I never realised just how dangerous homosexuals could be! christ i think my parents might just get a divorce becuase our govt has allowed civil partnerships... this guy really needs to get in the real world.
I never realised just how dangerous homosexuals could be! christ i think my parents might just get a divorce becuase our govt has allowed civil partnerships... this guy really needs to get in the real world.
Tell me about it. I live in New Jersey so my marriage all of a sudden is in jeapody because gay couples may soon have the opportunity to be married. I'm suprised the divorce rate in Nj didn't quadruple overnight because of this.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
By why does it have to be just two? If I'm a polygamist, aren't I being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the people that I want to?
so go fight for it if you want. right now, marriage has been based on COUPLES. not my decision. so yea, if we're dealing with couples..i personally see no right of the government to withold the legal rights afforded in marriage to a couple of consenting adults who want to get married...be they male/female...male/male....female/female. if you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. personally, i couldn't care less what you do.
so go fight for it if you want. right now, marriage has been based on COUPLES. not my decision. so yea, if we're dealing with couples..i personally see no right of the government to withold the legal rights afforded in marriage to a couple of consenting adults who want to get married...be they male/female...male/male....female/female. if you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. personally, i couldn't care less what you do.
And your attitude/position there is a reason why I'm not fighting for gay marriage. I personally don't care if they are married or not, but I'm not going to support it because I don't care to fight for it. But...that automatically means that I'm prejudiced or a homophobe, etc. when it couldn't be farther from the truth.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And your attitude/position there is a reason why I'm not fighting for gay marriage. I personally don't care if they are married or not, but I'm not going to support it because I don't care to fight for it. But...that automatically means that I'm prejudiced or a homophobe, etc. when it couldn't be farther from the truth.
A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.
This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.
Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.
It seems like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues that don't directly affect them. Then, when society looks back a generation or two later and sees them as injustices, they change face and pretend to have supported the issue all along.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.
Are trees then "part of the problem"? What about dogs or cats or toaster ovens?
This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.
Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.
Tolerance isn't good enough? What, then, is good enough?
It's almost like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues while they are happening.
My kitchen floor needs cleaning. Stop incubating yourself from that problem and do it for me.
farfromglorified, trees, dogs, and cats don't have the ability to be involved in the issue. Let me check on the toaster ovens, since you've certainly made similarly compelling points earlier in this thread.
There's a huge difference between tolerance and understanding. Being tolerant often is a way for people in the majority to preserve their social consciences. Understanding requires an entirely different level of involvement and effort.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
farfromglorified, trees, dogs, and cats don't have the ability to be involved in the issue. Let me check on the toaster ovens, since you've certainly made similarly compelling points earlier in this thread.
Ok -- so anyone who has the capacity to be involved in this issue is "part of the problem". I understand the logic now. That, then, begs the question:
There are many social issues I find to be important. Are homosexuals or anyone else who is not actively fighting for those issues "part of my problems"?
There's a huge difference between tolerance and understanding. Being tolerant often is a way for people in the majority to preserve their social consciences. Understanding requires an entirely different level of involvement and effort.
Ok -- what are the specific differences between the involvement and effort of a tolerant person and an understanding person?
First, this isn't just a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.
If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.
Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.
This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.
Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.
It seems like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues that don't directly affect them. Then, when society looks back a generation or two later and sees them as injustices, they change face and pretend to have supported the issue all along.
This is a lot different than racism in my mind. Furthermore, I was illustrating a point using Polygamy, so if you apply what you're saying to this, then we all should work to support, and more importantly SUBSIDIZE everyone's choices no matter what they are.
I'm against personally against more heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. Marriage is a sham these days. Why fight for it?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
First, this isn't just a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.
If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.
Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?
Nope. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
First, this isn't just a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.
That's redundant. You can't have a civil rights issue without a society.
EDIT: I read your above statement incorrectly. I agree -- it is both a civil rights issue and a social issue.
If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.
What "position of power" do I have over homosexuals? I will gladly relinquish it.
Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?
I have no inherent obligation to attempt to understand another simply because that other wants me to. Tolerance, as you've correctly indicated, does not carry the requirement of empathy. But tolerance does carry the requirement for recognizing in another whatever rights I wish to have for myself. Therefore, I support gay marriage.
The implication, however, of the original poster is that such tolerance is not "enough" which in turn implies that there is something I need to do over and above simple tolerance. You seem to indicate that that amounts to "empathy". Fine -- I am empathetic to homosexuals who wish to marry. However, I am also empathetic to those who don't want homosexuals to marry. So where does that get you?
Nope. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose.
Know1, marriage is a contractual relationship and, like all contracts, carries a requirement of individual will of all parties. Straight people are allowed to enter into marraige contracts with the willing partner of their choice. Gay people are not. That is what the unequal right stems from.
If marriage were absent the concept of choice based on attraction, meaning that marriage was either forced upon you without any consideration of your will, then you'd be entirely correct. However, you cannot escape the basic fact that a straight person is allowed to marry their chosen willing partner but a gay person is not.
Would your opinion of homosexuals change if there was proof that homosexuality had a clear genetic link? Most homosexuals have felt homosexual their whole adult lives (and frequently before that, although without the sexual link). I don't know any polygamists, but I'd venture to say that they haven't felt polygamic their whole lives. Rather, they prefer to live a certain way. It's not a civil rights issue for them.
It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
Would your opinion of homosexuals change if there was proof that homosexuality had a clear genetic link? Most homosexuals have felt homosexual their whole adult lives (and frequently before that, although without the sexual link). I don't know any polygamists, but I'd venture to say that they haven't felt polygamic their whole lives. Rather, they prefer to live a certain way. It's not a civil rights issue for them.
It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.
First, I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't have any negative opinion of homosexuals. The only people I have a negative opinion of are those who tell me that I fundamental obligations that do not exist.
Secondly, I believe all people should have a right to enter into any marriage contract they wish to, be it straight, gay, polygynous, etc.
Thirdly, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, a gene, or both, makes no difference on any political opinion I have regarding homosexuality.
Fourth, I am not sympathetic to any the ancillary issues involved in gay marriage such as "financial and legal benefits". All of those can and should be addressed by existing contractual arrangements available to both straight and gay people.
Finally, all of these problems would be easily solved if the government would just get out of the business of marriage all together.
Know1, marriage is a contractual relationship and, like all contracts, carries a requirement of individual will of all parties. Straight people are allowed to enter into marraige contracts with the willing partner of their choice. Gay people are not. That is what the unequal right stems from.
I disagree. I maintain that homosexuals have the same opportunity as others.
(and again, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think the arguments make any sense)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Would your opinion of homosexuals change if there was proof that homosexuality had a clear genetic link? Most homosexuals have felt homosexual their whole adult lives (and frequently before that, although without the sexual link). I don't know any polygamists, but I'd venture to say that they haven't felt polygamic their whole lives. Rather, they prefer to live a certain way. It's not a civil rights issue for them.
It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.
I do believe that there is a percentage of homosexuals for whom their homosexuality stems from a genetic source. I also firmly believe that for others it probably does not. Peoples' motivations for anything in life run the spectrum. In addition, people have the free will to act on what motivates them or not. It happens all the time in our everyday lives that we might have a feeling to do something, but we repress it.
That being said, you have no idea about what motivates polygamists and it may be genetic for some of them as well. Why deny them the so-called "right" to be with the ones they love?
Most of those ALLEGED financial and legal benefits are already available if someone takes the time to pursue them.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It's good that NJ did that, but it shouldn't even be an issue... this is in such clear violation of the seperation of church and state it makes me want to throw up that no one tossed it out of the courts ASAP.
You'e right. It is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state. Marriage is church business and the state should never have gotten into that business. They now have a great opportunity to get out of it. States should stop marrying people and only make civil unions available. Marriage should be a church only affair and have no rights or reponsibilities with it, for ceremonial purposes only.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I disagree. I maintain that homosexuals have the same opportunity as others.
An opportunity and a right are not the same thing. Certainly a straight person and a gay person both have the same opportunity to marry an opposite sex partner. However, again, you cannot escape the fact that for a straight person, that opportunity is consistent with their motivation to marry. For a gay person, that opportunity is inconsistent with their motivation to marry. It's a fundamental difference involving the will of the contracting and the right to translate that will into a contract.
(and again, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think the arguments make any sense)
They don't typically make sense when presented as a rights issue because people want to equate marriage as a right. Marriage, as a civil institution, is not a right. However, the right to enter into a contract of your choice consistent with your will is a right. With the issue of the marriage contract you have a government who is writing half of the contract without your consent and, for a gay person, what the government is writing attempts to invalidate his or her will.
1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.
2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.
3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.
the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.
What "position of power" do I have over homosexuals? I will gladly relinquish it.
Power isn't always something that can be controlled on an individual level. Here, I'm talking about power at a group level. White people--as a group--used to have power over black people on many levels. They still do on some.
In this discussion, married couples have legal and financial power over homosexuals due to the rights that are afforded to them. They also have power in numbers. This power is manifested in the laws that politicans propose and those on which the public votes. For example, if 90% of the population are heterosexual--or if 50% are married--and there is an issue related to homosexuals on the ballot, wouldn't you say that heterosexuals or married couples have some political power over homosexuals?
The implication, however, of the original poster is that such tolerance is not "enough" which in turn implies that there is something I need to do over and above simple tolerance. You seem to indicate that that amounts to "empathy". Fine -- I am empathetic to homosexuals who wish to marry. However, I am also empathetic to those who don't want homosexuals to marry. So where does that get you?
Empathy is one step, a big one at that. The next step requires some action. Instead of just putting yourself into the shoes of someone who is gay or lesbian, you'd actually do something to make a change for the better. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone in the majority would do this, nor would I expect all of them to reach this level.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
An opportunity and a right are not the same thing. Certainly a straight person and a gay person both have the same opportunity to marry an opposite sex partner. However, again, you cannot escape the fact that for a straight person, that opportunity is consistent with their motivation to marry. For a gay person, that opportunity is inconsistent with their motivation to marry. It's a fundamental difference involving the will of the contracting and the right to translate that will into a contract.
I don't see it as that black and white and I'm surprised you do. As has been discussed, the motivations for actions are endless. Do you really think everyone marries for the same motivation. The most black and white you can be is to agree that it's a choice (whether that's based on certain motivations or not is far too subjective)
They don't typically make sense when presented as a rights issue because people want to equate marriage as a right. Marriage, as a civil institution, is not a right. However, the right to enter into a contract of your choice consistent with your will is a right. With the issue of the marriage contract you have a government who is writing half of the contract without your consent and, for a gay person, what the government is writing attempts to invalidate his or her will.
Again, if we follow that logic then we have to allow anyone to marry anybody - no matter how many that is - who will agree to marry them.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.
2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.
3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.
the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.
I agree in general, but I think you have to extend that to polygamists as well.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.
2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.
3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.
the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.
This is what I've basically been advocating for from the beginning. But alas the battle is not over tolerance, equality or equal rights. This is a battle about acceptance, government legislated acceptance using the church and it's idea of marriage as the weapon.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Fourth, I am not sympathetic to any the ancillary issues involved in gay marriage such as "financial and legal benefits". All of those can and should be addressed by existing contractual arrangements available to both straight and gay people.
Not sure what you mean here. Those issues cannot all be addressed on an individual contract level. What about tax benefits provided to married couples by the government? Those aren't something that are available to gay couples, regardless of the contracts they make themselves.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
I agree in general, but I think you have to extend that to polygamists as well.
im ok with that. who the hell cares? it's their business not mine. personally, i think you'd be a damned fool to want to live with multiple women (let alone have multiple wives to order you around), but if they want to, i dont give a damn.
Comments
Ok. The majority of America believes gay marriage is wrong. So we can toss out these rulings then.
No. You force me to leave. That is not a choice.
First, "your game" is theft. That's it. Stop pretending that you're offering me something I want.
"Your money"? Tell me, what did you do to earn that money?
I have no interest in "competing" with you. You have as much of a right to live in your chosen fashion as I do.
I also have no interest in accepting your "put out or get out" proposition.
This is a gay marriage thread. If you'd like to continue with this, please PM me or start another thread.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/26/061026182430.oc7lilva.html
I never realised just how dangerous homosexuals could be! christ i think my parents might just get a divorce becuase our govt has allowed civil partnerships... this guy really needs to get in the real world.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Tell me about it. I live in New Jersey so my marriage all of a sudden is in jeapody because gay couples may soon have the opportunity to be married. I'm suprised the divorce rate in Nj didn't quadruple overnight because of this.
so go fight for it if you want. right now, marriage has been based on COUPLES. not my decision. so yea, if we're dealing with couples..i personally see no right of the government to withold the legal rights afforded in marriage to a couple of consenting adults who want to get married...be they male/female...male/male....female/female. if you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. personally, i couldn't care less what you do.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And your attitude/position there is a reason why I'm not fighting for gay marriage. I personally don't care if they are married or not, but I'm not going to support it because I don't care to fight for it. But...that automatically means that I'm prejudiced or a homophobe, etc. when it couldn't be farther from the truth.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
A lot of people in the majority had the same careless approach to racism last century. That made them part of the problem too.
This mindset is frustrating for people who really are working hard on this issue.
Let me say I don't believe that most heterosexual people hate homosexuals. In fact, I bet most are tolerant of them. But tolerance isn't good enough now, nor in retrospect was it good enough when racism ran rampant 50 years ago.
It seems like most people in the majority incubate themselves from social issues that don't directly affect them. Then, when society looks back a generation or two later and sees them as injustices, they change face and pretend to have supported the issue all along.
Are trees then "part of the problem"? What about dogs or cats or toaster ovens?
Tolerance isn't good enough? What, then, is good enough?
My kitchen floor needs cleaning. Stop incubating yourself from that problem and do it for me.
NOt everyone else gets to do that either...Angelina hasn't returned even 1 of my calls.
There's a huge difference between tolerance and understanding. Being tolerant often is a way for people in the majority to preserve their social consciences. Understanding requires an entirely different level of involvement and effort.
Ok -- so anyone who has the capacity to be involved in this issue is "part of the problem". I understand the logic now. That, then, begs the question:
There are many social issues I find to be important. Are homosexuals or anyone else who is not actively fighting for those issues "part of my problems"?
Ok -- what are the specific differences between the involvement and effort of a tolerant person and an understanding person?
If there was an issue that involved homosexuals being in a position of power in relation to another group, and homosexuals did nothing to try to understand the issues faced by the minority, then they would be part of the problem too.
Finally, a person can be tolerant without doing anything. It's an attitude. An understanding person is one who tries to empathize. Would a definition of empathy help?
This is a lot different than racism in my mind. Furthermore, I was illustrating a point using Polygamy, so if you apply what you're saying to this, then we all should work to support, and more importantly SUBSIDIZE everyone's choices no matter what they are.
I'm against personally against more heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. Marriage is a sham these days. Why fight for it?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nope. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's redundant. You can't have a civil rights issue without a society.
EDIT: I read your above statement incorrectly. I agree -- it is both a civil rights issue and a social issue.
What "position of power" do I have over homosexuals? I will gladly relinquish it.
I have no inherent obligation to attempt to understand another simply because that other wants me to. Tolerance, as you've correctly indicated, does not carry the requirement of empathy. But tolerance does carry the requirement for recognizing in another whatever rights I wish to have for myself. Therefore, I support gay marriage.
The implication, however, of the original poster is that such tolerance is not "enough" which in turn implies that there is something I need to do over and above simple tolerance. You seem to indicate that that amounts to "empathy". Fine -- I am empathetic to homosexuals who wish to marry. However, I am also empathetic to those who don't want homosexuals to marry. So where does that get you?
Know1, marriage is a contractual relationship and, like all contracts, carries a requirement of individual will of all parties. Straight people are allowed to enter into marraige contracts with the willing partner of their choice. Gay people are not. That is what the unequal right stems from.
If marriage were absent the concept of choice based on attraction, meaning that marriage was either forced upon you without any consideration of your will, then you'd be entirely correct. However, you cannot escape the basic fact that a straight person is allowed to marry their chosen willing partner but a gay person is not.
It's more than just marriage, even though that's the focus of this thread. There are a ton of financial and legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. I don't know of another solution to make those rights available to homosexual couples without using marriage as the impetus.
First, I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't have any negative opinion of homosexuals. The only people I have a negative opinion of are those who tell me that I fundamental obligations that do not exist.
Secondly, I believe all people should have a right to enter into any marriage contract they wish to, be it straight, gay, polygynous, etc.
Thirdly, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, a gene, or both, makes no difference on any political opinion I have regarding homosexuality.
Fourth, I am not sympathetic to any the ancillary issues involved in gay marriage such as "financial and legal benefits". All of those can and should be addressed by existing contractual arrangements available to both straight and gay people.
Finally, all of these problems would be easily solved if the government would just get out of the business of marriage all together.
I disagree. I maintain that homosexuals have the same opportunity as others.
(and again, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think the arguments make any sense)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I do believe that there is a percentage of homosexuals for whom their homosexuality stems from a genetic source. I also firmly believe that for others it probably does not. Peoples' motivations for anything in life run the spectrum. In addition, people have the free will to act on what motivates them or not. It happens all the time in our everyday lives that we might have a feeling to do something, but we repress it.
That being said, you have no idea about what motivates polygamists and it may be genetic for some of them as well. Why deny them the so-called "right" to be with the ones they love?
Most of those ALLEGED financial and legal benefits are already available if someone takes the time to pursue them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
EXACTLY. I would be behind this 100%
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
An opportunity and a right are not the same thing. Certainly a straight person and a gay person both have the same opportunity to marry an opposite sex partner. However, again, you cannot escape the fact that for a straight person, that opportunity is consistent with their motivation to marry. For a gay person, that opportunity is inconsistent with their motivation to marry. It's a fundamental difference involving the will of the contracting and the right to translate that will into a contract.
They don't typically make sense when presented as a rights issue because people want to equate marriage as a right. Marriage, as a civil institution, is not a right. However, the right to enter into a contract of your choice consistent with your will is a right. With the issue of the marriage contract you have a government who is writing half of the contract without your consent and, for a gay person, what the government is writing attempts to invalidate his or her will.
1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.
2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.
3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.
the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.
Power isn't always something that can be controlled on an individual level. Here, I'm talking about power at a group level. White people--as a group--used to have power over black people on many levels. They still do on some.
In this discussion, married couples have legal and financial power over homosexuals due to the rights that are afforded to them. They also have power in numbers. This power is manifested in the laws that politicans propose and those on which the public votes. For example, if 90% of the population are heterosexual--or if 50% are married--and there is an issue related to homosexuals on the ballot, wouldn't you say that heterosexuals or married couples have some political power over homosexuals?
Empathy is one step, a big one at that. The next step requires some action. Instead of just putting yourself into the shoes of someone who is gay or lesbian, you'd actually do something to make a change for the better. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone in the majority would do this, nor would I expect all of them to reach this level.
I don't see it as that black and white and I'm surprised you do. As has been discussed, the motivations for actions are endless. Do you really think everyone marries for the same motivation. The most black and white you can be is to agree that it's a choice (whether that's based on certain motivations or not is far too subjective)
Again, if we follow that logic then we have to allow anyone to marry anybody - no matter how many that is - who will agree to marry them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree in general, but I think you have to extend that to polygamists as well.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Not sure what you mean here. Those issues cannot all be addressed on an individual contract level. What about tax benefits provided to married couples by the government? Those aren't something that are available to gay couples, regardless of the contracts they make themselves.
im ok with that. who the hell cares? it's their business not mine. personally, i think you'd be a damned fool to want to live with multiple women (let alone have multiple wives to order you around), but if they want to, i dont give a damn.