Natalie Portman and gay marriage

[mattblancarte]

Matt, you apparently can't read or won't.

I had that response queued up for 96 and it ended up in your court. It happens occasionally when I try write these responses out as fast as possible.

I think you and I are on the exact same page there regarding civil unions. My sincere apologies!

In regards to a biblical quote directly supporting gay marriage, you will not find one. However, I can find you many verses that elude to a required tolerance of gays by Christians. For example, the concept of reserving judgment for God (in whatever form he's taking).

The passages I chose to display there were meant to display how wildly out of touch most people are with the inconsistencies of modern laws and their relation to scripture. It should paint the picture that scripture is not the place we should be going to look for answers in this situation, as we choose to omit many of the old dogmas and guidelines from modern law.

My anecdotal experiences are enough to show that people CAN be rational and reasonable about this issue. That's all. I think we both agree that change en masse would require the sheep to follow the Shepard.

[IBCoupe]

Are you kidding me, you insolent little twit?

"Apparently" demeaning? No, sorry, but I disagree. I insulted no one, I demeaned no one, apparently or not. I have these sorts of discussions all the time in person, and I've been posting on political boards for 8 years. Believe me, I know how to be demeaning.

Do you usually start out those conversations "with people who disagree" with you by suggesting that anyone who supports gay marriage must also not respect marriage? Is that how you've been having these discussions all the time in person?

You want to know exactly how I know you're looking down on us before the conversation starts? Let's examine the first damned paragraph of your original post.

It occurred to me in the conversation I'm having with AppleBonker,

So, to set things up, you're starting a conversation with a tangent from another conversation that we're not all party to. We don't know the nature of the other conversation, or the topic. And, typically, we wouldn't need to, if you're kind enough to provide us with all the context we'd need to carry on an effective conversation. Being that you've consistently tried to correct us and basically tell us we're answering your question incorrectly, do you think maybe that you failed a little bit in this first step?

It occurred to me... that the very same people who think it's fine for women to get pregnant and raise a child without committing themselves to a long-term relationship with a man, might be the very same people who think gays should have the cultural right to the same marriage that straights have.

This right here should have been where you stopped. This is where the honest thinker goes, "Is this the case?" Then you ask us, and we give our opinions, and you can avoid making a huge arse of yourself. If you commit yourself to just a little bit of the scientific method, you can avoid a whole lot of hostility - probably not all, but most of it.

I wonder if it's because they have no respect for marriage, and so it really doesn't matter who gets married to whom.

This here? This was the big screw up, and I'm going to explain to you exactly why. It's going to involve a little bit of language math, so bear with me. You have effectively stated that Group A = Group B, and you have also stated that Group B = Idea C. By skipping ahead from that first "might be" to "it's because" you have implicitly and linguistically stated that it isn't just "might be," but "actually are." So, to put it all together for you, what you've said with the above two sentences is this: "People who support single motherhood do not respect marriage. People who support gay marriage do not respect marriage."

You might have meant to say that, "Maybe a lack of respect for marriage would lead to people supporting single motherhood and gay marriage," but what you actually said was, "Do people who support single motherhood also support gay marriage? Why, yes they do, and it might just be because they don't respect marriage."

And you also (might have) committed one other sin with this sentence, too. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but here's how it looked:
"In order to believe that it really doesn't matter who gets married to whom, you must have no respect for marriage." Now, it's possible that all you meant to say is, "People who have no respect for marriage, necessarily will believe that it doesn't matter who marries whom, but that's not the only way to get to that end result."

That's why you were demeaning - you were presumptuous and insulting. You may not have realized it, and you might still be unaware, but I would be loathe to let this thread continue without a full explanation of what you did wrong.

[IBCoupe]

I'm splitting it up into two posts, because you split your rudeness into two posts, too.

This gem, 96Q, sealed the deal:

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder about the group that advocates for gay marriage. Is there anyone on the board who was raised by married parents, who also is on the side of gay marriage? It seems to me that the ones most adamantly against it, are long-term committed, married couples. You know, the old-fashioned boring folks who take marriage seriously.

Let's break it down:

Is there anyone on the board who was raised by married parents, who also is on the side of gay marriage?

You're expressing doubt that people who come from normal homes could be in favor of gay marriage. If we look at your earlier demeaning comments, we realize that, in doing so, you're suggesting that if you support gay marriage, you must come from a broken, and sub-standard home. You're supposing, in front of God and everybody, that if you support gay marriage, there was something inherently wrong with your upbringing.

It seems to me that the ones most adamantly against it, are long-term committed, married couples. You know, the old-fashioned boring folks who take marriage seriously.

Normally I'd split the two sentences up, but you can't really read the first one without the snide addition of the second. There's a suggestion lurking in the background, that only people who don't take marriage seriously could be in favor of gay marriage. There's a similar suggestion that if you support gay marriage, you're not part of a long-term committed married couple.

I find it hard to believe that you didn't know this. That you were just sitting here, wanting nothing but a quiet drink. Either you're trolling, or you're a complete and utter retard.

Any questions, d!ck?

[96Qowner]

"Apparently" demeaning? No, sorry, but I disagree. I insulted no one, I demeaned no one, apparently or not. I have these sorts of discussions all the time in person, and I've been posting on political boards for 8 years. Believe me, I know how to be demeaning.

This line in particular is what I was referring to:

I wonder if it's because they have no respect for marriage, and so it really doesn't matter who gets married to whom.

You seem to be trying to make a connection between people who support gay marriage and people who have no respect for marriage. Maybe you feel not having respect for marriage is perfectly acceptable, but I personally feel that implies something negative about the person who holds that view. I am in support of gay marriage, and I still respect the idea of marriage. I'm just saying I could see where one might take offense to the correlation you were trying to present.

I posed a question to be pondered. I don't in any way feel not having respect for marriage is perfectly acceptable. To be perfectly clear, I wish this culture had more respect for marriage. Offense is quite easy to take, which is another point I tried to make - there's nothing hard at all about taking offense - it's cheap and easy.

I found an odd similarity in the attitude towards Natalie Portman's TMI admission at the Oscars, and support for gay marriage. I get the sense that liberals support both and conservatives support neither. So I wondered if it extended to a general respect/disrespect for marriage, since that's something common to both. Am I to understand that tolerant people find it personally insulting for me to ask the question, and therefore feel the overpowering need to hurl insults in return?

I've since heard from a few posters raised in good solid two-parent homes who are personally supportive of gay marriage, which doesn't support the hypothesis, so I dunno. I just know that I look around me, and I'm really disappointed that so many people don't take marriage seriously. I'm tired of seeing boys try to grow up without fathers to show them how to be men. I'm tired of seeing single moms who are dead tired trying to carry the load, and truly have nothing left for their kids, as well-meaning as they might be. They're just defeated. I'm tired of seeing girls that didn't have a father to show them what a man should be, and so they choose badly, and they become pregnant and then single mothers.

So what if Natalie Portman wanted to announce her wonderful new pregnancy to the world and acknowledge the father. Whatever. But to jump all over a guy who dared to publicly say that he wasn't very f'n impressed with her is misguided and grossly hypocritical, which should be obvious from the ridiculous comments from several posters who think they're tolerant. I believe the sole justification for the State to stick its big fat nose into marriage concerns the children. The culture is healthier when one male and one female, a mated pair, raise their children. So I wonder what business it is of the government or anyone else to force me or anyone else to accept gay marriage as something that is culturally equal to mine. It's no business of anyone's whether I accept it or not, and being openly insulting about it just doesn't win a lot of converts, go figure.

I'm happy for those who have gay friends and I'm happy for anyone who has a loving and fulfilling life with a mate they're committed to. I just don't take too kindly to being told that my marriage is now just the same thing as a gay marriage, only it's between a man and a woman - same, same, otherwise. Pulease. It seems unserious, like people just don't understand what a marriage is. Tolerant people are sympathetic to that sort of discomfort. Intolerant people close their ears and try to shout it down.

[OutToWinPAHC]

Natalie Portman

on top of

[96Qowner]

Unless you're gay.

[mattblancarte]

I don't in any way feel not having respect for marriage is perfectly acceptable. To be perfectly clear, I wish this culture had more respect for marriage.

You have yet define "respect for marriage."

I believe the sole justification for the State to stick its big fat nose into marriage concerns the children.

Everybody's favorite mommy: 96Q.

I just don't take too kindly to being told that my marriage is now just the same thing as a gay marriage, only it's between a man and a woman - same, same, otherwise.

This just reeks of homophobia.

The government should consider your marriage a "civil union." Then you are free to define your marriage as you see fit. Nobody is telling you that your marriage is the exact same thing as two men or two women getting married.

They are awfully similar though... Does that scare you?

[RONSM35X]

wow Haven't been on here in about a year or two and i see this question. I guess Nicco is branching out. I say who gives a damn who marry who. Let people live their life and thats that. Marriage is just a crappy expensive man made thing to make everyone but the groom groom bride bride or bride and groom rich. WTF N i'm married . as far as Natalie Portman y shes blended into this topic i don't know but i think shes a great actress when she want to be( Closer and Professional ) and ok at other times ( New star wars) . She s also a incredible beautiful woman . a NATURAL BEAUTY.

[C-Kwik]

I posed a question to be pondered. I don't in any way feel not having respect for marriage is perfectly acceptable. To be perfectly clear, I wish this culture had more respect for marriage. Offense is quite easy to take, which is another point I tried to make - there's nothing hard at all about taking offense - it's cheap and easy.

Like IBC pointed out, if the question was open ended, I think we could potentially have a real open discussion. But you posed it in a manner that basically implied that only 2 possibilities exist. And where you truly failed is that you interjected your view on gay marriage and single parenthood. What bearing does this opinion have on your question? Trying to find a relationship between support of single motherhood and support of gay marriage and perhaps even how it relates to respect of marriage needs none of your opinion. But its pretty telling what direction you want this discussion to go.

I found an odd similarity in the attitude towards Natalie Portman's TMI admission at the Oscars, and support for gay marriage. I get the sense that liberals support both and conservatives support neither. So I wondered if it extended to a general respect/disrespect for marriage, since that's something common to both. Am I to understand that tolerant people find it personally insulting for me to ask the question, and therefore feel the overpowering need to hurl insults in return?

I agree the insults are unwarranted. We can all be a little more adult about it here. But I will say this. Don't start talking about tolerance given the way you pose your questions about the topic. Or perhaps I should say all people over 57 are old. And old people are bigots. So people over 57 must be bigots. I could expect some hateful remarks to come my way.

I've since heard from a few posters raised in good solid two-parent homes who are personally supportive of gay marriage, which doesn't support the hypothesis, so I dunno. I just know that I look around me, and I'm really disappointed that so many people don't take marriage seriously. I'm tired of seeing boys try to grow up without fathers to show them how to be men. I'm tired of seeing single moms who are dead tired trying to carry the load, and truly have nothing left for their kids, as well-meaning as they might be. They're just defeated. I'm tired of seeing girls that didn't have a father to show them what a man should be, and so they choose badly, and they become pregnant and then single mothers.

I'm tired of bad parents too. But that has nothing to do with marriage(homosexual or straight). People can be married and still be terrible parents. On the other hand, I know unmarried couples that are raising their children quite well together. Its a lot easier to see a correlation when there is none when that's the outcome you want to see.

I believe the sole justification for the State to stick its big fat nose into marriage concerns the children. The culture is healthier when one male and one female, a mated pair, raise their children.

Prove it.

So I wonder what business it is of the government or anyone else to force me or anyone else to accept gay marriage as something that is culturally equal to mine. It's no business of anyone's whether I accept it or not, and being openly insulting about it just doesn't win a lot of converts, go figure.

As much as its your business or anyone else's to try have the government define what marriage is for anyone else.

I'm happy for those who have gay friends and I'm happy for anyone who has a loving and fulfilling life with a mate they're committed to. I just don't take too kindly to being told that my marriage is now just the same thing as a gay marriage, only it's between a man and a woman - same, same, otherwise. Pulease. It seems unserious, like people just don't understand what a marriage is. Tolerant people are sympathetic to that sort of discomfort. Intolerant people close their ears and try to shout it down.

I think I see the bigger issue for you here. You are INSECURE about who you are so someone else's marriage apparently defines who you are. Get over it. Go see a psychologist or therapist for it. Or perhaps I'm too presumptuous here. Maybe what I just said has a possibility of being true and that's what I believe. So I'll put that out there to suggest to others that this is the cause in hopes that they will agree with me and hate you.

Sound familiar?

More seriously, your marriage is not the same as gay marriage. YOUR marriage is between a man and a woman. And more specifically it is between YOU and YOUR WIFE. A homosexual couple's marriage is between two people of the same sex. And more specifically between two individual people. IT HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR MARRIAGE WHATSOEVER. It changes nothing about the relationship you have with your wife or children. Does it make your love for her any less? Will your wife love you less? Does it make you beat your kids? I fail to see how you are a victim of homosexual marriage (or single parenthood for that matter) in any of this. Marriage is whatever each couple defines it to be for themselves.

All that said, I'll ask that everyone refrain from making insults or personal attacks. This can be a very emotionally charged topic, I understand. But its uncalled for, period.

[mattblancarte]

I am no doubt guilty of wandering into the realm of personal attacks here. Apologies to 96. Still completely disagree, but I'll be more civil moving forward.

Special apology goes to srellim for slinging mud his way when he and I were already on the same wavelength. I'll try to proofread my submissions more carefully in the future.

I should say that I get so worked up about things like discrimination against gays because it's so reminiscent of racial bigotry. "No respect for marriage" and "get to the back of the bus" ring exactly the same tone in my ears.

What really blows a gasket in the old noggin is the fact that there are large groups of black folks that are 100% against gay marriage. **head explodes**

[heliochrome85]

In the 4 years I've been following NICO, I think this may be the most openly bigoted, least informed and overall most offensive thread I've read. It makes me sad that we are even discussing it. I'd say more but I've got nothing to say that wouldn't result in an instant ban. I'm absolutely appalled by the Gall on display by the OP.

[96Qowner]

Good stuff C-Kwik. I suppose I did put out some troll bait - caught a few, too, a couple of 'em displayed beautifully.

I don't mind at all that you make an association between old folks and bigotry. I think it's a valid statement. That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that I am bigoted, but if I make statements that seem to fit that stereotype, then a probe is warranted, as long as it's a sly implication and not an open insult. (Hateful remarks are an epic fail in an adult discussion, kids.) Here's an analogy everyone should keep in the forefront of their minds. The adults are trying to have an interesting discussion and junior comes in and takes a dump on the coffee table. That's certainly impressive, but it puts a damper on the discussion until someone deals with junior. It's worse when junior's pals come in and do the same thing. Let's all try to remember that image.

The prove thing? I said it's what I believe - nothing to prove about it. That's what I believe. It's not something I made up. Check it out yourself, if you've never heard of it.

Marriage is already defined. What gay marriage advocates want is to broaden that definition to include same sex couples - something new. There are people who just aren't interested in that, who are fine with the legal definition we already have. Calling them ignorant racists and bigots isn't much of an argument. It sure doesn't mean that you're not.

I think I see the bigger issue for you here. You are INSECURE about who you are so someone else's marriage apparently defines who you are. Get over it. Go see a psychologist or therapist for it. Or perhaps I'm too presumptuous here. Maybe what I just said has a possibility of being true and that's what I believe. So I'll put that out there to suggest to others that this is the cause in hopes that they will agree with me and hate you.

Sound familiar?

Oops, sorry, you went off-course here: Or perhaps I'm too presumptuous here. Ya, pretty much so, sport. None of that sounds familiar, no, and suggesting that I'm insecure? Whatever. Again, it sure doesn't imply that you're not, so whatever.

I thought we had a decent thread going on until the trolls showed up. I think srellum probably has the correct solution, and that's unfortunate. I'm fine with the way things are now, although, personally I can't find any objection to gay marriage. I just don't think we can just dismiss a majority of the population as bigots. I suggest that it's not as simple as that. That interpretation could be seen as ridiculous, intolerant, hateful rhetoric, which is probably why it doesn't win over many converts, including myself.

[mattblancarte]

Good stuff C-Kwik. I suppose I did put out some troll bait - caught a few, too, a couple of 'em displayed beautifully.

Nobody here is trolling, bro. None of this is for the lulz.

(Hateful remarks are an epic fail in an adult discussion, kids.)

Which must be why you've garnered such negative reaction, and ZERO support from anyone else in this thread. Take a look in the mirror.

Here's an analogy everyone should keep in the forefront of their minds. The adults are trying to have an interesting discussion and junior comes in and takes a dump on the coffee table. That's certainly impressive, but it puts a damper on the discussion until someone deals with junior. It's worse when junior's pals come in and do the same thing. Let's all try to remember that image.

Yes, let's all remember this analogy as your best attempt to invalidate arguments based on someone's age. I bet if some of us juniors starting spitting out information that allowed you to perpetuate your confirmation bias on the subject, you'd be singing a different tune. Bigoted towards gays, now bigoted towards younger folks.

It's more like, old guy (inference based on what you've written) projectile vomits hateful, bigoted concepts based in utter ignorance and fallacious logic. Then, some of the other regular participants in the political forums decide that the old guy is trash worth taking out, and proceed to hammer him into the ground with logic and reason. Old guy fails to respond in any cogent manner, or legitimately defend his position. Using rhetoric like "what about the children" without any scientific basis for his assertions, he exposes that he makes his hateful decisions based on "beliefs."

You don't like gays, 96. Just say it so we can stop beating around the bush.

It might even be more accurate to say the you don't think gays deserve the same rights as "straights" (your chosen word).

Marriage is already defined. What gay marriage advocates want is to broaden that definition to include same sex couples - something new. There are people who just aren't interested in that, who are fine with the legal definition we already have. Calling them ignorant racists and bigots isn't much of an argument. It sure doesn't mean that you're not.

Oops, sorry, you went off-course here: Or perhaps I'm too presumptuous here. Ya, pretty much so, sport. None of that sounds familiar, no, and suggesting that I'm insecure? Whatever. Again, it sure doesn't imply that you're not, so whatever.

I thought we had a decent thread going on until the trolls showed up. I think srellum probably has the correct solution, and that's unfortunate. I'm fine with the way things are now, although, personally I can't find any objection to gay marriage. I just don't think we can just dismiss a majority of the population as bigots. I suggest that it's not as simple as that. That interpretation could be seen as ridiculous, intolerant, hateful rhetoric, which is probably why it doesn't win over many converts, including myself.

In summary:

1. Things shouldn't change, especially definitions of marriage over time. (you kidding me... even after linking wikileaks)
2. Exposing a bigot doesn't accomplish anything. (based on the fact you have zero support, I disagree)
3. We can't dismiss bigots en masse. You know, like when the US supported slavery. We shouldn't of dismissed them because there was a lot. A lot = correct.
4. Trolls are people who get heated in debates and are unwilling to allow hateful ideas to be spread without challenge.

Wrong on all counts, sir.

I suggest you re-read the internet and learn what trolls are. Like the concept of tolerance, you have been unable to grasp the true meaning.

which is probably why it doesn't win over many converts, including myself.

Now, did I just catch in that response that you've converted and are in support of gay marriage? If so, thank you for being a good person.

[IBCoupe]

I'll stop making personal attacks only because you asked, C-Kwik, but I'm not going to apologize for the ones I've already made. They're true. Either he's a bigot or he's trolling, and either way, it deserves little in the way of respect. If he's a troll, then I fed it. If he's genuinely a bigot, then respecting him sends exactly the wrong message.

Am I to understand that tolerant people find it personally insulting for me to ask the question, and therefore feel the overpowering need to hurl insults in return?

Yes, you are to understand, because here's what some people have a lot of trouble with: being tolerant of other viewpoints does not mean you have to be respectful of intolerance. In fact, being tolerant of other viewpoints requires that you disrespect intolerance - that you correct it. Which is why I went to such great lengths to explain just exactly how you insulted the people you were asking.

ve since heard from a few posters raised in good solid two-parent homes who are personally supportive of gay marriage, which doesn't support the hypothesis, so I dunno. I just know that I look around me, and I'm really disappointed that so many people don't take marriage seriously. I'm tired of seeing boys try to grow up without fathers to show them how to be men. I'm tired of seeing single moms who are dead tired trying to carry the load, and truly have nothing left for their kids, as well-meaning as they might be. They're just defeated. I'm tired of seeing girls that didn't have a father to show them what a man should be, and so they choose badly, and they become pregnant and then single mothers.

So be a better parent. Go ahead and find some kind of argument that says growing up without two parents in the household necessarily leads to not knowing how to be a man, or choosing bad men. You can't, because no such relationship exists. Some people come from a broken home. Some people come from a home that's simply split, but is otherwise quite unbroken.

It's the quality of the people involved, and you're not going to change that by making it so that gays can't marry.

I just don't take too kindly to being told that my marriage is now just the same thing as a gay marriage, only it's between a man and a woman - same, same, otherwise.

Your marriage is exactly how you define it, as C-Kwik explained. If you run around with this silly notion that other people's lives (who you've never met and probably will never meet) have an effect on you, then that makes you weak.

[Encryptshun]

Here's a statistic for you: 99.9% of all divorces in the United States involve a heterosexual couple. Based on that, I suggest that heterosexuals aren't responsible enough to be married and therefore should be barred from doing so.


seriously, though

My parents were married for 33 years until my father died. To my mother, they are married still and will be evermore -- she does not intend to remarry. I am VERY happily married to my wife. She and I do not plan to have children. Our wedding was a private ceremony in front of a Judge with only my wife's daughter present.

We support equal rights and equal opportunity under the law as guaranteed by our constitution, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. This includes the right to enter into a marital contract defined as a marriage.

[mattblancarte]

lol nice statistic.

Men lie. Women lie. Numbers don't.

[frapjap]

What does this thread have to do with Natalie Portman, and why are you dragging her into this?

[96Qowner]

LOL, Mike Huckabee was asked what he thought about Natalie Portman announcing to the entire Oscars audience that she was happy to be pregnant by a man she wasn't married to. Go figure, Huckabee didn't think she was a very good example to the vast majority of single mothers who aren't wealthy and famous and might find that it's not as easy as it might look for Natalie. A bunch of posters went off on Huckabee for it, so I wondered if it was because they just didn't have much respect for marriage in general, and that reminded me that most of the same people are gay marriage advocates, so I thought I'd see what people had to say. After much hate speech and intolerance, here we are.

[Eikon]

Wow.. I am NOT pleased. You should all know better by now. I even took the time to give everyone a very explicit warning right off the bat.
I don't have the time to read all the posts at the moment, but I'll find time to do so soon. When I do.. don't be surprised if I hand out a few punishments.