If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

My personal view on the matter is that the government (for both my personal view of the immorality of homosexual relations and my personal view of the role of government) should not be giving such a relationship a title of marriage

---

Lee,

Thanks for being honest. The question I have is why do you label the love between two people of the same sex as immoral? I have many gay friends in solid loving relationships. I am very close to a lesbian couple who are doing a wonderful job raising three children. If you were to meet them you would not find any reason to judge their relationship immoral. I also have some straight friends who are married with children and spend alot of time sleeping around, selling cocaine and using cocaine. There appears to be no morals in some households regardless of sexual orientation. So why do you judge people without knowing them?

Brad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

So why do you judge people without knowing them?

---

I haven't judged anyone. I've judged homosexual relations - and because of the taboo nature of the subject and the emotions on the forum regarding the topic, I'd prefer to leave it be here in the thread but if you are curious you know I don't mind sharing my opinion in private :)

Besides all that, let the government stay out of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I haven't judged anyone. I've judged homosexual relations - and because of the taboo nature of the subject and the emotions on the forum regarding the topic, I'd prefer to leave it be here in the thread but if you are curious you know I don't mind sharing my opinion in private :)

Besides all that, let the government stay out of it

---

Fair enough my friend.

I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think same sex couples should have all the legal rights that a married man and woman have, just call it a different thing.
But ultimatly if same sex couple get the right to marry I won't say anything against them. It doesn't effect me.

Even when I was against gay marriage, I never understood calling it something else. It's all a matter of semantics. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The English language changes so rapidly anyway. Case in point, if you went back to the 20's and told someone you were gay, they would likely think you were having a good time. Now it's coming to mean that something is ridiculously stupid. If you're going to give gays every right they should have, why not give them the word marriage too?

I went for the third option as well. They can have a bunch of rights, all the rights they want as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with their lifestyle and many of their choices but they're THEIR choices so they can do whatever they want.

On the other hand, certain things just cannot be.

A fish is not a bird, a man can not bear a child and two people of the same sex can not be married.

It might be semantics but that's the way life is. Mariage is for a man and a wife, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

If they want to make a civil contract, or a promise to each other or a covenant with each other that's just fine. But it'll never be a mariage because a mariage is a union between a man and a wife.

Anything else is not a mariage, they may be partners but they're not each others spouse. Complaining about that is like complaining that the sky's blue. You might not agree but that's the way it is and no matter how much you complain it's not going to change just because you don't like it.

I voted the government should not deny anybody the rights, no. 2

first, I will state as I have before and will many times before I die, I do not think the government should prohibit or otherwise punish people for their lifestyle choices as long as they don't harm others. If the government does, and it does, recognize marriage and afford those people certain rights, than it should be equal to everybody.

IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME, unless I choose to let it. they don't teach it in school, contrary to popular ad. messages, my kids would learn about it like most people learn their beliefs and prejudices, from me and their mom.

I see the way people vote on this as two part 1. do they believe in government interference in their lives and the lives of everybody else? (I like the idea of a constitutional government, stripped down to the bare minimums it needs to ensure our national safety, facility international and interstate commerce) 2. People's personal beliefs. All I can say to that is God will sit in judgment on that day (for those that believe the Bible) and it'll be Him passing judgment.

This was where I was really going to stir the s*#t but deleted the paragraph, probably worthy of it's own thread.

My last two things in response to stuff in the thread. I wish I had been born in time to be enjoying the free love era. (the second time around, not the 1920's version, I can't imagine the outfits were nearly as sexy). Also, in regards to what is on television now. there are on the top of my head three actresses in television that I would LOVE to see sans clothing. I say lessen restrictions!!! keep it to certain hours so parents can keep their kids from seeing it. that B.S. about protecting kids and not having to see it yourself is just that B.S. I have hundreds of channels, I don't HAVE to watch anything. and if kids want to see something they will, trust me. (especially if they try ;) )

Red
PS
Minka Kelly, Olivia wilde, Kristen Bell (that's without even thinking!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

I have seen people, some very intelligent and some well educated and some plain old average or below

---

Maybe you should avoid insults about people's intelligence, even if you think they are well hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

An old man protesting violently against the legality of abortion. An abortion for any reason performed on a complete stranger does not affect this man. He simply wants all abortions stopped forever. It is something in his gut driving him. What? Why?

---

You can work that out. He thinks it is taking a life. If you believed the same you might be standing beside him joining in.

I don't share his belief or respect his way of airing his opinion, but I can at least understand his motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

Why do you care if it doesn't involve you?

---

Because it is a change being imposed on my culture. Why is it that I am expected to celebrate other cultures and embrace diversity, when MY culture is fair game for attack at every opportunity?

I am not against same-sex marriages because I want to deprive anyone of anything. I am against it because it is a contradiction in terms.

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between a man and a woman.

Clearly it is not possible for a same-sex couple to engage in a "union between a man and a woman." At least not with each other. The institution as it stands simply does not apply to them.

There is no need to redefine marriage, there are other, better ways to give same-sex couples all the rights they seek.

So let me turn your question round a bit:

Why do homosexuals care about marriage when it doesn't involve them?

Maybe an analogy might help. Homosexuals wanting marriage is like non-Jews wanting Bar Mitzvahs. Sure it does little harm to allow it, but what's the point?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Maybe you should avoid insults about people's intelligence, even if you think they are well hidden.
I don't believe observing the stratification of intelligence in the human race is insulting to anyone. In fact I would place myself in the lower group. I am certainly not in the higher.

You can work that out. He thinks it is taking a life. If you believed the same you might be standing beside him joining in.

I don't share his belief or respect his way of airing his opinion, but I can at least understand his motive. I am assuming you meant the old man thinks he is saving a life. Well according to the law that is not true and once again, it doesn't affect him. If he is interested in saving lives he would do much more good opposing war or working as a crossing guard for the school system.

Because it is a change being imposed on my culture. Why is it that I am expected to celebrate other cultures and embrace diversity, when MY culture is fair game for attack at every opportunity? If your culture propogates repression it should be changed.

I am not against same-sex marriages because I want to deprive anyone of anything. I am against it because it is a contradiction in terms.

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. That would be one very narrow definition. The issue is exactly that. The straight (and apparently homophobic) community have assumed some self ritcheous monopoly on the word and are dug in for war. This again brings us back to my original question, it doesn't hurt you if others get married. Why do you stand so vehemently opposed?

So let me turn your question round a bit:

Why do homosexuals care about marriage when it doesn't involve them? If homosexual couples get married it does involve them.

Maybe an analogy might help. Homosexuals wanting marriage is like non-Jews wanting Bar Mitzvahs. Sure it does little harm to allow it, but what's the point?! Your analogy is convoluted or at least incomplete. If we wanted to correct your analogy I think it would be better to say homosexuals wanting marriage is like a certain group of Jews who have been arbitrarily blocked from having bar mitzvahs asking to be allowed bar mitzvahs.

---

It appears the thread is self-limiting to one topic, gay marriage. So we have thus far arrived at only one conclusion. People who stand vehemently opposed to same sex marriage do so because they feel it is "taboo". They are resistant to change because, "some things should just be taboo." Well we have come full circle. My question is that the arbitrary assignation of a taboo status on same sex marriage is just fine and dandy to some people. If it doesn't hurt anyone to remove that taboo status then why is there opposition?

The reasoning "it doesn't affect me now" is one that does not and never will work. Because eventually it might affect you.

Consider that the law would find it ok that people should be sacrificed for religion's sake. Human sacrifice.

At first you say, well, I don't mind that because I don't know anyone who'd want to do that.

And then your SON joins a cult that does, and he's selected to be sacrificed.

You USED to not have a problem with the fact that it was legal. But now you think it is.

Humans don't just judge something by how it affects them right NOW. But also by how it might affect them in the future.

For many people mariage is a very sensitive thing. It's considered sacred by many individuals. When you start changing the definition of it in some way they become affraid of it being changed in other ways in the future. The very thing that Jockeys gave as an illustration (what if in the future gay couples become majority and decide that straight mariages aren't lawfull) becomes their fear. So of mariage is left for what it is, a union between a man an a woman, that fear leaves.

Hell, create another word for it if you like, call is a ssunion, or a gayriage, or awhatever you like. But don't call it mariage, that's just asking for trouble.