perfect? Because we have already very firmly established (NOBODY has argued against this point so far, in 20+ pages!) that the anti-gay agenda is not founded on reason, nor on fact, nor on logic, nor on history. It is, in fact, founded in fear and on inertia. Oh, and on biblical interpretation too (which, one can easily argue, results in fear and intertia in this case).

 

Argue otherwise, if you can. Share with us how the anti-gay agenda is founded on anything but fear... If you can. If you cannot, the label fits. Perfectly.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

There are many people who are pro-marriage and see value in preserving it in its current state. We are not anti-gay in the same way we are not anti-first cousin. I love my first cousins but I don't think I should be able to marry them.

 

All people deserve respect and are entitled to human rights. Love is a human right but marriage isn't.

 

 

 

[ratfink]

There are many people who are pro-marriage and see value in preserving it in its current state. We are not anti-gay in the same way we are not anti-first cousin. I love my first cousins but I don't think I should be able to marry them.

 

All people deserve respect and are entitled to human rights. Love is a human right but marriage isn't.

 

 

 

So if your cousin told you he was going to marry his boyfriend in Massachusettes and he asked you to be his best man. How would you respond? Remember you do Love him.

[longjohn]

Mr Levy has it almost right. Instead of fear and inertia, I think it is fear and ignorance.

 

By not being allowed to marry I think Gays' rights are being violated under the 14th amendment.

 

Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any laws which prohibit same sex marriages will be found unconstitutional eventually. There is no rational argument to keep them in place.

[pbharvey]

There are many people who are pro-marriage and see value in preserving it in its current state. We are not anti-gay in the same way we are not anti-first cousin. I love my first cousins but I don't think I should be able to marry them.

 

All people deserve respect and are entitled to human rights. Love is a human right but marriage isn't.

 

 

 

So if your cousin told you he was going to marry his boyfriend in Massachusettes and he asked you to be his best man. How would you respond? Remember you do Love him.

 

I'd respectfully decline. It would be hypocritical of me to stand as a witness to something I disagree with. I wouldn't be best man to anyone who was getting married and I didn't agree with the marriage. For instance, if my cousin met a girl and decided to marry her after knowing her for two weeks, I would object to that. I would not be in the wedding party putting my seal of approval on it. Marriage is serious business to me.