Not the same!
Marriage… One Man…. One Woman….
Get used to it!
Ken can kindly take a knife to his throat and get his bigot ass out of the gene pool as quickly as possible.
they should make the niggers drink from the fag one
These aren’t necessarily the same thing, the issue against gays has been one of discrimination, not segregation. I’m one who is adamently against Proposition 8 as well as Amnendment 2 in my own state of Florida, but I’ve made what I feel to be a nice little argument in support of gay marriage. We currently have “marriages” between one man and one woman, which are not always recognized by the church, these are “civil marriages.” So, if Christianity wishes to preserve the word as its own, let’s instead say that all those who recieved marriage certificates from the state and not from a religious institution shall henceforth be recognized as “Civil Partnerships.”
Canada never had this problem, they just allowed gay marriage anyways, and as it seems, no one has gone flipster in that area.
Ken, please remove your fascist, bigot, homophobic, and probably highly religious ass from society by the use of a knife, a gun, or gravity. Thank you in advance.
I am just absolutely shocked that this is even an issue today.
Seriously, its pretty effed up that there is so much discrimination against homosexuality.
Homosexuals are just regular people, they should be allowed to marry whoever they want and have full rights.
Seriously though, people need to pay less attention to their religion and more attention to the real world. Religion is a plague. There is absolutely no truth in religion. It is a virus that causes people to think it is okay to be discriminatory.
Religion is insanity.
dude dicks are for vaginas ONLY
Ken- You’re a bigot douchebag. Get used to it.
while i personally disagree with homosexuality, what they choose to do in their bedrooms doesnt concern me and i could care less. my only issue is why do they need the label “marriage”? if a civil union legally provided the same thing, what is the difference and what does it matter? do they feel so inadequate that they need that particular label to validate their relationship to themselves or society? it is one big non-issue to me that reeks of stupidity and selfishness on both sides of the fence.
As david said, there’s no difference. And if there’s no difference, what problem do straight people have with gays getting married? If the term is so unimportant, why do you cling to it so tenaciously? I think it comes down to the fact that a lot of straight people still have deep seeded homophobia, and don’t want any terms that gays used to be applied to them. Including marriage.
Marraige is only a sacred thing to religion. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state is there not? So why are gov’t institutions allowed to make laws regarding marraige? Marraige to the gov’t should be nothing more than a tax break and all the other ‘perks’ that you get for being married, health care and such.
It amuses me when we talk about how much progress our country has made; while at the same time passing laws that make english the official language and ban gay marraige, IMO both thinly vieled discrimination. We haven’t progressed so much as changed who the crosshairs are pointing at.
Homosexuality is not acceptable. It is an abomination. “Man shall not lay with another man as with a women. It is an abomination. Their blood shall be upon them both.” That is straight from the bible. Leviticus. Nornerator, you’re upset about discrimination of a disgusting act of sin but will discriminate against anyone who believes in God. You are entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t make your opinion fact. If you are ashamed of Jesus now he will be ashamed of you in front of His father later.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
ya know i was against prop 8 , voted no.. supported gay marriage right… then the VOTE went the other way and instead of accepting due proccess ( since CA put them selves in this mess. )and setting up new legislation or accepting civil union while working with sympathetic churches to come to an agreement. . they rioted on my street closed down businesses and traffic and desecrated multiple churches .. sorry lost my respect and my support.did it to yourselves grow the fuck up.
Randall hit it right on the spot. Homosexuals should have full rights, those that oppose are usually religious fanatics or ignorant.
What others do and enjoy should not be of your concern, let people be.
Thomas – you are an ass
yo – grab a brain
yo- get help, seriously
Perhaps we could just get rid of religion.
That seems to be the root cause of many of societies ills.
To all you bigoted racist jerkoffs: First; Get a life. What makes you think that you can legislate your morality into other people’s lives, anyway? Don’t you know that sticking your big fat fascist noses into other people’s business is socially unacceptable? Your rights stop where theirs begin and vice-versa. If they aren’t intruding upon your rights then you have NOTHING to say. Of course, it’s your right to say it – but it’s also my right to call you on it. You are being unAmerican when you try to limit other people’s pursuit of happiness. Remember that whole being created equal thing?
Secondly; These people aren’t trying to intrude into your lives. They’re not trying to take away YOUR rights. They are simply trying to end awkward social interactions. I think what it comes down to is that when asked; They don’t want to bring unneccesary attention to the fact that they’re gay. How would you like it if you had to answer questions with: “I’m civil unioned.” – ? They just want to say that they are married and move on. But your “Big Book of Misinformation” tells you that THEY are an abomination – and that YOU are “THE CHOSEN ONES”. Sounds like a bad movie plot. Give me a frickin’ break. You’re a pr!ck. YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN THEM AND IF YOU THINK THAT – YOU ARE DEFINITELY LESS SO.
Thirdly; How would you like it if you were told that you couldn’t get married because you weren’t smart enough? Personally, I think you are too stupid to breed. I think that if you are so damned stupid as to believe in sky friends; and if you hear voices – You are not smart/competent enough to be married and/or raise children. But that’s my opinion; And no one should take your right away to live your life as you see fit – Until you try to step on other people’s rights, that is…
“while i personally disagree with homosexuality, what they choose to do in their bedrooms doesn’t concern me and I could care less. my only issue is why do they need the label “marriage”? if a civil union legally provided the same thing, what is the difference and what does it matter? do they feel so inadequate that they need that particular label to validate their relationship to themselves or society? it is one big non-issue to me that reeks of stupidity and selfishness on both sides of the fence.”
You do realize that they aren’t given the same rights and benefits as married couples are, right? it’s less about the label of marriage, and more about the equality and respect they deserve as fellow American citizens, nay as fellow human beings.
“Homosexuality is not acceptable. It is an abomination. “Man shall not lay with another man as with a women. It is an abomination. Their blood shall be upon them both.” That is straight from the bible. Leviticus. Nornerator, you’re upset about discrimination of a disgusting act of sin but will discriminate against anyone who believes in God. You are entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t make your opinion fact. If you are ashamed of Jesus now he will be ashamed of you in front of His father later.”
You forgot about separation of church and state. This isn’t about the religious ceremony of marriage, this is about the meager paper work marriage, the legal rights and protections that heterosexual marriages get that civil unions don’t. You also fail to take into account a part of the bill of rights that you should hold dear, freedom of religion. Not everyone shares the same religion as you, provided they even have a religion. There are other religions in the world, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Wicca, Norse and Celtic religions still exist along with several other smaller religions around the world. Not everyone has the same religious morals as your, nor do they necessarily believe in Jesus or your god. You’ve also defeated yourself with your own words. “You are entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t make your opinion fact.” As for Nornerator and his ‘discrimination’ (“Nornerator, you’re upset about discrimination of a disgusting act of sin but will discriminate against anyone who believes in God.”), You’re doing the same thing he is, only you “…will discriminate against anyone who [doesn’t] believe in God.”
“ya know i was against prop 8 , voted no.. supported gay marriage right… then the VOTE went the other way and instead of accepting due proccess ( since CA put them selves in this mess. )and setting up new legislation or accepting civil union while working with sympathetic churches to come to an agreement. . they rioted on my street closed down businesses and traffic and desecrated multiple churches .. sorry lost my respect and my support.did it to yourselves grow the fuck up.”
Do me a favor, imagine that you are stripped of your right to marriage, your existing marriage is both existent and non-existent and now you have no way of nullifying it legally, or you decided to move to another state and your marriage is null and void there and you have no way of getting one there. Trust me, you’d be pretty pissed. Pissed people do stupid things. So what did they do? They threw a tantrum and lashed out at a major cause of it. before you judge, walk a mile in someone-else’s shoes.
Now, a separate note, I’m not against religion, merely fanatics who try to force their views on others, as for people people who claim religion is insanity and is the cause of societies ills, that’s just plain disrespectful. They could learn from religion, after all treat your neighbors as you would wish your neighbors to treat you.
I personally believe they should have every single right a heterosexual has. Remember, the government was established to protect its citizens and the rights of its citizens, not to oppress them and strip them of their rights.
Homophobia is the new racism, and as the cartoon above makes clear, Civil Unions are the new segregation. I’ve understood this acutely up to a point, but now it seems so much more obvious since the last two elections. In the past, I’ve been respectful of others’ rights to their own beliefs to the point that I have allowed those whose ideologies do not mingle to trample my own.
If I thought for a minute that those who believe that homosexuality is an abominable sin unworthy of the word “marriage” were not just spoon-fed Christians who conveniently believe this rather than truly reading the Bible, yet find it perfectly acceptable that their favorite presidential nominee divorced his disabled wife for a rich beer heiress, I might have a little sympathy and respect for the so-called “sanctity of marriage” as being solely between a man and a woman. However, this is not the case. I don’t have any attachments to the word “marriage” except to say that due to the language, it would be a lot easier to say, “We’re married” rather than “We’re civil unioned,” and I probably will because I don’t need a legal document to tell me that I’m in love. What I do need is to know that I am equal under the law as provided in our Constitution. I support a full separation between church and state; civil unions for everybody, and marriage for the faiths. Let Civil Union = Marriage.
While we’re talking about faith, let us not forget that the book of Leviticus which speaks out against homosexuality also encourages ritual blood sacrifices in the name of the Lord. These are not unlike the kind of ritual sacrifices that are usually frowned upon in our culture today. I would also like to add that those of you who have eaten oysters, squid etc. are also sinners, and to be sure to check out Leviticus 12 for purification rituals after childbirth. This and more at http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=1. Very interesting stuff.
And they say witches are bad!
I like the one about lying with a slave woman: “When a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, although she is a slave woman designated for another man and she has not yet been ransomed, or freedom has not been granted to her, there will be an obligation to pay compensation.”
I guess we don’t have slaves anymore, so it doesn’t really apply. Thank God for the abolition of slavery, I suppose. The world changes even if religion doesn’t.
This is my favorite:
4:7 Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God and
every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God
4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God for God is love
4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him
To which you might reply, “Yes! Hate the sin, not the sinner.” If my sin is to love, then send me off to Hell in a hand basket.
I’ll be right there with you who, like Lucifer, just wanted to be God and pass judgment for a day. It can’t be much worse than living in a world of ignorance.
Well said Anon.
Also, Is discrimination really the type of thing our legal system should tolerate? Even if the people want to discriminate and vote to ban the rights of same sex couples (which is the wording of the proposition itself), should the government ALLOW it? No. They shouldn’t.
Although same sex couples may not be equal in YOUR eyes…(which I cannot outright say is WRONG for you to think), the government should treat ALL people the same. period.
Since when is someone called discriminatory for voting on what they think is right? this is america you know people have a voice. Also, this is a religious issue for a lot of people, that is fine perfectly constitutional for individuals to vote according to their religious views; however, this issue transends religion, it is a societal issue. Our country has a constitution to protect the rights of everyone, yes, but it also protects our country against degrading as a society by giving the majority the right to vote against things that may hurt society as a whole. In what way would society benefit from allowing gay marriage? I understand that it would satisfy many in the gay community, but really what would it do for our society? I do not beleive in being discriminatory and do not post this to make anyone feel any such feelings, but the facts from both perspectives need to be investigated before people like YO say things like “ken go and kill yourself you homophobic..” or whatever YO posted. WOW! that is pretty immature and discriminatory if you ask me…. its like a baby who didn’t get his way so he throws a tantrum. at any rate people have morals, and since when did voting on the side of your morals become discriminatory? This is America, the land of the Free, because we uphold morals and defend truth… can’t hate on that.. and the day that we stop doing this, (we already have in many ways) we will begin to weaken as a nation.
and to jeremy you are absolutely wrong that homophobia is the new racism… they are very different…. think about it and read a history book and you will understand.
“Since when is someone called discriminatory for voting on what they think is right?”
When they are voting for something that explicitly removes a right of a constitutionally protected class.
“In what way would society benefit from allowing gay marriage? I understand that it would satisfy many in the gay community, but really what would it do for our society?”
You seem to believe that the gay community is not part of society. You are wrong.
True to that first statement, the california constitution does state that under the equal protection act “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” which originally may have protected gay marriage… may have. Nonetheless, the judges, as their right, saw the first attempt to outlaw gay marriage as unconstitutional, and maybe rightly so. however the california constitution also states in ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
this means that people could petition the decision of the judges and can change the law for the common good as the majority sees it; thus the democrative principles of the united states. Therefore, knowing this citizens used this right to pass propsition 8 and now the law is that marriage is define between a man and a woman; and now everyone will have equal protection of that law under the Equal protection clause…. now everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite gender… I can’t marry a man in california if I wanted to just like everyone else now… sounds very equal to me.
And as a side note the Equal protection clause, if you look at history, was enacted to protect colored people from being discriminated against, which was a much more real and harsh discrimination than what we have seen happen with the gay community. And when gays try to equate what happened to the blacks with themselves I think the blacks don’t like that and that is probably one reason they overwhelmingly voted for proposition 8.
So while what you said is true, it is also true that the law ina state can be changed and now everyone will be protected under this law until it is changed; or if it is changed I should say.
Secondly, I can see how you took the comment about gay marriage and society the way you did. I beleive that they are part of society just like everyone else, and I appologize if I offended anyone, i may have worded my question wrong. What I mean to say is I can only see gay marriage hurting society as a whole, including the gay community. As an example I will use the Mormons and Plural Marriage, polygamy. While not a Mormon, when I think of mormon I think of polygamy. There religion exercised polygamy, a branch of marriage, a long time ago and were discriminated against for it, and in fact while they were protected by law to be able to practice polygamy. However, later those rights were taken away from them and they have not been able to practice polygamy since. You should equate your situation with polygamy more than racism, much more similar. So if you believe you should be able to marry man and man, then you also are stating that polygamy is ok, and that those people’s right to marry whom they love, be it more than one woman, is constitutional. Of course gays are part of society, and it must be hard in a lot of ways, just like it was for those who could not practice polygamy when it was outlawed.
Scottsman, please explain how gay marriage would hurt the gay community, or society as a whole. Remember that marriage is a social contract for people who live as a family and affords them rights in relation to health care decisions, child-care, and shared economics. Also remember that these are gay people who will be living together as families whether or not they can marry, so there is absolutely no change to the number of gay or straight people or families. To reiterate, I want you to somehow explain why a couple who live together for 40 years, and raise several children together in the same social environment as straight couples (two consenting adults) should not be allowed to make personal family decisions regarding each other or their children legally.
If you want to steer in the direction of civil unions being equal, please scroll up and look at the cartoon again. “Separate but equal” is what the cartoon is about (note that the date is well before the prop 8 result).
lol Obama is president, whether the douchebags like it or not, and he’ll probably codify rights to gay MARRIAGE at some point. So, y’all are going to need to get used to it.
generatrix, thanks for your post. I say it would hurt the gay community and our society because society is not ready to accept it right now and the persecution against the gay community may increase instead of decrease. As far as the gay couples already married, you are right there will be not much of a difference for them, they will live their lives as they were, for the most part, and rightfully so. I also do not disagree that civil union is less than marriage, and it is hard to compare or talk about the comparisons on a historic level because this is one of the first time’s in our nation these rights have been fought over as far as I know. Also, if gay couples are still allowed to adopt children in states then basically they are and should allow them to marry because having, or an “aquisition” of children, is the thin line, (to me at least), that separates allowing just civil unions or allowing marriage. I know there are other discrepencies as well but the fruit of marriage, and a great privelage of marriage is to have children and legally be responsible for them. So to answer your question if gay couples are allowed to adopt kids then I too think that they should have every right to legally care and make decisions for them, for if they are able to do this then essentially they are married and should therefore be extended the right to care for and protect the children under their roof. So if they are going to allow gay couples to have children then I beleive that the state, or the country might as well give them the right to marriage for the saftey and potection of the children. However that is where I see the problem, at least right now in our society, strictly from an objective standpoint. Because our society is not ready to accept this for various reasons that individual have that I will not delve into, the children of gay couples would be persecuted to some degree. It cannot be denied that immature and ignorant young elementary kids would ridicule some of the kids that had two dads or two moms… and I beleive that would continue until high school. While this is sad I think that it is probably true, to the demise and sorrow of the child of the gay couple. while this is just a conjecture one must almost accept this unequivically because the fact of the matter is, the majority of californians, (who voted), voted for prop 8. And since this is more of an emotional, religious issue they would not let it go lightly if it had not passed, just as the gay community has not let it go that it did pas. So that is another way that gay families would be hurt if marriage was allowed. Also, to clarify when I say society is not ready, I am not implying that gay marriage is right or smart to allow but merely that society does not want to allow it based on different reasons.
Society as a whole…. ths would be a huge change for many in the nation. Obama might codify rights to gay marriage at some point who knows, but none the less this is a huge change for our society, we would all need to be “re-educated”. Most kids, and I do not mean to be discriminatory, never even think about what marriage and love is they automatically assume that it is between a man and a woman; because that is natural for the overwhelming majority of the world. For kids who have this ingrained into their DNA it would be confusing for them at first, and they would ask their parents questions and then parents would get frustrated etc. etc. Also one has to admit that (for the most part) men are attracted to women and women to men, that is the natural order of things, and for kids to have to think about the opposite and try to analyze that in their minds it will be very hard, especially at first; and I do not see heterosexual couples being happy about that. I have to be honest my mind does not want to accept that fact and I would be unhapy over it, and I beleive the majority feels the same way. Also the fact is that morals, especially religious morals matter a lot in this country. They are degrading somewhat, but the fact is that people still beleive in right and wrong, and when something that is viewed as wrong is legalized I think religions and people would create some noise about that. Gay marriage would become a new law and social norm enforced by the law upon everyone equally.. honestly do you feel that our country is ready for that?
so for non religious or moral reasons the main argument against Gay marriage is that our society is nor ready to accept it, to the regret and sorrow of the gay community. It will take time…. and in the meantime the gay community needs to handle this carefully if they ever want it to be allowed. On a small scale everyone understands the anger and resentment of unjustice had upon them, be it by a parent or a teacher, or whatever. So while I try to understand the gay communities frustration I think that it helps for everyone to know both sides… if the gay community can put that anger aside and turn it into positive energy it would serve them a lot better to further their cause. I just know that namecalling, violence, anger, resentment, hatred, and other negatives do not really help people to be sympathetic towards you, and will only serve to lengthen the time that they see their view of “equal rights”. Maybe a gay community “Martin Luther King Jr.” type would be good… lol
“Not ready to accept it yet”
Yeah, there’s obviously too many bigots right now. Like yourself. Thanks for being a homophobic piece of crap.
ha ha ha.. well then, fuck you too!
RE: while i personally disagree with homosexuality, what they choose to do in their bedrooms doesnt concern me and i could care less. my only issue is why do they need the label “marriage”? if a civil union legally provided the same thing, what is the difference and what does it matter? do they feel so inadequate that they need that particular label to validate their relationship to themselves or society? it is one big non-issue to me that reeks of stupidity and selfishness on both sides of the fence.
Because we’ve already proven that seperate but equal doesn’t work. Civil unions are actually quite different than marriage; most significantly they don’t offer the same legal benefits that marriage does.
I guess my question to you is, why are you so attached to your idea of marriage? Why can’t people use that term to apply to people who are different from you?
I’ve always wondered that — there’s a large group of people that are iffy about using the word ‘marriage’ to apply to same-sex couples and I’ve honestly never known why.
Anyway, this is a powerful cartoon and it illustrates my point (and the point of all who argue that ‘Civil Unions’ are insufficient) perfectly. Keep up the amazing work!
If civil unions and marriages have the same legal rights, why don’t straight people need the title “marriage”? Are they so inadequate they have to cling to a title that doesn’t mean anything? Why would they have to be EQUAL.
Oh, there’s the keyword. People don’t seem to realize it’s an equality issues too. Your marriage is just as valid (or in most cases anyway– invalid) as anyone elses, gay or not. Segregating them to a different field and then wondering why they should need to use YOUR fountain is not OK
I’ve just now read through a few of your posts and I have a few questions for you:
1) You argue that Gay Marriage won’t have any net benefit on society. I think that the benefit that comes from granting rights to persecuted groups and individuals is somewhat intangible, but still pretty important: I think that in general, more tolerant societies are more healthy. Communities seem to be able to last longer and have better well being if they are accepting of everyone in those communities.
I’m sure that there are some interesting economics arguements supporting same sex marriage as well (in fact a cursory google search of ‘gay marriage economy’ found some pretty interesting articles about the economic boon in California while same sex marriage was still legal there. I suggest you read some of the articles and studies for yourself if you’re interested.)
And actually for the sake of arguing, let’s say that there is no net benefit. Do you think that there’s any sort of negative impact on society by legalizing same sex marriage? What kind of impact is it, and how does it negatively affect the /majority/? I’m pretty curious about this.
(I address your point about reeducation later in this post, I don’t personally agree that is a negative impact on society. Is there anything else, or does the negative impact come from society’s general resistance to change?)
2) You’ve argued that this is a religious issue for many people, but that it’s also a ‘societal’ issue that ‘transcends religion’ — I tend to disagree. I think that if Abrahamaic (specifically Christian – Protestant) teachings weren’t so prevalent in this country that we wouldn’t have this much of a problem gaining acceptance.
I feel that it’s a religious issue because people use religious language when describing same sex couples / marriage; that it’s an ‘abomination’, ‘against god’, or ‘unnatural’ (I feel that use of the word unnatural in this context often heavily implies ‘against god’s intention’). Take away the element of god’s disapproval in their arguements and you’re left with… not much. I guess some people would say that they are disgusted by same sex couples — but honestly, haven’t we grown out of trying to marginalize people because we don’t agree with their choices? As long as it’s two conensual adults there’s really no reason to not allow them to marry — even if you find it ‘icky’. We’re not in third grade anymore, this is not a valid arguement for denying people rights (again, as long as it’s two consensual adults).
And of course, we can’t (or at least, we’re not supposed to) deny people rights / make any laws for religious reasons. It’s one thing to vote on religious grounds, but it’s quite another (unconstitutional) thing to make laws designed around religious ideas.
3) You say something to the effect of ‘the majority is given the right to vote against things that would degrade this society’ (please excuse the paraphrase, if I have interpreted your meaning wrong, please let me know). In addition to the question of how same sex marriage would degrade this society (which I’ve already addressed), I’m curious to know if you feel this idea of the majority having the right to shape society conflicts at all with another idea that’s quite prevalent in American political thought, which is the idea of ‘protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority’.
The issue of LGBT rights seems to me like a classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ keeping the minority in a position of submission. It seems like we try to legislate around this by making certain issues /not/ up for popular vote, but decided on in congress or in the courts (whether at the state or federal level). I don’t personally feel that LGBT rights should be decided upon by popular vote because of this very reason (and in theory, congress people and judges should make decisions objectively, something that individuals don’t often do). Do you disagree? Should civil rights issues be decided on by popular vote? Why?
Just out of curiousity, if things like voting rights for women and ethnic minorities had been decided by popular vote, do you think they would have been passed when they were, or do you think that it would have taken longer? If longer, do you think it’s better that certain minorities go without certain liberties until the majority says they can have them? Why do you feel this way (if applicable)?
4) You’ve argued that ‘society is not ready to accept it [same sex rights to marriage]’ — is this really a valid arguement for restricting the rights of /millions/ of people? I personally think that allowing same-sex couples full marriage / adoption rights will, overall, help less tolerant people to rethink their position. It’s easy to treat the LGBT community as second-class citizens if the government more or less sanctions such behavior.
You say that ‘society would need to be reeducated’ — maybe that’s true, but I have a hard time knowing what that would look like. What do you envision when you say that?
I don’t feel that (in)tolerance is really taught, it’s more something that people observe and absorb (e.g.: most people who are racist were raised by a racist family, possibly in a time and/or place where racism wasn’t frowned upon) /implicitly/, rather than explicitly. So it seems to me if the LGBT community had wider acceptance, more and more people would become more tolerant (does this make sense?). Of course there would always be pockets of intolerance, but I feel that those communities would eventually be relegated to the fringe, and would have a limited impact on mainstream society (e.g.: the KKK, Stormfront, and other white supramacist organizations have pretty limited power in the US).
5) Just out of curiousity, how do you personally feel about the fact that the LDS (Mormon) Church funded 40% of the Prop 8 efforts in California? (Meaning not individual Mormons, but the organization itself) Does this make you uncomfortable? Do you agree that they abused their power as a church, as well as their tax-exempt status as a 501(c)3 (a type of non profit that is not allowed, under tax law, to campaign politically)? Should they be punished? Should Prop 8 be overturned because of this? I’m just wondering your opinion on this.
Please excuse the essay, I didn’t mean to be so longwinded. But I’d really appreciate it if you could answer my questions. Thanks!
That is the best post I have seen! Thank you for your educated and well thought opinion! I understand why you asked me the questions you did. I probably came across as one who is intolerant, but in fact I am, I would have voted against proposition 8 if I lived in california; however my posts were a reflection of my opinions and thoughts on WHY people may have voted for prop 8, and while I feel too that a tolerant society is a healthy one I think I stated the truth when I said society is not ready for it, because they voted to ban gay marriage in 3 different states this last election; although our society is becoming more and more tolerant. I have read those articles that you mentioned and you are right they have great points! When I asked for someone to list the benefits of gay marriage I wasn’t necesarily bashing it but was trying to get some rational thought out of someone. All I know is that when I talk to the so called “homophobes” and others at my workplace, and or neighborhood they feel as though they are justified in being against gay marriage by the way that the gay community and those who support them reacts. A lot of anti-gay people think that the gay community does not have any real argument and when gay rights activists say irrational and angry things it just proves the anti-gay setiment right. However if more anti-gay people where to realize that there are rational reasons and an educated, logical explination behind it all they would be more accepting, I beleive.
1) If I beleived that politics and religion should be mixed I would be against this gay marriage thing wholly, however I see it more as a political and constitutional matter, seperate from religion. However for those who do see it as a matter of religion they would feel a lot of “negative” effects from lifting a ban on gay marriage.
1. We have already seen with the David Parker case in Massachusetts how with same-sex marriage being made legal there resulted in the teaching of same-sex marriages as okay to children WITHOUT even the consent of parents. Since it is mainstream and legal, and since marriages are taught to grade-school children, then same-sex marriage is automatically included without any special need to notify parents. I personally would not like my child to have to deal with this in school at all.
2. Words such as bride and groom, and husband and wife are now altered to accommodate the same-sex marriages. In California, the marriage licenses were changed from bride and groom to ‘party A’ and ‘party B’ but this was recently changed to add ‘bride and groom’ as an option. Other words replacing husband and wife are ‘partner and spouse.’ This is just stupid, the words husband and wife should still be used in hetero-sexual marrige liscenses.
3. According to social scientists, “research indicates that children thrive best when raised by both biological married parents, as long as the marriage is not high-conflict.” (Child Trends Research Brief and Mapping America). So not just any kind of marriage, but a HEALTHY marriage. This may be a onesided stidy, but if true the facts are irrefutable that it would be better for children to live in a hetero-sexual home.
These are some perceived ‘negative” effects, but I think overall they are relative. There are more pereived “negative” effects but I think in general it is just societies genery resistance to change that is the would be the problem.
2) The reality is that most people do see it as a religious issue… a matter of right and wrong. While many people beleive that the constitution says the words “separation of church and state” it in fact does not say that anywhere in the constitution, that was said by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. the First amendment simply states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” However, many understand this to mean separation of church and state. While I agree with some of your argument, I have to disagree taht it is unconstitutional for people to vote upon their religious views… now if the majority has a religious veiw that takes away something that is a civil right (recognized by the governemnt) then it can and should be overturned.
3) That is a very controversial and important matter for a couple of reasons. While the fundamental principles of a democratic government lie on the people, a majority vote, there are a lot of examples of this “tyranny of the majority” you talk about. And in dealing with matters of civil rights it is important that the minorities rights are protected. However, many people beleive that this is not a civil rights issue per say, but more of a lifestyle issue. Of course if this indeed a civil rights issue there should be no question as to what should be done, the right to gay marriage should be protected. However, many state officials and other legislative bodies have yet to decide whether it is in fact a civil rights issue or a lifestyle issue, and therefore it is up in the air at the time; thus the current situation. Again I revert to the polygamy example, was that a lifestyle issue or a civil rights issue? BUt to answer your question civil rights issues, real civil rights issues, should not be decided by popular vote but should be protected under the constitution by the government. Nonetheless it must be decided if it is truly a matter of civil rights first.
The question on women and ethnic groups…. since the end of the civil war rights for ethnic groups was discussed. The Equal Protection Act was originally issued to protect such rights. It is important to note also that the blacks had been discriminated against for many many years before the Black Rights Civil Movement even started and even after it began it was about 10 years before their rights were mostly protected by law, and even afterward they were discriminated against in different sometimes more hurtful ways. The duratoion of time does not suggest that it was right or that the wait was needed, but conversly shows the weakness of humans, and even some faults in a democratic government. What happened to Blacks was terrible and inexplicable, I would not wish that upon any class or race. However, I do beleive that it would have taken longer for the majority to “come” around on those issues, which is very discouraging in some ways. I feel similarly with womens rights.. and power to those who fought tirelessly for equal rights of women and minority ethnic groups. However, I do beleive that the constitution was an inspired document and that the American system is great… not to say that the poeple and government have no flaws.
4) Again it isn’t really my argument but just my opinion of why prop 8 passed and gay marriage is not making headway in the US. However, the re-education thing is a no brainer. It would eventually change the way people think about marriage, the very building block of society. The fundamentals of our society would change in those regards and people whould have to get used to it. It is hard to imagine though, that people will just begin to think that gay marriage is “right” just because the government approves of it. These religions have been around for a long long time and they have had the same position on gay marriage pretty much the whole time… not many people are going to give those beliefs up easily, and rightly so. However, until the american people separate religion and politics, and or become less religious it is hard for me to envision people just changing their minds about the whole situation.
5) I think that those who already had a hatred for the Mormon church are just using this issue to justify their anger toward the church. Generally I beleive that churches should not participate in promoting political propositions or means monetarily; and this is the first time I have heard of the Mormon church doing this. The Mormon church must have had good reason to do what they did, right or wrong politically. Constitutionally I think that it is okay that they did what they did; however I know a lot of people who would disagree, and dislike that church even more because of their contributions. I understand it as members donated the money to that specific purpose and the church used(handled) it; but ultimately it was the members money. I do not think that they should be punished per say, and those who focus on that issue are missing the main point anyway aren’t they? It is interesting that a church that has stayed politically neutral chose to play such a big part in supporting prop 8. Why do you think that the Mormon church got so involved in this issue?
I think the fundamentally this is a civil rights issue, however tied to religion it might be.
Sorry that this is so long!… its just an important issue. I hope that this helps you understand my position. 🙂
I am a heterosexual government attorney who has yet to figure out why the religious right thinks it’s the government’s job to prevent two consenting adults from getting married.
I get the religious right’s religions tell them that, to paraphrase someone above ‘marriage is between a man and a woman,’ but why is it the secular government’s job to enforce the religious right’s religious beliefs? I have no idea why anyone thinks that preventing two consenting adults from getting married is a constitutional use of the government’s time and effort. If you and your fellow parishioners don’t think ‘fags’ should get married, good for you. Don’t let them get married in your church and don’t recognize their marriage as ‘holy,’ ‘legitimate,’ etc. Our God created gay people. Let’s just get used to it.
Even if it is the majority opinion that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, it is the job of the government, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and our own James Madison in Federalist 10, to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. For two adults that love each other, marriage is a basic human right that the government should protect – like the right to be black and still attend public school in the South. Our government is denying basic human rights to a segment of our population that makes up approximately 10% of our total population of about 300 million.
While the government is denying basic human rights, how about denying votes to bigots?
Cartoon is spot on, by the way. . .
Ignorance is bliss.
Love is blind.
Keep the government out of our relationships.
It’s really weird how things can’t change, evolution, it has it’s struggle when it comes to things people can’t get over. Really sad!
Marriage is depicted in the Bible as being between a man and a woman…
God destroyed two whole cities for being homosexual… and a few other sins which I have forgotten.
Since when did the Government gain the power to tell what the church must allow and disallow? At that, since when did the Government get the right to fire a company CEO and replace him? Marriage is a religious ceremony and a religious bond, until the Church (vague as to which one, i know) decides that gay people can get married, until that day, I will not support gay marriage. I will not support activists trying to use the government to go against the majority and halt the democratic process because they can’t get their own way. Does Democracy mean so little to people? Tyranny of the Majority? Someone reads to take a high school government class. If the Government is given permission by the people to give out legal equalities of a Civil Union beside a Marriage, then that is fine. If the Government (people) wishes to recognize gay marriage, then it must be the Church to decide to marry gay people or not.
There are churches/ministers that will marry same-sex couples, but those marriages aren’t recognized by the government in most states.
For heaven’s sake.
“Since when did the Government gain the power to tell what the church must allow and disallow?[…]Marriage is a religious ceremony and a religious bond, until the Church (vague as to which one, i know) decides that gay people can get married, until that day, I will not support gay marriage.”
As previously stated, marriage has become a civil term. Two atheists can get married (as long as they’re straight, of course) and the government still recognizes the fact that they can file their taxes together and that one partner is eligible for the other’s health insurance. We’re not talking about what “the church”, whichever you pick, considers a holy, consecrated marriage, but that the federal government recognizes that gay people deserve these rights as much as straight people do.
“I will not support activists trying to use the government to go against the majority and halt the democratic process because they can’t get their own way. Does Democracy mean so little to people?”
Yeah! While we’re at it, let’s stop those uppity black people from going to the same high schools as our kids! Doesn’t matter that the reason they had to struggle for equality (a continuing struggle, as we will see when we return to those high school government classes you advocate) was because the majority still thought they didn’t quite warrant the nicer of the two bathrooms and certainly didn’t want to eat lunch in the same restaurant as them. Which is, of course, the argument of this comic. Additionally, please brush up on your Federalist papers, o Guardian of Democracy, especially re: factions.
“f the Government is given permission by the people to give out legal equalities of a Civil Union beside a Marriage, then that is fine. If the Government (people) wishes to recognize gay marriage, then it must be the Church to decide to marry gay people or not.”
I really don’t understand what you’re saying here, so I’ll respond with my best guess. If the people give the government permission for the whole civil union shebang, why not, oh, I dunno…call it a marriage? (See also: the hypothetical married, straight atheists who may still refer to their commitment as a “marriage”.) If the government/people decide to allow those pesky gays to marry, what does the church get to decide again? An individual church/pastor may decline the request of two dudes borrowing their altar for an afternoon, yes, but I don’t see why we should have to ask the religious community to pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top approve the law.
this sure is an interesting coincidence: http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/100782/
I disagree with same-sex marriage on a personal level, but I think it should be legal because I have no right to tell others how to live. The laws of this country should promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Same sex marriage affects thousands of people, and by legalizing same-sex marriage, those people will find greater joy. Did you guys hear about that marriage the other day between George Yurtman and Sally Benson? Neither did I, nor is the marriage between these two people going to affect the way that my kids are raised.
Even if my kids grow up as homosexuals, who am I to impose my views? This is personal shit, just like abortion and nearly everything else that politicians attempt to promote politically. Unfortunately, people believe that these topics should be up for discussion, and we end up with political leaders who feel the need to spend time on these issues. What about the fucking budget! What about the incentive to screw your neighbor that has perpetuated wall street and the outsourcing of every manufacturing job we have. What about the fact that teachers are treated like dirt while lawyers who specialize in suing doctors go home rich. How about fixing some of the big fucking problems. This sort of crap is distracting. Sporting events, reality TV, discussions of minor pseudo-political topics, and politicians do a very good job of distracting our increasingly ignorant population from the truth.
PAY ATTENTION WOULD YOU!?
Mail (will not be published) (required)