Natalie Portman and gay marriage

[96Qowner]

It occurred to me in the conversation I'm having with AppleBonker, 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. I wonder if it's because they have no respect for marriage, and so it really doesn't matter who gets married to whom.

It kinda reminds me of the people who voted for Obama because Bush was such an awful President. They didn't care about any qualifications. They apparently don't think the Presidency is a particularly important position and don't believe qualifications and experience matter.

Is marriage even important? Does the lack of a permanent father affect the child's chances in the world? Does it matter if the mother ever knew the father, much less married him and stayed with him?

What do y'all think?

[Eikon]

I'll remind everyone to tread lightly on the impending religious viewpoints that will be brought up in a thread like this.

[AppleBonker]

It occurred to me in the conversation I'm having with AppleBonker, 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. I wonder if it's because they have no respect for marriage, and so it really doesn't matter who gets married to whom.

Since you're posing the question this way, I'd like to ask you why it wouldn't be fine for a woman to have a child whilst not being married or why it wouldn't be acceptable for gays to marry? I've never seen a reasonable argument against it.

I'll remind everyone to tread lightly on the impending religious viewpoints that will be brought up in a thread like this.

This one will actually be easy for me!!!

[C-Kwik]

It occurred to me in the conversation I'm having with AppleBonker, 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. I wonder if it's because they have no respect for marriage, and so it really doesn't matter who gets married to whom.

While it might be possible on the statistical aspect, I tend to believe your reasoning for the correlation (if any) is wrong. Its a big stretch to imply that support of gay marriage is to imply no respect for marriage. One reason I support gay marriage is because marriage is to be respected as an institution in which two people can declare their love for and commitment to each other. Marriage is important to many people and so there it is certainly important to gay couples as well. And ultimately, this has nothing to do with raising a child. Married couples aren't immune from being bad parents and unmarried couples and single parents can most certainly be great parents. I've seen examples of both in people I know.

It kinda reminds me of the people who voted for Obama because Bush was such an awful President. They didn't care about any qualifications. They apparently don't think the Presidency is a particularly important position and don't believe qualifications and experience matter.

"This reminds me of how people believe that everyone who voted for Obama did so because Bush was such an awful President...

This type of reasoning is flawed for very obvious reasons. And to add to it, you are trying to correlate two unrelated logical flaws together in an attempt to make views contrary to your own look worse.

Is marriage even important? Does the lack of a permanent father affect the child's chances in the world? Does it matter if the mother ever knew the father, much less married him and stayed with him?

What do y'all think?

If marriage was not important, would so many gay couples be seeking it? Or is it your belief that they are trying to destroy marriage?

Also, the lack of marriage does not imply the lack of a father. In some cases, it might. But I know plenty of plenty of fathers who are still around regardless of marriage. Conversely, I know some children of single mothers who have been or would be better off if the father were no longer involved. The problem with the correlation you seem to be trying to make here is that marriage is assumed to be the best thing for a child. I'm not saying its a bad thing, but its much more dependent on overall circumstances than some piece of paper that binds two people.

[96Qowner]

And ultimately, this has nothing to do with raising a child.

I believe, ultimately, that childrearing is the primary justification for marriage. Any other reason is simply self-serving, an excuse for a fine public ritual, something that doesn't particularly matter to society. If the couple decides to divorce, no one really gets hurt. Childrearing is more important, and should offer a formal legal way for a man and a woman to expect some stability in their family bond.

I started the topic to learn. I want to hear if people actually respect marriage.

And I'd like to find some consistency in the opinions. Just something I'm looking for, not something anyone has to do.

If marriage was not important, would so many gay couples be seeking it? Or is it your belief that they are trying to destroy marriage?

Which is why I offered the example. Do the same people that brush off the responsibility of marriage and childrearing also want gays to have the same cultural status as a straight couple?

It may just be that the culture no longer respects marriage, given the dismal divorce and single parent rates over the past generation or two.

[Edit] 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.

[AppleBonker]

I believe, ultimately, that childrearing is the primary justification for marriage.

That may have been the idea a long time ago. However, as soon as benefits began to be extended to partners in marriage (see healthcare or whatever), there have been a number of additional motivating factors. I know of a few people on NICO that are married (and devoted to said marriage) but are actually uninterested in having children. Does that make their marriage any less meaningful? I would argue it does not.

If the couple decides to divorce, no one really gets hurt.

Except for the couple. There aren't too many people that go through divorce happily. And, if the marriage were meaningless, I would argue that more would be unaffected by divorce.

Childrearing is more important

To you

and should offer a formal legal way for a man and a woman to expect some stability in their family bond.

So a piece of paper provides stability?

Do the same people that brush off the responsibility of marriage and childrearing also want gays to have the same cultural status as a straight couple?

Who are these people you speak of?

It may just be that the culture no longer respects marriage, given the dismal divorce and single parent rates over the past generation or two.

This may be true. Or, it may be that it is easier to leave a marriage now than ever before. How many women were beaten/disrespected in the past but had no option to get out of a terrible relationship? It was unheard of in the 40s/50s, no matter how bad the marriage got. You may argue that the disrespect for marriage makes it easier to leave. I would argue that a person feeling forced to remain in a terrible relationship is far more disrespectful and harmful to the institution than allowing them to seek out a better existence.

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.

I was raised in a very stable, traditional household (I like to think I was insanely fortunate) and I fully support equal rights for same-sex partners. Personally, I have zero interest in being involved in a same-sex relationship of that nature. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't support them in their quest. Also, I would like to be married at some point, and start a family of my own (I know, scary thought). And I certainly don't take that responsibility lightly. If, in your mind, my support of gay marriage means I disrespect marriage as a whole, so be it. I would disagree, however.

[srellim234]

[Edit] 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.

My wife and I. My parents are still married and in their mid-80s, having been married for 60 years. My wife and I (with three kids, 26, 11 and 9) will be celebrating our 33rd anniversary this year.

Our feeling is that the state should be restricted to the use of the term "civil union" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. "Marriage" should be left to the various religious bodies to be applied as their beliefs allow. If that includes marrying gays, fine with us. There is both a legal side and a religious side to this debate and the two need to be separated.

Willing gay couples who have jumped through all the "hoops" that heterosexual couples have to go through to get a civil union, marriage or both should be allowed to do so. By separating the two types of unions, however, it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, be it the gays' civil rights or the heterosexuals' freedom of religion.

[C-Kwik]

I believe, ultimately, that childrearing is the primary justification for marriage. Any other reason is simply self-serving, an excuse for a fine public ritual, something that doesn't particularly matter to society. If the couple decides to divorce, no one really gets hurt. Childrearing is more important, and should offer a formal legal way for a man and a woman to expect some stability in their family bond.

The words I bolded in your quote are the key idea you need to consider. It is your belief and yours alone. The marriage you have with your wife is defined by you and your wife. What you seem to expect is that other people define marriage the same way you do. And within the context of a childless couple divorcing not harming anyone, what harm does a couple marrying without intent to raise a child cause to anyone? What harm does a homosexual marriage cause?

I started the topic to learn. I want to hear if people actually respect marriage.

I can appreciate this notion but forgive me if I have a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt based on the way you opened up this topic. No disrespect intended, but I call it how I see it.

And I'd like to find some consistency in the opinions. Just something I'm looking for, not something anyone has to do.

The problem is that opinions are not always going to be consistent. They are based on individual beliefs and life experiences. Consider that I respect your beliefs on marriage as it applies to your own life. Where it stops is at everyone else's life. Each person is free to choose how they define marriage in their own life.

Which is why I offered the example. Do the same people that brush off the responsibility of marriage and childrearing also want gays to have the same cultural status as a straight couple?

It may just be that the culture no longer respects marriage, given the dismal divorce and single parent rates over the past generation or two.

I think you have an unrealistic understanding of why people get divorced. Surely the rate of divorce has increased, but our lives have become much more dynamic. For example, it used to be that women generally stayed at home to raise kids. But more and more women have careers. As such, many will put off having kids in order to pursue and advance their careers. Much like the way a man who is away from home a lot due to work strains a relationship, if both the husband and wife are working, it can certainly cause additional strain. From a statistical standpoint, this would bring higher divorce rates. This is just one example and I expect there are many more.

[Edit] 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.

I was raised by married parents. Perhaps its your demography speaking but I know plenty of old married couples that support gay marriage and children of married couples that support gay marriage. I also know married couples and children of married couples who don't support gay marriage.

A question you might ask yourself is if your line of thinking is in this direction because of what your beliefs about marriage are. I could have just as easily started a thread questioning if people who are against gay marriage are all bigots and racist. I could probably even tie in a comment about how that relates to people who did not vote for Obama. But that would be inaccurate (in general) and hypocritical to my own beliefs. People are entitled to their own individual beliefs. And last I checked, homosexuals are individuals like anyone else...

Willing gay couples who have jumped through all the "hoops" that heterosexual couples have to go through to get a civil union, marriage or both should be allowed to do so. By separating the two types of unions, however, it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, be it the gays' civil rights or the heterosexuals' freedom of religion.

I can agree with this in principle, but there would be huge difficulty making such a thing happen. And from a religious institution's political standpoint, they would basically be up against gay couples and heterosexual couples who desire the right to use the word marriage. They'd lose that argument and they know it. And consider, that such a right to a word is merely semantics. It doesn't change anything as it applies to individual couples. Or to put it another way, gay couples being married does not cause strain or difficulty in a religious heterosexual couple's marriage.

[IBCoupe]

Sure, I'll bite. Does anyone else want to get involved so it's not 4-on-1? I'd do it, but even I can't come up with a convincing argument against it.

I believe, ultimately, that childrearing is the primary justification for marriage. Any other reason is simply self-serving, an excuse for a fine public ritual, something that doesn't particularly matter to society.

I think there's a lot of truth to your second sentence, and almost none to your first. For some people, childrearing is the reason they get married. For others, it's the reliability of a partner, committed by mutual assent (i.e. contract) to be with you. For others, it's an emotional bond. And for others, it's to make a statement to the rest of the world. I don't begrudge people for the reasons they get married, as it makes absolutely no difference in my life.

If the couple decides to divorce, no one really gets hurt. Childrearing is more important, and should offer a formal legal way for a man and a woman to expect some stability in their family bond.

No one, outside of those directly involved, really is hurt by a divorce.

I want to hear if people actually respect marriage.

I respected it enough to enter into it almost two months ago.

Do the same people that brush off the responsibility of marriage and childrearing also want gays to have the same cultural status as a straight couple?

Who exactly brushes off the responsibility of marriage? I feel like you're conflating a person's opinion of someone else's marriage, and a person's opinion of marriage.

It may just be that the culture no longer respects marriage, given the dismal divorce and single parent rates over the past generation or two.

Divorce rates are on the decline, and have been for a couple decades now.

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.

I was raised by married parents, each having been divorced once before. They're the anti-statistic, as they'll have been together for 30 years, come August, having raised two fully-functioning children, one an accountant, and the other on his way to being a lawyer.

It seems to me that the ones most adamantly against gay marriage have literally no stake in the matter. Your comments are infuriating in their condescension and presumption that only the people who have no respect for marriage at all could be those who would have no problem with two guys they've never met and will never meet being married, somewhere, sometime.

In short: who the frack are you?

---------------------------------------
EDIT:
So I'll try some Devil's advocate.

Being that this society determines for itself what values it wants to instill in its future and current generations, what's wrong, exactly with restricting marriage between a man and a woman? It's a social arrangement, and as such, it needs the agreement of everybody around it for it to actually exist. Kinda like the concept of currency - it only exists because we all agree that it does. We could just as easily pretend that there are no marriages, no unions, and that everybody should be for themselves and themselves alone.

But we don't decide that. We decide that some people should be allowed to marry, and being that we're arbitrarily coming up with this rule, why not arbitrarily come up with some restrictions on it? You can't marry your cousin, you can't marry a person without their consent, you can't marry a child, even if that child can give consent (in some states), and you can't marry a person who's genitalia don't align to yours.

There are any number of other restrictions we could apply, but that's a sufficient list.

[stebo0728]

This is a really tough topic to hit on without using religion, but I'm gonna give it a wag.

I also disagree that childbearing is the primary function of marriage, mostly based on faith reasons, as I consider the spousal bond stronger and of higher priority than the parental/child bond. And I'll leave that dangling there.

The only thing else I'd like to add, is an argument I get a bit tired of hearing. Some argue that homosexual marriage will devalue heterosexual marriage, and this is true I believe, BUT, the extent of this is far less than the devaluation caused by the last few decades of hollywood's heterosexual marriages. And no one fusses about that anymore, so I dont think that particular argument is entirely fair to make.

I'm uncomfortable with the whole idea of homosexual marriage, and even more so with homosexual child-raising, but most of that is faith based protest. What I believe to be best for children could only be proven with statistical data, and since we are just now breaching homosexual marriage, there is no statistical data of any significance yet on that side of the topic. Perhaps 20 years or so from now, when some goods statistics are available, a better assessment can be made, BUT, Im sure at that point any changes made now will be virtually irreversible. Catch 22 I suppose.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Our feeling is that the state should be restricted to the use of the term "civil union" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. "Marriage" should be left to the various religious bodies to be applied as their beliefs allow. If that includes marrying gays, fine with us. There is both a legal side and a religious side to this debate and the two need to be separated.

Now why do the religious folk get to have dibs on Marriage, legal or otherwise? I agree the two need to be separated but us Heathens came up with the idea way before any modern religions were established. Before a certain Bishop came along it was a private matter with no religious connotations at all, It was adopted by the church in order to guide people to certain dogmas. Why can't it be like that currently and the various religions come up with their own solutions?
I will concede that it was a religious institution before it was a state matter though.

[mattblancarte]

respect for marriage

How does gay marriage "disrespect" heterosexual marriage? How do lesbian mothers "disrespect" heterosexual marriage?

I "respect" marriage enough to say that government should play absolutely no role in recognizing and enforcing laws disallowing unions between two individuals (regardless of sexual orientation).

Civil unions. End of story. Anything else is discrimination against one or more parties.

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

Think "it's fine?" What does that even mean? Are you implying that you'd prefer anything outside this construct to be an illegal act? Teen mommies with auto-marriage laws? Incest babies whose mom is also their sister through marriage to the father?

Is marriage even important? Does the lack of a permanent father affect the child's chances in the world? Does it matter if the mother ever knew the father, much less married him and stayed with him?

In order:

1. Yes
2. Yes, but it does not conclusively "ruin" a person in all scenarios.
3. It would be preferable for the mother of a child to be aware of the man responsible for insemination.

This is a really tough topic to hit on without using religion

Agreed. The debate would be over quickly for the majority of religious Americans if were to be delivered a few choice quotes from the Bible.

Some argue that homosexual marriage will devalue heterosexual marriage, and this is true I believe

There goes them beliefs again y'all. Heaven forbid we require data to prove this here assumption!

Even if this belief was true in the literal sense, how would that give you enough gall to discriminate? Are you that insecure about your own marriage? Why do you care how other people perceive your marriage?

Why do you anti-gay marriage people have to fight to keep down your fellow man? It's not like gay marriage is a license for public displays of butt sex. Good lord... You people are so intolerable sometimes...

[srellim234]

Now why do the religious folk get to have dibs on Marriage, legal or otherwise? I agree the two need to be separated but us Heathens came up with the idea way before any modern religions were established. Before a certain Bishop came along it was a private matter with no religious connotations at all, It was adopted by the church in order to guide people to certain dogmas. Why can't it be like that currently and the various religions come up with their own solutions?
I will concede that it was a religious institution before it was a state matter though.

This debate has everything to do with the fact that, as you concede, it was a religious institution first. You will not ever get the religious folks to quit referring their church unions as marriage. The gay argument is first and foremost for civil rights. Rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. The two need to be kept separate. Removing the words "marriage" and "married" from all public records is an easier method to accomplish the goals of both sides and force rational discussion.

If gays want to call themselves "married" after a civil union, big deal. Same goes for heterosexual couples. They can call themselves "navel oranges" for all we care. But we need to find a legal way to allow gays to receive the civil rights they deserve as citizens of this country. If they wish to get married in a church that is a totally separate issue and should be left to whatever church will perform the ceremony. Or not. Remove the word "married" from government paperwork and regulations and you remove most of the argument people are currently screaming about based solely on emotion and religion while they try to apply their religion to civil law.

The same applies to heterosexual civil unions and marriage. For legal purposes get "hitched" at city hall or the courthouse. Get "married" at a church or some other non-legally recognized ceremony. On this issue one should have absolutely no relationship to the other. You can have one, the other, or both. And quit allowing church ministers to perform civil ceremonies or sign off on civil documents as is now currently the practice.

[mattblancarte]

Christians (THE ONLY PARTY IN OPPOSITION) want to stick to the word of the Bible. So, lets:

- Stone to death non-virgin brides (DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21)

- Stone to death anyone committing ANY act of adultery (DEUTERONOMY 22:22)

- Make divorce 100% Illegal (MARK 10:1-12)

- EXECUTE married couples who have sexual intercourse during the woman's period! Yay! (LEVITICUS 18:19)

- If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir (MARK 12:18-27)

- If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. (DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12)

Oh wait... that's all batshizzle insane. Let's not do any of that.

All you have to do is accept the fact that there is no basis to discriminate against gays, even using the Bible as your reference for morality.

Case closed.

[srellim234]

You say, "All you have to do is accept the fact that there is no basis to discriminate against gays, even using the Bible as your reference for morality. You say "All you have to do" as if it's a simple thing and will be accepted by the religious right, RINOs and church leaders who have theology degrees because YOU say so. They'll never do it. Your solution does nothing to actually create a dialogue bridging the current impasse. You can grab all the individual passages of the Bible to attempt to show how ridiculous you believe they are; you will NEVER get religious people to cave in to admitting it. You are messing with emotion and spiritual belief.

Understanding your opponent and accepting what you can't change about them is the first step to a realistic dialogue and solution.

[96Qowner]

As the original poster, It appears necessary to point out to the readers of the topic that it has nothing, nada, zip to do with religion and it would be nice if everyone could stop implying that it does.

We're talking about our culture and the government's role in regulating it. The government recognizes marriage and provides legal rights to that marriage in its own self-interest. I don't know anyone who cares what other people say and do in their own church regarding marriage. It's, frankly, none of our business. I'm sure not interested in discussing it.

But I am very interested to find so much hostility in the responses, especially from those who imply that their views on gay marriage show that they are "more" tolerant.

[srellim234]

I'll remind everyone to tread lightly on the impending religious viewpoints that will be brought up in a thread like this.

Not just because of forum rules, but also the fact that arguing religious viewpoints only further entrenches people into their corners and leads to no dialogue at all. That's why my wife and I focus on changing the civil side of the equation while allowing people to practice their faiths as they see fit.

[srellim234]

96- Unfortunately, religious leaders have a tremendous amount of influence with their followers and what they do at the ballot box. They exert a lot of pressure on our civic leaders to change laws to lean in their direction, even to the point of putting into place laws that are based somewhat on religious belief. Tough to separate the two, especially when trying to discuss issues like abortion and gay marriage. They're very emotional "hot button" issues to the religious and those people are pretty good at showing up to vote.

[srellim234]

BTW, Matt, Christians are not the "THE ONLY PARTY IN OPPOSITION." The Dalai Lama, leader of the dominant Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism, has spoken out against it.

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/02/b ... e-sex.html

I'm sure we could find others but that really shouldn't apply to what takes place on the government side of this issue.

[OutToWinPAHC]

Your gay and you want to get married... TILL DEATH. Go for it IMO, I feel they should be able to.

I also think divorce should be harder to do, that way people don't rush into these things. I personally think homosexual unions last longer.

As for the president, ehh not my kinda guy, but electoral college allowed for that.

[96Qowner]

Maybe a little education on the subject will help bring it back into context. I know it's only a Wiki page, but hey, it's something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

I'm not sure I understand what it means to say "til death do us part" ... "unless I change my mind." Divorce is inevitable, just as abortion is, but the culture could at least proscribe some sort of shame to it, just as it could for having children without any thought of providing the child with the advantages of a father. Most of the responses have suggested that marriage is respected just as much as it always was, even though barely half of our population thinks it's necessary to the children.

Somehow, it's the ones who dare to suggest that it's wrong to raise kids without fathers in the home, that it's a detriment to our culture, that are vilified by the laughably "tolerant." Well, I dare to say so. I'm always mildly disgusted with people who divorce with children in the home. Too bad, I guess - just sucks to be their kids and have to enter adulthood without all the proper tools to relate to people in a healthy way. That's my opinion. I have no issue with gays and marriage. They can call themselves whatever they like, and if they're my friends and I respect them, I will have no issue with it. In fact, I have a cousin who's already been married and divorced - never had an issue with it - only disappointed that the "commitment" turned out to be garbage, just as so many hetero marriages do.

[mattblancarte]

Understanding your opponent and accepting what you can't change about them is the first step to a realistic dialogue and solution.

I fully understand the majority opponents in the US (fundamentalist Christians) of gay marriage. If I'm mistaken, please let me know.

I see absolutely zero attempt in your posts to pose a solution.

You say, "All you have to do is accept the fact that there is no basis to discriminate against gays, even using the Bible as your reference for morality.

Yes. Please retort, if you can.

You say "All you have to do" as if it's a simple thing and will be accepted by the religious right

It's easier than you think. I am willing to bet that if church leadership around the country were to tell their flocks to love gays, we'd have a full-blown gay love fest on our hands.

They'll never do it.

Incorrect. There is NOT uniform belief amongst Christian churches here in US and across the globe. Many churches DO believe in equal rights for gays.

YYour solution does nothing to actually create a dialogue bridging the current impasse.

I'd argue the opposite. Most staunch Christians that I present this argument to concede that they misunderstood the teachings of Christ and are willing to entertain the idea of equal rights. My aunt has her doctorate in a related field, and conceded to me just last summer during a family gathering.

You can grab all the individual passages of the Bible to attempt to show how ridiculous you believe they are; you will NEVER get religious people to cave in to admitting it.

Again, you have no basis for this assertion. I can provide examples proving the contrary.

You are messing with emotion and spiritual belief.

Your point?

Understanding your opponent and accepting what you can't change about them is the first step to a realistic dialogue and solution.

Trust me. I do.

BTW, Matt, Christians are not the "THE ONLY PARTY IN OPPOSITION." The Dalai Lama, leader of the dominant Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism, has spoken out against it.

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/02/b ... e-sex.html

I'm sure we could find others but that really shouldn't apply to what takes place on the government side of this issue.

I am willing to amend that, as I wrote it quickly. I meant to say the only MAJORITY party. The Dalai Lama has little to no influence in this situation.

That's why my wife and I focus on changing the civil side of the equation while allowing people to practice their faiths as they see fit.

Civil unions. Problem?

As the original poster, It appears necessary to point out to the readers of the topic that it has nothing, nada, zip to do with religion and it would be nice if everyone could stop implying that it does.

This post displays a startling amount of ignorance, 96. Nothing to do with religion? Seriously???

But I am very interested to find so much hostility in the responses, especially from those who imply that their views on gay marriage show that they are "more" tolerant.

This is absolutely inane.

Am I tolerant of people who want to DENY PRIVELEDGES TO MY FELLOW MAN? Hell no. I will fight for equal rights every time. Even if it makes you uncomfortable.

I'm hostile because opponents of gay marriage are hostile enough to deny equality. Does that make sense to you?

If someone can explain to me the difference between the gay rights debate and race-based debates AT THEIR CORE, please do.

[96Qowner]

As the original poster, It appears necessary to point out to the readers of the topic that it has nothing, nada, zip to do with religion and it would be nice if everyone could stop implying that it does.

This post displays a startling amount of ignorance, 96. Nothing to do with religion? Seriously???

Yes, seriously.

But I am very interested to find so much hostility in the responses, especially from those who imply that their views on gay marriage show that they are "more" tolerant.

This is absolutely inane.

Thank you for that scintillating opinion. Maybe you can imagine how pertinent I think that statement is. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. My opinion generates hostility in you and people like you. I believe you're entitled to your opinion and I've been eager to hear it. You think of yourself as a tolerant person, do you? I'm just not seeing it, I guess, not that it matters. I must be ignorant and inane.

[AppleBonker]

I don't think I was very hostile in any of my responses. And, some of that hostility you are seeing may be a result of the apparent demeaning tone you used in the first post?

[96Qowner]

I don't think I was very hostile in any of my responses. And, some of that hostility you are seeing may be a result of the apparent demeaning tone you used in the first post?

Yes, you've been a good person to have a discussion with.

"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.

And ... tone? Seriously? Some imagined "tone" invites direct insults in response? Huh, imagine that. Mightly convenient, I have to say.

LOL ... "apparent" ... c'mon. I'm just trying to have an interesting conversation with people who disagree with me. Discussions with people I agree with are kinda pointless and unsatisfying. This way, I get to learn. And "apparently", on this board, if I want to participate, I'm going to have to get used to being insulted by the good tolerant folks who disagree with me, and don't like my "tone".

Yourself excluded, Bonker. Thank you.

[mattblancarte]

Yes, seriously.

I queued this up so that you could prove your point with logic. I await your response in which you can explain the complete and utter disconnect between anti-gay sentiment and religion.

I have no doubt you will fail in doing so.

Thank you for that scintillating opinion. Maybe you can imagine how pertinent I think that statement is. You have an opinion, I have an opinion.

You are very welcome, sir. I have many more

I absolutely can imagine, which is why I believe your opinions are based in ignorance. You have yet to provide any legitimate retort to ANY of my arguments. I await your challenge, sir.

My opinion generates hostility in you and people like you. I believe you're entitled to your opinion and I've been eager to hear it. You think of yourself as a tolerant person, do you? I'm just not seeing it, I guess, not that it matters. I must be ignorant and inane.

Yes, your opinions generate hostility. Big surprise.

The very reason for the hostility is that you YOURSELF are hostile towards gays. You wish to deny them happiness and love... AND TAX BENEFITS. Pretty simple to digest, yes?

You seem to toss around the term "tolerance" without a clear understanding of its meaning and relevance in this conversation. If you are to suggest that we should all be tolerant of ANY action or inaction, you are mistaken. I don't expect that of you.

I'm sure you are a tolerant person in some ways. Clearly not in other ways.

I am generally a tolerant person, yes. I am absolutely intolerant of those who attempt to hold down my fellow citizens in their pursuit of peaceful happiness.

The inanity of your previous post was based in your fallacious assumption in which you see a complete disconnect between religion and the anti-gay sentiment in this country. It was also rooted in your conflation of the word, "tolerance."

[mattblancarte]

"Apparently" demeaning? No, sorry, but I disagree. I insulted no one, I demeaned no one, apparently or not

You insulted me by demeaning my fellow man in saying their peaceful actions are not to be legal or recognized with any sort of legitimacy.

Are you in denial of this?

[AppleBonker]

"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.

[srellim234]

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

"I see absolutely zero attempt in your posts to pose a solution."

Multiple times here I have advocated taking the word marriage out of the civil side of the equation and allowing churches to handle the religious side of marriage. Civil unions for civil issues with marriage ceremonies separate and freestanding by the churches or any other body that chooses to do them, though not in an official government capacity. You need to read all of the posts above.

"You say, "All you have to do is accept the fact that there is no basis to discriminate against gays, even using the Bible as your reference for morality. "

Nowhere did you cite a Biblical reference in support of gay marriage. Only passages that have nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.


"It's easier than you think. I am willing to bet that if church leadership around the country were to tell their flocks to love gays, we'd have a full-blown gay love fest on our hands."

Yes, we would, but exactly how do you propose to get all that church leadership to do it.? It's obvious from the discourse, and lack of it, in this country that you can't do it. There are far too many individual sects, branches, groups, whatever in this country to do it. If a governing body had universal control we never would have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church.

"Incorrect. There is NOT uniform belief amongst Christian churches here in US and across the globe. Many churches DO believe in equal rights for gays."


There never WAS a uniform belief. Certain Christian churches believed in equal rights for gays from the beginning and didn't need convincing. Some accepted over time. Some never will. Not any more than Mormons and the government have exterminated a belief in and the practice of polygamy throughout the entire country.

I'd argue the opposite. Most staunch Christians that I present this argument to concede that they misunderstood the teachings of Christ and are willing to entertain the idea of equal rights. My aunt has her doctorate in a related field, and conceded to me just last summer during a family gathering.

A few people anectodally does not a universal acceptance of change make. Go tell the Pope and the College of Cardinals in the Vatican that they misunderstand the teachings of Christ and see how far you get. Same thing for the Faculty and staff at Trinity College. Many other branch of Christian Churches, too. From where to you derive you qualifications as a Biblical scholar, and why would those bodies accept YOUR teachings??

" (me) - That's why my wife and I focus on changing the civil side of the equation while allowing people to practice their faiths as they see fit.

(you) - Civil unions. Problem?"

I absolutely don't understand what your part of that means as I addressed all of that and made proposals earlier in this thread. I'm the one who proposed civil unions on the government side in the first place. Leads me to believe you have me confused with someone else.

[IBCoupe]

As for the president, ehh not my kinda guy, but electoral college allowed for that.

Also, the election allowed for it. Pretty sure he won the popular vote, too.