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

I have seen people, some very intelligent and some well educated and some plain old average or below voice with great passion their opinions about matters that don't seem to affect them one way or another. The subjects of the passions are the same perennial dead horses that have been repeatedly beaten in these forums. My question here is not meant to incite an argument but I think it probably will.

Today I drove past a women's health clinic and there were people picketing on the sidewalk out front of the place and shouting at cars that were entering the parking lot. There was an elderly man who was particularly loud and threatening in his manner. He held a sign that said, American abortions, Hitler would have loved it! Apparently the place does provide abortions but it is a general services medical clinic for all women. The protesters had no way of knowing why anyone was entering the clinic's parking lot but every one was a target of what could be very intimidating actions as they crossed the picket line. The old man seemed to be incensed about things that did not affect him in any way. I wonder why.

There are other things like legalization of prostitution, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and other drugs)to name a few. I know from the Miss America thread that we have opinions. I did put a poll on the gay marriage question not because I care what your opinions are but I would like to know why, if the issue does not involve you, why would you want to deny anyone freedoms that are enjoyed by others? The poll will give us an idea of the level of concern regarding the issue.

In Iran homosexuality is illegal. When he spoke at Columbia University the president of Iran was asked what his feelings were regarding gay rights. He answered, "We have no one like that in Iran." I wonder if the people in the USA who would deny gays the freedom to marry and enjoy all the same benefits as straight couples would be okay with legalized pursecution of homosexuals as in Iran.

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

Good post. Thank you, icedog.

Agreed, good post. To paraphrase a bumper sticker I once saw regarding abortion, "if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't have one."

Rich

There could be indirect effects. E.g. perhaps that elderly man is dependent on government support and the loss of tax dollars due to potential citizens being aborted can affect him. Or may turn out that the abortions are economically beneficial to him if those potential citizens would live on welfare. It is more likely that these are not his primary concerns though.

I just thought I'd bring up that the 'effects' are often misevaluated or misrepresented by both sides on an issue.

Gugi,
Thanks for the response and I appreciate your speculation but speculation is why I asked the question. The old guy is simply an example. I am hoping to hear from him directly.

Brad

I don't think we should deny their rights "because it doesn't affect us". Who's to say that it does or does not affect us?

I think the debate stems from what marriage is. There are two facets to marriage- symbolization and taxation. Before there were marriage contracts, joint filing of returns, and health insurance, marriage was symbolic. Whether it was before God, your church, your tribe, it meant something in that arena.

Now we have marriage contracts, and having this affords you certain rights as a legal entity.

At the base of it, I say let 'em have equality. This equality thing cuts both ways- you don't have to let them get married in your church, etc. That's why there are judges.

If that's not good enough, then I say leave it alone at the national level. It's not the federal government's business anyway. Let it be decided on a state by state basis, and no one has to get angry.

Obviously this issue runs DEEEP and I don't begin to pretend I think I have the answer.

It seems though there there are really two separate issues here.

1) Same sex couples legally joined in some sort of civil union or otherwise legal union receiving the same legal benefits and rights as hetero married couples. That part of the debate is straightforward.

2) This next issue is much more convoluted; same sex couples being considered by "society" to be on par, equal to, be equated with or no different from married hetero couples ethically, etc. Change the law, and eventually have "society" regard same sex "marriage" as OK. Approved of and validated by "society". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems homosexuals as a group not only want issue #1, they also want issue #2. Am I wrong on this?

Years ago, I worked in a data processing center where the women who worked there listened to Dr. Laura. I had never heard her before that, and didn't listen to her after leaving that job. Long story short, there was a homosexual man that called up because he was very irritated that he had come out of the closet to his family, had introduced his family to his partner but his Mom would not allow he and his partner to stay overnight at the Mom's house during a major holiday. He acknowledged that his Mom affirmed her love for him but his issue was that his Mom did not accept his lifestyle. Dr. Laura just laid into the guy. "Accept your lifestyle? You're not going to make your mother accept your lifestyle, she doesn't have to accept your lifestyle"...etc. His big problem was that she didn't think his lifestyle was OK. He wanted her to think his lifestyle was OK and to approve of his lifestyle.

I think proponents for same sex marriage that say their issue is simply with issue #1 above are not being totally forthright in what they'd like to have changed or to what level.

Pardon my long winded rambling above. I thought about this some more on the way home from work. "Marriage" has a moral connotation. One definition of moral: "founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom" from dictionary.com.

It seems to me that proponents of gay marriage are not only fighting for legal recognition of their union, unless I'm way off base, they're also fighting equally hard for their unions to be considered by society to be of "right conduct". We're half a generation away from that happening anyway; I think that's inevitable. I just don't understand why proponents of gay marriage aren't being more vocal about saying their goal is twofold: legal recognition and societal acceptance.

Chris L

i've never wanted the gov't to have the power to control my private life, and i'd include marriage in that. true, my marriage is a very boring breeder-on-breeder affair, but i still had to fill out a ton of paperwork and pay fees to the gov't in order for my marriage to be "legal".

letting the government say what does and does not constitute marriage is appalling. it's a democracy, and most amendments on the state level about this have been referendums, so let's play a little mind game:

a few years ago in texas this was voted on via popular referendum. now, being texas, most folks voted that the gov't should define marriage as one man and one woman. i was talking to a coworker of mine after we voted during lunch hour, and it went a little something like this:

him: so you voted to keep queers from marrying, right?
me: nope.
him: what?? you want queers to be able to get married?
me: i don't care in the slightest.
him: then why did you vote against the prop?
me: i don't want to set a dangerous precedent that mob rule gets to decide what marriage means.
him: what?
me: look, it's a proposition, right? a referendum, everyone that's over 18, not a felon, and bothers to goto a polling place gets a say, right?
him: yep.
me: so we're saying that the majority gets to decide what marriage is. i'm guessing the majority will prolly decide that marriage is one man and one woman.
him: yeah, so?
me: so, if 20 years from now, gays outnumber straights in Texas, they'll have a perfect legal precedent to vote again and outlaw straight marriage.
him: [deafening silence and a look of mild panic]
me: so that's why i voted against it. regardless of my personal feelings about gay marriage, i simply don't want mob rule telling me who i can and cannot marry.

needless to say, it gave him some food for thought.

Whups. I meant to choose the middle option, but accidentally clicked the first. I kind of just glanced, saw the "yes" and thought it was for change. I don't really give a crap who gets married. It doesn't affect me and I don't really have any ceremonious idea of marriage. When I get married, I'm going to try my darndest to convince the wife to skip the stupid expensive wedding and go to the courthouse to just sign the papers. We can use the money we save to buy a big plasma TV and a golf vacation! And maybe a nice purse for her or something?

Its legal in Germany. So I voted with No. I don't think the government should discriminate for sexual orientation.

Just imagine having an accident and being in hospital intense care and they don't let your partner come visit you or provide him with updates. ... or your partner is in there and they keep you out and uninformed.

There are many benefits to those legal partnerships and the more people have them, the better for everyone.