|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Madelynn Taylor, of Boise Idaho, recently asked the veterans cemetery there to bury the ashes of her beloved with her in the cemetery when she passes. She was turned down because they were not married, could never have been married in the tolerant state of Idaho and thus cannot have those ashes interred in her own grave. Madelynn, 74, is gay.
Madelynn served our military for some 8 years, from 1958 to 1964. She has earned our respect and our thanks but apparently not our understanding or caring. Too bad, Madelynn, your insidious, evil gay agenda came to light when you asked to share a gravesite with your partner.
How pathetic will we get before we truly exhibit a little love and caring of our fellow man (and woman)?
Can any of those opposing gay marriage shed any light on this sad episode? Why? Why do we figuratively spit on a woman like this? What is there within us that promotes such hatred and intolerance? Surely not the dreaded "gay agenda" we see here...
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/3 … -with.html
If there is a national cemetery in Idaho---and I am sure there is, then the couple could now be interned together. This might be an option.
That said, as someone from a military family (my grandfather was a Marine in World War I; my father 82nd Airborne in World War II), I find denying these women the right to be buried together to be utterly disgraceful and a sad commentary on how little respect some people have for those men and women---gay and straight, who serve this country.
This certainly is a sad clash of circumstances for the women, and it is also an unnecessary one - at least as I see it.
But rather than being an anti-gay marriage, (or any other anti-gay issue), I see it as being similar to the "Zero- Tolerance" mindset. "Rules is rules, we gotta follow the rules."
The voting citizens of the state have every right to codify their definition of marriage. Whether you agree or disagree with their choice is on you.
But... how much common sense does it take to understand that to every rule there is an exception. How much common sense does it take to realize this isn't an instance that has any impact on their state's marriage views - neither financially or morally? How much common sense does it take to see this is an instance where the "letter of the law" does not serve the interest of the law?
I could go on with more "How much common sense...etc." but my point is that this is just another instance of some yahoo(s) too dumb or irresponsible to apply common sense and do what is right instead of being an automaton. And that includes every military and legislation person that was involved or even approached.
So there! I understand and agree with your condemnation of this occurrence. I just see a different cause of it.
You are asking some clerk somewhere to intentionally violate a law; a violation that, if discovered, will certainly cost them their job and possible a large penalty to "correct" what they did.
Not going to happen, not should it. The only people designated with that kind of power is a legislator, with the power to change the law. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of rules to be violated at will by anyone with a wish to.
Clerks---including those running cemeteries, do not function in terms of "common sense" but in terms of rules and regulations. And rules and regulations in a nation of laws not men , must be followed until changed.
That said, as you note, legislatures make laws and can and do and should change laws to reflect the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment which acknowledges that we and our marriages are all equal under the law---without reference to sexual orientation.
The way things are going, same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states within a couple years. Too many state laws were written with a religious book in mind instead of the US Constitution. I believe to make this a great country, instead of a laughing stock as we are seen now, is to do away with the individual states and become one nation. Too many states that resemble Samolia (i.e Georgia with their latest gun bill) and other third world nations. .
I agree. Except for Idaho - between being as Republican as it is possible to be, and heavily Mormon to boot, I expect it will take much longer than a couple of years. More like 50.
Great, we can all be like Washington D.C.
The federal government---as the US Constitution and US history make clear, is the only source of mechanisms (legal and legislative) available to protect the rights of Americans in all 50 states.
Among these mechanisms: Full faith and credit act of the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Bill of Rights.
Protecting the rights of ALL Americans throughout ALL 50 states is not being like Washington, DC. It is being essentially American.
"I believe to make this a great country, instead of a laughing stock as we are seen now, is to do away with the individual states and become one nation. "
This is not protecting state rights.
So states' right advocacy includes support of the denial of basic civil rights and civil liberties---as guaranteed in the US Constitution, to SOME people?
I figured as much.
The sky isn't falling.
You're using hyperbole to put words in my mouth.
I said the abolishment of states isn't protecting state rights.
Easy for you to say that the sky is not falling.
I wonder if the old woman whose partner has died and who knows that she cannot be buried with her thinks the sky is falling?
Is that seat taken?
Regarding the thread's topic, what basic civil rights and liberties are you seeing denied?
The details so far seem to indicate the state actions are within the the federal laws designed to protect what you are claiming is being denied.
Before you jump too far... I agree this is a sad situation that should have an easy common sense solution. I just don't see the tragedy of denied rights, (relative to those in the Constitution that you referred to), or travesty of narrow minds that you, (and others *cough...wilderness...cough...) appear to see. Some might even say the pinched foot is the one being stood on.
*cough...bigotry and intolerance...cough...is never pleasant and should not be...cough...a part of our legal structure delineating how we treat others.
Whoa there Charlemagne, that's a pretty sharp "double edged" sword you are swinging.
Bigotry and intolerance - condemnation of those who hold different opinions. Hmm...
In instances where it is easily conceded that what "everyone knows" is right, then using the "intolerant and bigotry labels might be a safe bet. But it might not be such a safe bet when what "everyone knows" isn't so universally accepted as right.
Of course it is all degrees, and you may see this as more acute than I, but I am concerned that you might get nicked in the fervor of the moment.
Of course I am speaking of the thread topic's specific example, not the "gay" conversation in total.
No. NOT condemnation of those that hold different opinions.
Just a resounding condemnation of those that hold different opinions AND demand that everyone else live by them.
So, the citizen's of the state, as a body sufficient to carry the vote, and within the bounds of federal laws, have determined the definition of marriage that will used in whatever situations a definition is needed - are demanding conformity?
I am aware that thought could be carried to the shores of extremes that definitely would deserve your condemnation, but I do not think this instance is one of them.
I think the woman's wishes should be accommodated. I think the "rule" needs some flexibility. But I do not think the citizen's are intolerant bigots. I think they have a different perspective. I don't think they mean harm to anyone. I think they have decided, as a majority, that this is what they believe, and you condemn them as bigots for doing so.
I have a certainty that I have read your condemnation, on other issues, of a minority forcing the actions of a majority. Yet you pick this issue as being "different."
Charlamagne's favorite was Joyeuse. And it was double-edged too.
I would agree somewhat...EXCEPT that the root of the problem is gay marriage. Not the ashes in the crypt - as you have pointed out that could be handled by letting any ashes the "owner" wanted in there and it would harm no one. A child. A dog or parakeet. A stranger. A piece of wood, signifying the god of the forest. Any ashes up to a specific volume.
And yes, the bigots demanding that gays not marry absolutely mean harm to them. They mean to keep them from the rights they have and they know very well that it will hurt people to do so. The same bigots have decided they believe something (homosexuality is wrong) and everyone participating in any form of the "wrongness" needs stamped on and forced to change to conform to the bigots opinions.
No, they are not demanding that gays don't marry. They are just demanding the understanding that what they see as marriage does not accommodate two gay participants.
I see this topic, gay marriage, as one of personal beliefs that, barring contravention of federal laws, or extremes such as those seen in vehement anti-abortion actions, should be respected as personal beliefs - even if you don't agree with them. Condemnation and claims of bigotry don't bolster your righteousness, they just lead to those nicks I spoke of.
I have my beliefs, you have yours. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. I am not against gay marriage, but I do not condemn those that are. And I think you are wrong for doing so.
Now, let's gather this thread's participants and head for Baskin-Robbins; 31 flavors, something for everyone.
I remember Baskin Robins! Definitely something for everyone.
They are just demanding that everyone join them in agreeing that marriage not include gays, but are not demanding that gays don't marry?
How does that work again?
Well, ya got me. Poor wording. An assumption. I was sloppily less than clear.
Yes, it could be said they are demanding that gays don't get married in their house - since their state is one that has not legalized gay marriage. But they are not kicking gays out of the house. They don't have a bouncer at the front door checking IDs. And I don't think they have patrol cops keeping an eye on the neighborhood to make sure no married gay couples sneak in. Or any other things you might expect intolerant bigots to do.
So they are not demanding that everyone agree with them, just that everyone in their house abides by their rules. Isn't that the right of any society - to set its own rules? (within the aforementioned bounds of course)
... and following another participant's example, I will leave you with a "Gumpism:"
"... and that's all I have to say about that."
But they don't own the "house" (state). The gays (and others that don't care) own it as much as they do.
Not being kicked out of the house? But they are - it is fully legal to evict or refuse to rent to a gay in the wondrous state of Idaho. The measure trying to put a stop to that one failed, too. And it wasn't but a few years ago a gay was drug behind a car until nearly dead and tied to a barbed wire fence to finish the job.
Nope - it is not society's right to set rules for everyone in the state that discriminate against a few. It isn't even their (ethical) right to set rules when breaking the rules doesn't affect them (such as gay marriage) - that's the beginning of bigotry or, just as often, a religion based government. It's why so many of the laws against gay marriage failed - they violated the higher law of the constitution.
"Nope - it is not society's right to set rules for everyone in the state that discriminate against a few. It isn't even their (ethical) right to set rules when breaking the rules doesn't affect them (such as gay marriage) - that's the beginning of bigotry or, just as often, a religion based government."
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with it to an extent. That logic, however, does have its limits. A clear definition of marriage must be made, one that doesn't vacillate. Otherwise, you could make the same argument that you've made about allowing consensual and age-appropriate bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, and even beastialic marriage. It's not necessarily a right just because it doesn't harm people. Further, the pervasive bashing and name calling of Christians and conservatives who disagree with the PC crowd or the Left's desire to allow same-sex marriage is kind of bigoted too, don't you think?
Do you see any problem with this definition?
"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
You mean, we should be tolerant towards the bigotry of Christians?
What's your point, that you're angry at Christians for disagreeing with your definition?
Your activity at HubPages is quite interesting. You've posted over a hundred different posts bashing Christianity. Are you really pushing for same-sex marriage or just adamantly opposed to Christianity?
It isn't "my" definition, it is the common definition. What is the disagreement with that definition?
Interesting, rather than sticking to the subject matter, you are focusing on me. Do you not have anything to say about the the definition?
It is the definition you choose. There are plenty of definitions. Here's another:
noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages
1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
You avoided the question. You've posted over a hundred different posts bashing Christianity. Are you really pushing for same-sex marriage or just adamantly opposed to Christianity?
Should consensual and age-appropriate bigamy be permitted too? How about beastialic marriage? Neither harm anybody. Aren't you restricting freedom by not allowing this if you allow same-sex marriage? If so, this could be considered bigoted.
Some people love to bash Christians under the guise of tolerance.
Thank you for that excellent definition. From the very same page you got that definition is this definition:
"1.1. a formal union between partners of the same sex."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin … h/marriage
Marriage is one thing, bigamy and bestiality are another, by definition.
No, it would be confusion on your part based on the definitions.
Yes, you found the second definition. I printed the first definition. I doubt courts really care about dictionary definitions, so the whole definition argument, either way, is moot.
Bigamy is still a form of marriage, and if you are to allow same-sex marriage, there will be some that say that other forms of marriage should be allowed too. If you are to allow same-sex marriage based on the premise that not doing so violates rights and is bigoted, why wouldn't you extend marriage to those who wish to enter into consensual, age-appropriate bigamy? Neither same-sex marriages nor bigamy harms others when it's consensual and age appropriate, right? Thus, allowing one but not the other could be construed as bigoted.
I can't speak for ED, but yes, I would allow that. Bigamy, polygamy, polygyny, line/group marriage, etc. Pretty much whatever competent adults want to do. It's none of my business, and can't see why anyone other than those involved think it is theirs, either.
Interesting. I appreciate the fact that you don't want the government telling people what they can and can't do. Still, I don't believe that the majority of Americans will agree with you, leaving this whole debate quite messy.
I also appreciate the fact that you answered my question. Nobody has been willing to answer up until now.
No, the majority of Americans won't agree - they are positive they know better how everyone should live their lives than those living them. God has told them so, or they are just naturally morally superior or maybe they're just massively egotistical but whatever it is they know better and will apply whatever force they can to make sure you live "correctly".
Courts actually do care about definitions, they have to care. What else would they base it on?
That is true, do you have a problem with that, as well?
I could care less if people wanted to enter into that marriage. Do you care?
It might be construed that way, that is, if one were to understand that bigamy laws were a direct result of Christian bigotry.
Nope, not a clerk. someone with the authority to make an exception. Or someone with the authority to take it to someone with the authority to make an exception. Or someone with the pull to get the issue on the proper table.
Or at least someone with the courage to take the first step up the ladder to a common sense solution.
Or, if in this particular instance if it takes a little bending - then bend.
As noted in this discussion:
The MAJORITY of Americans support same-sex marriage. And not only does the majority support same-sex marriage, but polling indicates that a majority believes that marriage equality is a constitutional right.
Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed.
In the 33 states that prohibit same-sex marriage, 53 percent of those polled support allowing it, while 40 percent oppose doing so.
And this data comes from a poll done by the conservative Washington Post published in March 2014).
The bottom-line: The majority of Americans---despite claims to the contrary by some or claims that marriage is immutably defined in "Biblical" or traditional terms, support same-sex marriage.
And by the way: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/arkansas-i … -1.2638710
And yet...the FACT is that one of the most populous and liberal states, voted to ban the practice. The majority of states that have considered the question have come down on the side of "NO!".
Reality, unfortunately, does not seem to agree with the polls.
I hear you.
My guess: Activists vote. Especially on ballot issues and in primaries. And so, we are seeing activist voters controlling outcomes.
We saw this in New York a couple of years ago with the Republican primary for a candidate for governor. One guy running was moderate and would likely have been able to win in NY as we have a long history of electing Republican governors. The other guy was beyond comment. NOBODY In NY though the other guy would win. But, he did. The reason: Turnout in the Republican primary was less than 20% and polling showed that only extremist Tea Party voters voted. The moderate Republican was shocked---really shocked.
The result: Cuomo was re-elected in a landslide.
As for popular elections and same-sex marriage: The tide is changing. Remember, same-sex marriage came to Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington State through a popular vote.
And Maine had voted on this issue before and recently and had voted it down.
Activists do vote, on both sides of the issue. My guess is that the polls are skewed, that many are afraid to say how they really feel, because they will be persecuted for disagreeing with the PC crowd. I could be wrong though.
While I agree with mbuggieh and feel the tide is turning, I also have to agree that the polls are skewed. That the tide isn't turning nearly as fast as some would have us believe.
I fear that those who disagree with same-sex marriage will end up being the persecuted. In the PC crowd's attempt to right a wrong, they've made it difficult for the opposition to speak freely without being branded a bigot. The message is: It's wrong to persecute people based on their beliefs, desires, and lifestyle as long as it's the right set of beliefs and desires; those who oppose this set of beliefs, the people who do not believe in same-sex marriage, can be openly persecuted. Isn't that a bit paradoxical?
No. It is not paradoxical.
You see, it isn't a matter of not believing in same sex marriage; it is a matter of not believing AND demanding that everyone else share that belief.
You want to believe it is a terrible sin, do it behind closed doors. You want to take your belief public, requiring everyone else to submit to your beliefs, expect to be persecuted for it. As you should be.
"You want to believe it is a terrible sin."
That's your assumption.
Your stance on same-sex marriage is not paradoxical, because you extend the right to marry to just about everybody, even bigamists. I don't agree with this stance, but your argument that freedom shall not be infringed is solid if you go to these lengths. Few people would agree with your views. The PC crowd wants to allow same-sex marriage but not allow other forms of marriage, such as bigamy or polygamy. So yes, it is paradoxical, for the majority of same-sex marriage supporters, to extend rights to one segment of the population but not another.
What is the "PC crowd"?
And what EXACTLY does same-sex marriage have to do with polygamy or bigamy?
When I mention the PC crowd, I'm referring to extremist progressives who are tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.
The vast majority of same-sex marriage supporters believe that gay people should be able to marry, because they have the right to do so. They talk about freedom and equality. They, want to redefine the terms of marriage, who can get married. Why draw the line there? Bigamists could then say that their rights are being infringed upon too. If age-appropriate and consenting participants want to enter into a marriage of three or more, one could argue that their rights are being infringed upon.
Do you have ANY idea whatsoever why same-sex couples want to marry?
Once upon a time people made the argument you made here (the "where will this all end" argument) to preclude the legalization of marriages between people of different religions and races.
Why does it matter to you if people engage in polygamy?
What does it matter to you what consenting adults do in THE most private space of anyone's life: Marriage and sexuality?
What difference can it possibly make to you if I have 5 husbands and/or 5 wives or if some guy down the street has 5 wives and/or 5 husbands or if we all have some combination of multiple wives and/or husbands?
"What does it matter to you what consenting adults do in THE most private space of anyone's life: Marriage and sexuality?"
You assume it does matter to me. People pounced on what I said, because I asked questions and provided a little resistance. I've yet to clearly articulate my opinion on the matter, in this forum. If you take the time to go back and read everything I've said, you'll find that I've even stated that the traditional conservative view might be paradoxical; I am a conservative. That was exactly my point. Those in favor of same-sex marriage often attack those who speak up and provide any level of opposition, those who ask questions. It's PC to jump on the same-sex bandwagon, and anybody who does not join in finds themselves under the microscope for daring to say otherwise. Heaven help them if they mention their religion. Then the atheists and those opposed to Christianity get very nasty.
"No, it is not paradoxical". The persecution for demanding others participate in your belief, not the belief itself. Beliefs seldom have a good reason behind them, just want and that funny feeling in the pit of the stomach. They cannot, therefore, be paradoxical, but persecution for acting on those beliefs, to the detriment of others, is NOT paradoxical. It needs to be done.
Or am I missing what you're saying?
I'm saying that some want to allow same-sex couples to get married, because they feel that gay people are having their rights infringed upon. They do not extend that same thinking to other people other than gay people, and that seems paradoxical. Using that same argument, shouldn't all people have the same rights?
To be fair, the Right's insistence that same-sex marriage is wrong, coupled with its desire for greater freedom, seems paradoxical too. That's why I say it's a messy debate, one that requires a bit more thinking than some PC progressives give it.
You seem to be the only person willing to answer some of these tough questions. While I don't necessarily agree with all of your views, I appreciate your honesty and desire to further freedom. Other people just ignore the topic and stick to their one-track debate. I feel the debate is a bit deeper than that.
Ah. Yes, THAT would be paradoxical.
I don't see the far, radical right as wanting greater freedom - for anyone but themselves. They want the right to beat the rest of us into submission, brainwashing our children and forcing us all into their mold. That's the only freedom they recognize.
Yes, the debate is deeper than simple gay marriage (thought it's apparently not so simple). Politically, though, it is probably best to regain our lost freedoms one small step at a time.
I'm torn in two different directions on some issues, my beliefs versus my desire for freedom.
The interesting thing about this issue is that many progressives and conservatives won't even debate it. That's why I see both sides as wanting us to do as they please.
When your beliefs negatively impact others for no more reason than you believe, you need some persecution yourself. This is a very major problem in our society, IMO.
There really isn't much to debate - so far it's either "MY god says it's wrong, so you can't do it" or "There is no rational reason to deny it so you can't forbid it". They two are completely incompatible, with no possibility of compromise, so why debate (speaking of gay marriage, not all the other types and variations man has used over our history)?
". . .you need some persecution yourself.'
With all due respect, when you wish persecution upon somebody because they disagree with your belief, you, yourself, need some persecution too, in my humble opinion. When those who are so interested in securing rights for gay people wish to quash others' First Amendment rights or wish them persecution for merely speaking their opinion, how are they any better? To grant freedom to one group of people while wishing ill will on another for merely speaking their mind is not really an admirable quality, and it really seems like biased hypocrisy. This is a major problem in society, the belief that you're right so the opposition must suffer for disagreeing.
While I don't agree with everything you are saying, I'm for freedom, and for that reason I fully understand where you are coming from on the same-sex marriage issue. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't listen to the opposition and afford them the opportunity to speak their mind. Then, if you have the votes, you can change the laws, but wishing persecution on those who oppose same-sex marriage is just as bad as what you are trying to stop, the mistreatment of people.
This is why we don't really know how many people are for same-sex marriages. Those who are opposed get ridiculed when they speak out against it, so many keep quiet. Great. You have the right to speak your mind. . .as long as it doesn't anger somebody who disagrees and wished pain upon you for saying your opinion.
First Amendment rights are quashed all the time, beginning with "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all". It does no one any good to declare that gays will burn for eternity because they are gay, not even the speaker. But it's not, of course "merely speaking their mind" - it's forcing, at gunpoint and threat of jail, others to agree with and abide by your own beliefs.
Much of our constitution consists of protection for the minority. The majority does NOT rule in this country, but must always consider the wants and needs of the minority - "having the votes" does not, therefore, give anyone an automatic "bye" on morality simply because their political strength makes it possible. And those abusing that strength actually do need persecuted. Maybe they will learn what it feels like and quit doing it to others.
Yes, I understand that.
It's wrong, however, to wish ill will upon somebody who disagrees with you, especially when you're claiming to champion freedom.
I'm sure some disagree with your disdain for Obamacare. Does that mean you should suffer because of your view? That kind of thinking is wrong.
I'm getting a little lost here.
It's not OK for force your beliefs onto someone else, but neither is it OK to object to that action. To (verbally) "persecute" or even pass laws to prevent such acts.
Speak your mind all you wish, just don't wish ill will on me for merely disagreeing. You come off as sanctimonious and vindictive when you preach freedom but then say those who disagree, with words, should suffer.
You've said that Obamacare is a joke. Though I agree with that assessment, some people disagree with you. They might get emotional and say that your stance is bigoted or hateful towards the poor. It would be amoral and wrong if they said, "I hope you get cancer, because you don't have it in your heart to help those who are less fortunate." That's effectively what you've said, perhaps with less hyperbole. You want people who disagree with your stance on same-sex marriage to suffer or be persecuted. That's not right, and it isn't really conducive to getting much accomplished.
You are reading into my words something that isn't there.
I don't wish ill on you for thinking some people are substandard or evil. I DO wish ill on you for taking action on those thoughts and trying to force those people into a mold designed by you to fit your beliefs. For taking their freedom, the freedom you continue to enjoy. It is the action that raises my ire, including inciting others to join you in controlling others, not simply the nasty thought that others don't measure up to your standards.
Obamacare has nothing to do with this and I don't believe you have much idea what my stance is there, or why. And believe me, the "why" plays a very large part in that stance and opinion.
According to you, I should simply stand by and allow the far right to exert their particular brand of control onto others, demanding by force of law that they follow the beliefs of those controlling bigots. And yes, they are controlling bigots and no, I will not simply stand by and let it happen. I will, if nothing else, promote freedom for all and tell it like it is (as in "controlling bigot"). If it hurts, good! If it makes them feel persecuted, good! Maybe it will make them think twice before acting on those nasty little thoughts that they are better than anyone else because their sexuality is "pure".
"I don't wish ill on you for thinking some people are substandard or evil."
I never said this. This is your assumption. I never really gave my stance. I merely provided counterpoint. Actually, you might be surprised by my stance. I'm just tired of the sanctimonious, PC attitude of you're evil, and you can't disagree with "us" mentality.
"According to you, I should simply stand by and allow the far right to exert their particular brand of control onto others, demanding by force of law that they follow the beliefs of those controlling bigots."
You shouldn't stand by and let the far Left be bigots either. Do you, for a second, believe that the slander that progressives direct at Christians would ever be directed at Muslims? Do progressives bash billionaires and corporations who support their election efforts? Do progressives really believe that welfare helps black people, or are they trying to garner reliance on government and votes? Progressives love affirmative action; does affirmative action treat people equally, or does it give preferential treatment to people based on the color of their skin and/or their gender? Some of this could be considered bigoted too.
"If it hurts, good! If it makes them feel persecuted, good!" Paraphrased, you are saying:
If you disagree with my belief, you should suffer. That's exactly what you claim conservatives are saying about gay people. Both sides believe they are morally right. It makes your stance every bit as wrong as what you are condemning.
What raises my ire is when people get so sanctimonious that they won't listen to others without getting emotional and often times, hateful.
I understand you haven't given your personal stand on the issue, but you continue to argue the prohibition side and it's a little cumbersome to always say "Some massive bigots that want everyone to agree with and join them in their belief system...". As you are arguing that side, let it just be "you" even if inaccurate.
Far worse is already directed at Muslims in that too many people think all Muslims are of the 911 mold.
IMHO "progressives" are just liberals, no more and no less. They just like the fancy name that tries to say "Look! I'm better because I progress rather than just change". All while just changing, sometimes for changes sake and sometimes for the worse. Nor do I find that their political stance on contributions has anything to do with the issue of gay marriage or bigotry.
No, paraphrased (which I have repeatedly pointed out) it says "When you control people for no reason other than your personal belief system you need to be persecuted a little". Which has little or nothing to do with "If you disagree with my belief, you should suffer". Now add in the Golden Rule of ethics, which nearly everyone professes to agree with and it gets even sillier. "I can marry whoever I want but you have to marry who I want you to".
Finally, attacking progressives or liberals doesn't bother me; at heart I'm an atheistic conservative. If you can imagine such a thing. I believe very strongly in personal freedom, personal responsibility and duty, and spreading all three throughout the country - it puts me square in the conservative camp, outside of the religion angle.
"Far worse is already directed at Muslims in that too many people think all Muslims are of the 911 mold."
Oh, really? I'm not saying that Phil Robertson wasn't crass or even highly controversial, but come on! Didn't Ahmadinejad also deny the Holocaust and advocate genocide? Muslims are treated far worse? Give me a break.
Here's a Democrat/Progressive who never seems to get persecuted for what he says. Would he be persecuted if he said the same thing but was a conservative?
"IMHO 'progressives' are just liberals, no more and no less. "
Perhaps. IMHO, they are the Tea Party of the Left.
Finally, attacking progressives or liberals doesn't bother me; at heart I'm an atheistic conservative.
You wouldn't know that based on all your comments about conservatives. In this forum, this is your first mention of bigoted liberals or the hypocrisy of progressivism.
Tebow's religion harmed whom? He was still bashed for his religion. . . Would a Muslim be bashed? We both know the answer.
Has it ever occurred to you that gay people are raised within the SAME American culture that "frowns upon" multiple marriage; that gay people are often themselves from Judeo-Christian traditions that do not accept multiple marriage as moral or ethical; that gay people are share an American history that outlawed multiple marriage?
As such---steeped in American culture and conservative religious traditions, gay people are no more willing or able to embrace the idea of multiple marriage than heterosexual people raised in the same environments.
Gay people want marriage for the SAME reasons heterosexuals want marriage---including for Judeo-Christian and moral reasons.
NO paradox here. Just reality. And that reality: Being gay does NOT mean that one is a sexual libertine.
Yes, we're from the same culture. That's obvious.
And if we are from the same culture, then why would we not share the same cultural values---particularly related to something so problematized in US culture as polygamy?
Sorry, but that is a strawman argument. If you can't focus on same sex marriage, then you have nothing to say.
Start a thread on bigamy and polygamy, perhaps there will be folks who respond to it that will show you why those types of marriages are not endorsed.
It has everything to do with same-sex marriage, because it raises valid arguments. If you are going to redefine who can get married, the question is can anybody get married to anybody or anything? If not, are we infringing on rights? It's all part of the same debate, and frankly, I don't care if it can be construed as a straw-man argument by some.
Wilderness seems to be the only person willing to answer the hard questions here. While I disagree with his answer, I respect both his honesty and desire to preserve freedom.
The problem with your argument: There is NO effort to "redefine" marriage. Marriage in the US is a civil contract between consenting parties; a civil contract that essentially defines familial bonds and defines material bonds.
The idea that marriage is between a male and a female is a tradition; a tradition NOT incorporated into state laws related to marriage until same-sex couples sought civil marriage.
Okay, let's restate this. There is an effort to redefine tradition. The end result is the same. It gets there with different words.
"Tradition". You mean the tradition started by your particular group, that changed what was then "tradition"?
For the "tradition" of marriage goes back far beyond anything anyone today can remember and includes nearly every possible method of gathering a family together. "One man, one woman" is a relative newcomer on the scene and not very "traditional" in the long view.
This is getting funny. . . What is my "particular group"?
Okay...and why exactly is a redefinition of "tradition" necessarily a bad thing?
After all, we in the US (as in the world) have a long history of redefining tradition.
Traditionally in the US only men with significant land holdings were allowed to vote. Long before the 19th Amendment we redefined "traditions" related to who could vote which enabled men without property to vote.
Traditionally, we believed that marriage should "happen" in terms of strict limits related to race, ethnicity, religion---including places where such terms were de facto rather than de jure. Clearly, we have redefined this tradition.
The list goes on.
Making the claim that same-sex marriage would take us down a road of tradition redefining that we have up to this point resisted is inconsistent with the facts of our social and cultural history.
We redefine traditions all the time as a people and a nation.
No one is taking away your right to speak freely in opposition, it's just that the opposition is based on bigotry.
It's entirely false, are you being persecuted? Do you know anyone who is? Do you even know the meaning of the word, 'persecution'?
I suspect the polls are skewed by the fact that respondents need to be able to read and write and understand the questions and by the fact that they are national polls and reflect national data rather than regional data.
Here in New England/New York there is overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was passed in New York, for example, in the Republican-controlled state senate. And in Maine, same-sex marriage passed by popular vote.
And failed in California, perhaps the most liberal state in the country. Your point again?
(note that insinuating anyone disagreeing with gay marriage is illiterate doesn't add to the discussion, either)
Having spent a lot of time in California, let me say this: There are many Californias.
While Los Angeles and San Francisco are liberal, San Diego---a military town, and much of the northern tier of the state are very conservative.
Remember, Californians elected Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson as well as current Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and former Congressman Bob "B-1" Dornan.
And a recent Gallup poll shows that there are more self-described conservatives in California than liberals:
The percentage of California voters who call themselves conservative equals 30.8 percent, Gallup said, while liberals equal 27.1 percent of the state's voters. Moderates represent a large swing vote with 37.1 percent of the voter base.
Much like other states, then, with some from each side and most from the center. Yet most states do not allow gay marriage, while the polls continue to say a large majority wants it.
Something just doesn't match up here, and I think it is skewed polls.
So, when did the US Constitution and 14th Amendment become the stuff of your imagined "PC crowd"?
And exactly where is the evidence of this "persecution" of those who take exception to same-sex marriage?
Your use of the term "persecution" is absurd.
No one is being "persecuted"; no gay rights activists and not their opponents.
I never said anything about the 14th Amendment. I spoke about the 1st Amendment. Does the 14th Amendment protect a bigamist's right to marry more than once? If not, why?
My use of the word persecuted is absurd? Persecuted is a strong word, much like absurd. If you would like to start a vocabulary, etymology, and/or grammar forum, I'll be there.
How would one quantitatively prove that a demographic is being persecuted? Shall I quote somebody, mention a poll, or post a link to a study? Prove I'm wrong. Prove that people who speak against same-sex marriage are not being persecuted. Prove that gay people are not being persecuted.
Please read this all the way through. It may seem a bit off topic, but it actually hits the nail on the head. It really does a fine job of describing what I'm talking about.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/12/ … chael-sam/
Demanding that someone prove a counter-factual is an old and tired trick.
You never responded to several questions. That's an old trick.
You questions are the demands for proving a counter-factual.
I didn't think it would happen. You'd have to substantiate your argument.
I'll ask one of the questions you ignored again:
Does the 14th Amendment protect a bigamist's right to marry more than once? If not, why?
Let me try to make this as simple as possible for you.
Part 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Basic translation: ALL Americans are equal under the law and that equality is a function of their US citizenship and nothing else.
If marriage between 2 people is legal, then there is no mechanism under the Amendment's language of "all persons" to make sex- or gender-based distinctions as to who can have access to this legal institution.
In other words, people are "persons" without---in the strictest of reads of this amendment, without reference to their sex or gender or other immutable trait. The only trait that matters is condition of citizenship.
If multiple marriage is illegal and is illegal for ALL Americans or for "all persons" then it retains its constitutionality under the 14th Amendment. No one in the US is allowed to enter a multiple marriage---not even Mormons who exchanged their First Amendment right of freedom of religion for statehood.
In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You cannot have legal institutions for some persons and not for some other persons.
If you don't like the 14th Amendment, you should do what some of your right-wing allies have suggested: Work to get rid of it.
Addendum and answer to comments below:
I think some of you (rather I know) are clueless as to exactly what a "straw man" argument is.
In my legal opinion, the 14th Amendment protects the rights of people to enter into multiple marriages as does the 1st Amendment. The only reason multiple marriages are illegal in the US is because sex-panicked Victorians and their Evangelical Christian (read Democrats and Populists) allies extorted a compromise from Mormons for Utah statehood.
That compromise: Comply with Evangelical Christian and conservative Victorian moralist (many of whom were Democrats---like William Jennings Bryan and who enjoyed significant popularity and political power) demands to modify your religion and accept denial of your rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments OR be denied statehood.
Statehood has value---particularly economic and security value.
The Mormons caved on a basic principle of their faith and were granted statehood.
The questions were:
Does the 14th Amendment protect a bigamist's right to marry more than once? If not, why?
You avoided the questions. These are some of the questions one has to answer when same-sex marriage is debated under the premise that freedoms are being infringed upon.
This Curmudgeon enjoyed and agrees with your link - thanks.
".... the conservative Washington Post..."
Have you ever read the Washington Post? Conservative it isn't. It has even been accused of being the official newspaper of the Democratic party.
". . .conservative Washington Post. . ."
I have never heard anybody call the Washington Post conservative.
If you read the Washington Post and/or any contemporary analysis of it, you would understand that since the 1970s its editorial stance has been increasing conservative.
The current owner of the paper---whose additional print media holdings include military- and real estate-based publications, is a self-described libertarian.
Do you even have a clue as to the identity of this famous owner?
If I were Madalynn, I would say a giant F you to the veterans' cemetary and take her business and her body and her loved one's ashes elsewhere.
My goodness. Why would you want to be resting for eternity with
people who don't acknowledge your life and love?
My father had planned to be buried in a military cemetary.
But my Mom died first. She wanted to be cremated.
He decided he would rather have his ashes next to hers.
I don't know if this VA cemetary does in-ground burials only.
If Madalynn's beloved is already cremated, Madalynn could get cremated and have a friend or relative put their ashes in the same container and "sneak" them into the cemetary's vault under her name.
Probably could not get away with it, but sure would solve the problem.
You know what they say. It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission :-)
As I read the article, Madalynn will be cremated as well, and put in an above ground receptacle.
I like mixing the ashes - a sympathetic crematorium operator could do wonders and the cemetery need never know. Of course, a name plate might be a little difficult...
I recall the crematorium lady giving us all kinds of verification and numbers and stuff on the box.
I thought to myself, "How would we really know who is in there? It could be a horse's ashes for
all we would know." Guess you have to trust them.
Another thought just occurred. The issue is with the Idaho vet cemetary. As pointed out, Idaho
is deep red and Mormon. It will not be changing the law on gay marriage anytime soon.
What about if Madalynn gets buried at Arlington, which I believe is NATIONAL? With change
of posture on gays in the military, that might be a possibility.
It's just sad all the way around. I cannot imagine how it would feel to have a lifetime partnership with the person I love and be denied legal standing with that person.
BTW, thanks for posting this wilderness. Good to see you!
She did comment that she could be buried with her loved one in Arlington, or any other national cemetery. It is only the wonderful state of Idaho that is so repressive and backwards, so concerned with this terrible gay "agenda", as to deny a final resting place together.
You are welcome, and good to see you, too. You haven't been around much lately - hope things are going well for you.
Good grief! What is the matter with people?!?!?!
From just a practical standpoint, does it matter even one little bit what someone asks to have buried with them? Take whatever/whomever you choose. What difference does it make to anyone?
From a human standpoint, it's appalling to me think that because two people have lived together, loved each other, known each other better than anyone else, cared for each other, made sacrifices for each other....these acts of selflessness and charity are dismissed, worse, belittled, because those two people were of the same gender.
I can't even address this rationally,?because it makes me really angry. I guess I just wanted to go on record as saying wrong, wrong, wrong! Shameful!
I am all for equal rights for everybody,I support gay marriage ,what really annoys me is when they become silly and overreach, like when it is no longer politically correct to say happy mother's day and you're suppose to say something else.like in some schools you can't say mother or father and you should only say parent. those things don't advance the cause of equality they feed the right wing loons' with rhetorical ammunition.
by Akriti Mattu2 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by Jason Menayan8 years ago
"Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic...
by Elizabeth4 years ago
Exodus International, the notoriously vocal organization committed to the idea that gay people can change their sexual orientation is closing its doors and changing it's message. Along with the press release...
by Elayne6 years ago
How do you feel about the homosexual agenda being taught to elementary children?http://www.ldsmag.com/lds-church-update … /6394?ac=1
by accofranco4 years ago
I love America so much and I really hope to see America last longer as the world's most powerful nation, but not with the way things are going right now in America.Anyway, to cut the long story short, I have studied the...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Is he for it, or against it? In 2008, he said he was against it. Now Axelrod says the POTUS is for it. I'm really curious. Have his views evolved?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.