The term "marriage" is extremely emotionally loaded. I think very few people would oppose the legal rights, they just can't cope with what they perceive as a redefinition of a term that they perceive has had a static definition for thousands of years.
I'd support changing the label for both homo and hetero couples and applying exactly equal legal rights across the board.
Remove the term marriage from the equation and the debate would be completely different, with far fewer worked up peeps from both sides.
People appose gay marriage because they don't believe that gay rights are being infringed. They don't view gay marriage as being associated with the Civil Rights movement because they don't see gays being actively discriminated against in society. They believe that gays deserve the right to having their Civil Unions and that all rights accorded to from being married should carry over to Civil Unions.
The family values argument stems from the fact that people are afraid that opening this door would promote sexual promiscuity and decline in moral values as a whole.
The family values argument stems from the fact that people are afraid that opening this door would promote sexual promiscuity and decline in moral values as a whole.
People have a tendency to become comfortable with the "norm" (even if its a bad norm), and if anything disrupts it, it upsets people. If someone got hired at a job and gave suggestions how to do things better, it would be considered insulting rather than helpful. That person would be considered a danger to the team and disrupting, and could potentially be fired.
People generally are more open to the idea if they think they came up with the idea themselves. Its ego. If management hires a consultant to come in and see how the business works and gave suggestions on how to improve, that would be considered the managements idea. They get the kudos. They listen to the solution, do something about it, and think it was money well spent. Even though the employees have been saying the same thing for years and have been ignored or even fired.
That said, with gay marriage, and other society issues, its the same thing, just at a larger scale, work places have a culture, so does society as a whole. Gay marriage is disrupting the norm, and people who shout for it are considered "dangerous" to the team. So they aer ignored, and even thrown under the bus, even its justified or not. The only way to really fix the problem is make the majority think its their idea to bring the issue to the table and allow it.
The only way possible is brainwashing. Media, media, and media. It's been doing wonders the last 10 years, just keep doing it, and in another 10 gay marriage will be legal.
I'm still against gay marriage.
People generally are more open to the idea if they think they came up with the idea themselves. Its ego. If management hires a consultant to come in and see how the business works and gave suggestions on how to improve, that would be considered the managements idea. They get the kudos. They listen to the solution, do something about it, and think it was money well spent. Even though the employees have been saying the same thing for years and have been ignored or even fired.
That said, with gay marriage, and other society issues, its the same thing, just at a larger scale, work places have a culture, so does society as a whole. Gay marriage is disrupting the norm, and people who shout for it are considered "dangerous" to the team. So they aer ignored, and even thrown under the bus, even its justified or not. The only way to really fix the problem is make the majority think its their idea to bring the issue to the table and allow it.
The only way possible is brainwashing. Media, media, and media. It's been doing wonders the last 10 years, just keep doing it, and in another 10 gay marriage will be legal.
I'm still against gay marriage.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,640
- 136
The Detroit Lions? At least for the last 16 weeks. Yea, I'm tired of beating this dead horse, people want freedom as long as you are free to do only what they want you to do. Let them have it. Eventually they will wake up and realize that they have been pissing away their own freedoms. I just hope it comes before the bloodshed, not after.
Right now people who are opposed to gay marriage can hide behind various legalities for their argument. They can argue the nature of marriage (secular v. sacred) the origin of the definition of marriage, etc.
Should it ever be concretely legal for persons to receive equal treatment for all domestic partnerships/civil unions those who oppose homosexuality would lose every defense for their position and be forced to admit inherent prejudice.
The entire opposition to gay marriage is about not being proven to be a narrow-minded bigot, and nothing more.
Should it ever be concretely legal for persons to receive equal treatment for all domestic partnerships/civil unions those who oppose homosexuality would lose every defense for their position and be forced to admit inherent prejudice.
The entire opposition to gay marriage is about not being proven to be a narrow-minded bigot, and nothing more.
I think a vast majority of people are raised being told 'it's just wrong' and don't question why.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Yup. Allowing people to get married to a person of the same sex will promote sexual promiscuity. Of course, this requires changing the definition of promiscuity to include having sex with only one partner who you happen to be married to, provided you are, in fact, both queer...
While I see the merits in society and government trying to promote STABLE same sex marriages for it's obvious benefits to social stability, hetero couples as a whole have made such a sham of the institution of marriage that the argument that gay marriage undermines same sex marriage no longer holds any merit. I have no problem with gays getting married. They can pay the same to get divorced too.
Its all about "tradition". I believe opponents have used the term "deeply rooted in tradition." Tradition. It was tradition for women to be property in marriage. It was tradition to have slaves. To not let blacks and whites marry. Just because something has been around for a certain amount of time doesn't make it right. If courts are allowed to rule using basically non-proven, unproven, non-facts but try to form a "legal" opinion based on personal prejudice, gays and lesbians will always be second class citizens.
I've never understood the gay marriage debate. Opponents masks their anxiety over discomfort with the idea of gay sex by hiding behind religious "convictions." I don't believe in state sanctioned gay marriage. I don't believe in state sanctioned heterosexual marriage. The state has no business deciding who can participate in what is essentially a religious rite. Equality for all under law. Let individual churches decide whom to marry. How's that for equal?
I've never understood the gay marriage debate. Opponents masks their anxiety over discomfort with the idea of gay sex by hiding behind religious "convictions." I don't believe in state sanctioned gay marriage. I don't believe in state sanctioned heterosexual marriage. The state has no business deciding who can participate in what is essentially a religious rite. Equality for all under law. Let individual churches decide whom to marry. How's that for equal?
I'm sorry that a collection of links describing gay men being beaten to death at regular intervals over a period of years doesn't indicate a 'fairly regular basis' to you.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I think that you will find that the % of people that oppose Gay marriage is approx. = to the number of people that attend church regularly & approx. = to the number of people that oppose abortion. Like it or not, right or wrong, the moral foundation of a society must exist before it can be changed.
Another part of living in a free country means there are things that aren't allowed that you do particularly like.
Another part of living in a free country means there are things that aren't allowed that you do particularly like.
Where in the hell did you get that idea from?! Aside from a clear lack of evidence (not a whole lot of married gay folks to draw that kind of judgment from), but if anyone has made a "sham of the institution of marriage" it's us heterosexuals!
I think your comment is symptomatic of what I see as the nature of the anti gay marriage "movement" (bizarre, that one...) and that's that people like you are motivated by fear as opposed to rationality. Having an issue like gay marriage allows you to feel "normal" by coalescing with all the other folks against the "inferior" gays, thereby making you feel better about yourselves.
It's that overwhelming desire to feel normal and to fit in that trumps your sense of rationality (which is trying to tell you how senseless it is to get all worked about two consenting individuals trying to make a mature, constructive decision to devote themselves to another person in matrimony.)
I find these kinds of threads interesting, the pro-gay-marriage crowd is just as rabidly irrational as the anti-gay-marriage folks, but they fail to see it. Anyone who opposes their viewpoint must be bigoted, a homophobe, hateful, stupid, uneducated etc etc etc. I'm none of those, and yet very much support a ban on gay marriages, including donating money to make sure the Ohio version of the DOMA act was set in the constitution so no activist judge could throw it out on a whim. Unfortunately a legitimate discussion on the legitimate questions posed by Rainsford is very unlikely because of the irrational folks on both sides.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I disagree. There are a few gay co-workers that I highly respect, I wish them well and would endorse them if they opted to adopt a child. I'm unsure of 'marriage' with their partners. Isn't that a religious thing? I would endorse a civil union, though.
From Massachusttes where gay marriage is legal.
"Isn't that a religious thing?"
Well, that's a significant point of contention. Secularists, like myself, believe the country was founded with secular intentions to free men from the constraints of conflicting religious beliefs; I feel this is pretty well established in our body of laws.
On the other hand, Christians believe the country was founded with Christian ideals and intentions and therefore should weigh heavily on the legislative and judicial processes of our government.
The later frame of mind naturally tries to assert it's condemnation of homosexuality into our body of laws due it's conflict with scripture. The former attempts to prevent ANY overt religious bias or influence towards one group of people at the expense of another.
Distinguishing between marriage, a legal institution as far as our body of laws is concerned, and civil unions overtly incorporates into common law a religious viewpoint of one particular religion/group of people at the expense of others liberties; it legitimizes the "sovereignty" of Christianity in our secular legal system.
Hopefully I've summarized in fair tone what I feel is a necessary element of the gay-marriage debate to parse before further judgment or conclusion is rendered.
...phuh. That's a lot of words, man. I'll read them, though. [edit: I'm still undecided with marriage vs. civil union after re-reading... thrice (that's a big word)]
p.s.edit: Who want in on gay divorce video? That's a potentially profitable and untapped market! That's some funny stuff, there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter