The US president received an enthusiastic reception from gay supporters at a New York fundraiser, but a few dozen gay rights protesters outside the hotel and a handful of hecklers inside the ballroom where he spoke served as reminders of frustration that he has not done more for their cause.
I imagine he is doing all he can despite the opposition of the religious right, who seem to interfere in anything that involves growth and change.
There are those with in the Democrat party that also oppose gay "marriage." It is not just a phenomenon of the "religious right." There are those who believe that governments and courts have no business inserting themselves into an institution that has been in existence across millennia and cultures. It requires courts, law makers and regulators to define love and relationships.
The insatiable desire by governments to gobble up more and more authority over everything in their purview is likely to infect other purely cultural and social relationships. To restrict "marriage" to just two people, or people of a certain age range or genetic relationships or species all become arbitrary when one decides to hand over culture to the state.
We already see a movement arising among the foggy minded liberals world wide to declare animals to be people. The legal implications are staggering when we elevate the movement of the moment and its allies in government to a position of preeminence over long understood societal, cultural and "civilizational" truths.
There is a conceit in the contemporary. We believe that anything that predates us is foolish, restrictive, bigoted but not rooted in a long tested nature. We act as if we are standing on the shoulders of dwarfs when we are merely men as they were. Things persist for a reason and to undo them merely because we believe in our contemporary superiority is a poor reason, indeed. We do not live a life free from the cumulative triumphs and failures of centuries past. Marriage has endured as it is for centuries for a reason.
Oops, I failed to talk about the bible and Jesus. Sorry.
Marriage is indeed an institution that has lasted over millennia. It has, however, changed radically over that period as society has changed.
In the past, blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Children of any age could marry. Siblings could marry. While a handful of states allow first cousins to marry still, most do not allow that practice. Multiple wives and/or husbands could make up a marriage. One spouse (usually female) became virtual property of the other. Divorce was unheard of for any reason.
All of these things have changed as society has changed. They were undone "because we believe in our contemporary superiority". It is quite true that "We do not live a life free from the cumulative triumphs and failures of centuries past" as you state, but that implies that the failures need changed. And there are and were failures; we now believe that all of those marriage concepts from years past were failures or we would not have changed them. Gay marriage is another such failure.
Marriage has indeed endured as a human institution for centuries for a reason, but it has seen the enormous changes it has for good reasons as well.
There has been a constant in marriage.
Yes there has. At least two people declare to the world that they wish to co-habitate and live as one family.
Other than that, not much. We have seen one man and 10 or 100 women. We have seen the opposite. We have seen one man and one child. We have brother and sister, father and daughter. We've seen even two children far too young to have their own children, let alone support themselves. We have seen virtually every combination of two or more people joining in "holy" matrimony.
About the only thing we haven't seen (at least in the US) is two consenting adults of the same sex. Isn't it about time that we decided that they aren't, in fact, so special after all and allowed them the same thing the rest of us have?
Brother and sister? Father and daughter? Since when has marriage of incest been legitimatized?
Royalty often used that method of maintaining the "purity" of the bloodline and to keep it in the family. As knowledge of science and genetics grew it fell out of practice, to say the least. Parent and child is not unknown, either, and while uncommon has been accepted in the past.
We tend to be rather insulated from cultural practices used in the world as a whole, but when speaking of millenia of marriage customs it is necessary to look at everything and not just what we today find acceptable.
Like everything else man does, society changes. Marriage is one of the strongest customs in nearly every country, but can and does vary radically between one culture and the next.
I watched a TV documentary on (I think) an south American tribe where a man and a woman marry, but then the woman travels to different men to gain genetic variety. They don't recognize it as such, but the tribe is too small to give true variety any other way and they recognize that it is a virtual necessity if the community is to survive. Too many children by the same man is frowned on.
There is truly almost endless variety in marriage customs throughout the world and nearly as much in the heritage of our "melting pot" country.
Oh, don't go reminding us of history. We're meant to ignore the stuff that conflicts with our current narrative.
Yes anything the Leant Leftists doe not agree with is to be ignored. Nice summation.
And anything the right disagrees with is labeled "revisionism."
Amazing how that happens, isn't it?
Society may change; laws may change. But right and wrong does not change.
Kind of like divorce and remarriage, right? Still an unpardonable sin according to Jesus, but nevertheless fully legal.
So divorced and remarried people will most certainly spend an eternity in Hell according to Christian doctrine, but at least they can enjoy living with the person they love while they're still alive.
No... it is like moral and immoral... good and evil... good and bad... see how that works. And to all the moral equivalists I say... too bad. There is an has been morals in all cultures for all human history.
Acceptable and unacceptable.. see, easy to grsp. Black and white, come and go, live and die,... got it...
Unfortunately TMMason, you've no ground to stand on, except from your religious beliefs, which shouldn't have anything to do with someone's life. Your religious beliefs are for YOU in YOUR Life. Not others.
Gay rights to marry is not right or wrong. What you see as wrong is the sexual action associated with marriage. It isn't your right, to prevent their right to marry, because it has nothing to do with your life, even if it was taught in schools, it still has nothing to do with you, unless you are gay to begin with.
Your argument is flawed.
Like cup-cake and muffins, cake and bread... see Cags easy... and no alot of culures had morals not based on religion... so day and night... live and die... on and off... right and left... easy see...
"TMMason, you've no ground to stand on, except from your religious beliefs, which shouldn't have anything to do with someone's life."
Exactly. He freaks out when a bank offers a Sharia-compliant loan as an option to better serve its observant Muslim customers, but doesn't bat an eye when it comes to forcing others to live by his code.
TM is in a 1950s Joe McCarthy time warp.
We are all equal under the law... no special classes... no exceptions... simple concept.
And when are you actually going to comne up with an answer and not just, "TM's wrong".
Please!...you're mad because I showed your family and friends for the commies, and commie lovers they are in the other thread. Americans like you have destroyed this nation. I do not care if you like my opinions... not in the least, ralphy. Or you lil lap dogs.
And I have clearly stated my opinions and the non-religious grounds I base them on... you all just seem to think all moralism is religious. That shows that all you want is an atheistic immoral society... after all if all morals are religious and you cannot abide by that... then no morals should be in existence at all.
Too bad most people actually think morals are a good and necessary thing.
"you're mad because I showed your family and friends for the commies, and commie lovers they are in the other thread. Americans like you have destroyed this nation."
You did nothing of the kind. Repeating lies doesn't work with sentient humans.
But of course once again you ignore the concept of repentance and forgiveness.
I'm not in the mood to argue with you today Jason, unless you'd (for once in your life?) like to actually discuss/debate the actual issue without personally insulting people who hold to different standards than you.
My "yes indeed" response was to your first sentence. You went back and added an untrue comment about divorce being unpardonable.
And, as usual Brenda, you fail to keep your religious beliefs personal. Keep them out of other people's life.
You opninion of Morals being man-made is just that, an opinion. I choose to believe that Man's conscience is an inate guide from the Lord God. But we all have a conscience, except psychopaths of course, and we all relate to moral values, right and wrong, based on our conscience. So your argument is flawed Cags.
You can try to dismiss everyone who believes in God as if that alone disqualifies their view... but that shows how weak your arguments really are.
So have at it
That's where you are flawed in your argument.
Actually, you would be incorrect as usual. Not surprising that your religious beliefs wraps up your argument as flawed, before you even begin.
My argument isn't weak TMMason, your argument has no ground, because of your beliefs you fail to KEEP TO YOURSELF and OUT of other people's life. Do try to get over yourself and learn your place.
Edit: http://hubpages.com/hub/Controversial-R … sus-Morals
PROOF your argument is flawed and fails.
Oh Someone sounds a lil flustered.
My argument is perfectly valid.
We all have consciences, (except the posychopath). We all know right from wrong. We all can chose to do right or wrong, even with or without religion as a touchstone.
So your argument is flawed.
Morals exist, some based on God, some on societal norms and mores.
Flustered, not actually.
Actually, it's not.
Correct, everyone has a conscience, however, that doesn't make gay rights invalid, in and of, itself. Because, your conscience has nothing to do with rights.
You can keep saying that, but you'll continually be wrong. Too bad you won't see past your ego, long enough to see that you are wrong. What a shame.
Gays have the same rights as the rest of us already. No more extra rights for protected classes in this country. It is just another wedge the left wants to drive between us all. They have trhew same rights as all other and that is that.
And this conversation for the last 15 posts was about morals being based on religion. So do not try to twist it cause your shown to be wrong. Morals do not have to be religious based. That has been our dis-agreement for the last 15 posts, and now you want to run back to the original topic as if you never changed the subject.
As I said, one can speak of morals, without it being pushing a religion.
Apparently, not as you see it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.
Protected classes? Equality is more than protected classes, it's about everyone. Or did you miss that?
Always blaming things on the left, as per usual. When you fail to realize that it's "religion" and those of religious beliefs who are actually standing in the way.
As per usual, nothing but blowing smoke and blaming others. Good for you. You must be proud of yourself.
No, the last 15 posts have been about you keeping your religion and religious beliefs out of other people's life, which apparently you cannot do.
Again, you failed. I haven't twisted anything and you saying that I am, is just your misunderstanding of rights to begin with.
Agreed, morals do not have to be religious based, so keep your religious based morals to yourself. What part are you not understanding about keeping it out of other people's life?
Gay rights are just that Rights for Gays. You're the one bring up 'right and wrong', as if it has anything to do with a gay person's conscience. Which is what you have been saying. You are attempting to tie in an individual person's rights, which by your account, is based on morals of your religious beliefs, and the truth is that it's not based on morals of religious beliefs, but are made based on morals humankind has adapted. If you don't like it, too bad, but that is the way it is.
They have the same Rights as everyone else. They do not get any extra.
We all have the Right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Everyone has that right, none extra.
And that is so simple a concept, it is almost self-explainatory.
You can't repent while still maintaining the same sinful lifestyle. The Bible is clear on this. You must return to your first spouse if you are really to repent for the sin of divorce and remarriage.
Fabricating new "exceptions" might make you feel better, but if you're divorced and remarried you're living outside of Jesus's word, no matter how much you try to spin it.
Keep twisting in the wind like a torn up flag, Cags... oh sorry I didn't mean to intimate patriotism or Americanism with that flag remark.
See how absurd that sounds.
And yes Morals can be discussed without it being a religious push. That is just a fact.
And yes protected classes. Gays have the same rights as everyone else already. That is just another fact. Have a good day, Cags. I have shown your flaws to the world, now I must move on and crush some other Leant Leftists.
And the, "I been crushed by TM today" line, is to the LEFT, over by where Jeff is standing.
And a hub authored by you doesn't make your opinion fact. I explained the way you all like to support yourselves with peer review yesterday. What a scam... you couldn't even get a peer to review it.
You're the one who is standing a the edge of sand hill. Not me. I understand rights and I understand morals, both which you apparently do not.
It's not a problem. I am not a patriot to begin with, because I don't presently support America and all of it's supposed interests, or it's government.
Yes it can, but you are not arguing that. You're arguing from a position based on your own religious morals. Which are not the same thing.
If that was the case, then there wouldn't be an argument. Do you even think straight before you type?
Nice try. You've only shown that you lack the ability to understand rights of human beings and cannot see past your own ego, long enough to learn. You've not shown a lick of sense so far, so you couldn't have possibly shown any flaws in my argument.
"And the, "I been crushed by TM today" line, is to the LEFT, over by where Jeff is standing."
Wow, that's the funniest thing I've read today.
C'mon now Brenda - unless you are willing to unequivocally state that you and you alone are able to determine right from wrong then you know that every culture on earth has different ideas about it.
It was "right" once to burn witches. It was "right" to work 10 year old children 12 hours days in garment factories. It was "right" for Christians to slaughter, rape and plunder the near east in the crusades. It is even now "right" to perform female genital mutilation. It was "right" to own slaves, whether your own spouse or someone of a different color.
Some of these are from our own history and were considered to be absolutely right at the time. Some are from other countries and cultures, but all are now out of favor in our own culture and therefore "wrong".
Right and wrong are little more than cultural mores currently in vogue.
And yet the constant, even in your example, persists.
A constant for all of recorded history until about a hundred years ago was that women were not afforded a vote in the democratic process.
Would you have argued that those "liberal countries" that allowed women to vote early on in the early 20th century (strikingly similar to those allowing gays to marry today) were destroying a time-honored and incredibly valuable tradition?
Not the point. Marriage is a much older much longer held and developed a cultural tradition than anything else in the world. The notion of voting is, by comparison, new. Voting does not compare. How many societies have ever had voting? Yet all societies and cultures have marriage and it is man and woman.
It is very much the point. The line you draw with respect to the relative prevalence of divorce and democracy is completely arbitrary. With respect to our country, democracy has been around since the very beginning. Would the US be different if we didn't have a democratic system?
And marriage equality has existed for years in dozens of jurisdictions around the world. They all seem to be doing fine, just like those countries that have allowed women to vote. In fact, those that allow women to vote and gays to marry seem to be doing quite a lot better than those that don't.
Divorce? Democracy? Marriage equality is not the issue. The issue is if marriage should be redefined by government. If government insinuates itself into this institution than culture becomes subject to government a very dangerous place to be.
I said nothing about divorce but there are some sound arguments to be made about the impact of government on the stability of marriage. Also some argument to be made regarding the liberal re-writing of human history and biology and divorce.
The liberal has a vision of the world that is peculiar and personal yet insists that all others live in his vision. If a liberal gains sufficient power than he forces all others to live in his vision.
Sorry - divorce was in another thread. I mean marriage and democracy.
Liberalism opens up rights to people; conservatism closes rights to people. Allowing gay or interracial marriage, or women the right to vote, allows more people to enjoy time-honored traditions that are important to our civilization; this is why liberalism eventually prevails in these matters.
Arguing that certain rights should be limited to a certain class of people is profoundly antithetical to American ideals, which is why these types of arguments eventually die off.
Actually, some tribal African and American Indian cultures traditionally recognized same sex marriages (especially between men) as legitimate, and there is some evidence of marriages between men being performed in the early Roman empire and Ancient Egypt as well.
So no, the constant doesn't persist.
So you are saying that all cultural practices are equally valid. There is a reason why some cultures and their practices fade. What is being suggested now is that culture be subjected to court decisions.
Has there been a successful gay "marriage" referendum? When any referendum passes that defines marriage between one man and one woman it and its supporters are castigated as hateful. What bares that out? It is merely a reflection that American culture still defines marriage as one man and one woman - as it has for centuries.
It becomes obvious quickly that the only invalid culture is the one lived and defended by the majority of Americans and supported through out mallennia. This is the essential difference between conservative and liberal. The conservative seeks to defend the development and evolution of society. The conservative seeks to continue inexorable civilization.
To the liberal all of this is meaningless. The only thing that matters is a vision of utopia in which all others must be compelled to live either by violence or through manipulation and pressure. The liberal will retreat to the least democratic body, the courts, as a redoubt against democracy, society and culture. Ultimately everyone else is wrong and the liberal is right. Those who are wrong must be forced to accept the liberals utopian vision or suffer.
Luckily American liberals, at least for now, are mostly wimpy, whining, shouting, trash throwing, graffiti scrawling cry babies. It is when the American liberal adopts the tactics of European or Asian liberals that real violence will happen.
The problem is that America is based on freedom. We are all equal in the eyes of the law and of God. No individual or group is to be treated any different than any other. To my mind this completely overrides any idea that one group can "oppress" any other by demanding different standards.
Gay marriage bans fly directly in the face of this, but they are secondary and of less important and thus not to be allowed.
The two concepts (equality and gay marriage bans) present a dichotomy that can only be resolved by accepting the first, primary concept of our country.
Marriage = one man and one woman and has been for centuries. You do realize, of course, that only two centuries are available in America. AND that it is only the past couple of decades that polygamy has actually been prohibited? Laws may have been on the books but actual prohibition was not country wide until very recently.
Homosexuals are equal regarding marriage. A homosexual man can marry any woman, this is not denied to him.
That has to be the most empty and miserable argument in this whole thread. We are ALL free to to do things we don't want to do and won't do.
The thing the anti-equality folks are missing is that if same-sex marriage is legal, they too can get married to someone of the same sex!
Technically, it's called "coming out of the closet" and seems to be gaining in popularity.
Yes, especially among right-wing televangelists and politicians!(although they are generally loath to do so unless they are arrested propositioning an undercover cop, molesting someone, driving drunk, etc.)
Religious fanatics often display the morals of a junkyard dog.
Part of the myth is that they are forgiven, unlike the rest of us.
Hey! I live in Idaho, LL - is that a slap at our venerated politicians? First it was the toe tapping Senator from Idaho and now another politician was arrested with his camping trailer jackknifed in a neighbors driveway, too drunk to have any idea of where was or where he was going.
But, of course, they are still great and wonderful people.
Oh, we have them here, too! There was one state senator, Roy Ashburn, that was caught driving home drunk after being in a gay bar. He, naturally, was an anti-gay Republican.
But let's not forget about Mark Foley (FL), and some others.
Why do you consider it an empty argument? Argument by contradiction? Isn't the argument equality before the law? Or is it your contention that the courts should be deciding the bases for marriage? Is it love? Can you define love? Would you want the courts deciding questions of love?
I find your use of the word matrimony - like marriage it has a specific meaning. Do we want to determine all meaning of all words through courts and legislatures? Haven't human cultures done fine with out that liberal intrusion into culture?
If it is marriage and marriage is a legal contract between a man and woman then homosexuals are just as free to marry as anyone else.
It looks more to me like it is you that now wish to define everything by way of a law.
"IF it is marriage and (IF) marriage is a legal contract between a man and woman then homosexuals are just as free to marry as anyone else". You conveniently leave out the second IF.
Yes, it is marriage, but no, marriage is not a legal contract between a man and woman. Marriage is a legal contract between two people that wish the legal duties, responsibilities and benefits of such a contract. It is only recently that people have decided that the law is to be changed to say "man and woman". Neither I nor gays wish that that legal definition be changed as you do. It is not necessary and only serves to deny otherwise common rights to certain people.
As you say, we don't need the further intrusion of legislature into the private business of two individuals. Or are you now contending "that the courts should be deciding the bas(i)s for marriage" (your words)?
Can a gay American man get married to a Mexican woman and have that marriage pass muster by the Department of Homeland Security?
The US government has already made rules about what's considered a legitimate marriage. Consummation is one of them.
The case against marriage equality reveals itself to be a bunch of paradoxes, absurdities, outright lies and distortions, and other nonsense, which is why it's going the way of the dinosaur.
True. And recent surveys show that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. This represents an advancement of our civilization, in my opinion.
No they don't. And that is proven by the fact that the courts have to continually over-ride the will of the Majority in the states where it is legal. Because everywhere it is placed on a referandum it fails miserably.
Ralph is correct.
Unfortunately, the human race seems to have a built-in desire to control someone else. It is always much easier to get someone to join the crowd wishing to control than it is to get someone to fight for anothers rights and freedom. Particularly when they already have that freedom themselves.
In addition there is the method of using fear. Promote the idea that a particular group (gays in this instance) are different and fear and hatred almost automatically raises its head and makes it very easy to gather followers. Hitler was very good at this, as are the various sects of Islam. Christianity is well known for using the technique in the past to both control and murder.
They all use the idea of difference = undesirable and/or evil to convince one group to control another. Not much difference today.
If that were true, Ralph's statement, then the courts would not have to overturn referendums banning gay marraige all over the country. Every state that has put it on the ballot has rejected it. That speaks for itself, no matter who wants to spin it.
Do you recall California's battle? The Mormons moved in en mass and gathered all those they could find that wished to control someone else.
They presented the gays as evil and different, fomenting hate and fear, convincing those that already wish to control anothers life that it was the "right" thing to do. Easy enough, while those that actually know better sat at home, too lazy to participate as it didn't affect them directly.
Exactly as I said above.
You said Ralph is correct. Ralph's post said most Americans support Gay Marraige. I pointed out if that were true the court would not have to over-turn the referendums which soundly defeated it in all the states it has come up in.
As for the rest of your comment I didn't even go into it. I don't feel to argue that most poeple do not like the immorallity, not because of fear, but because of the fact that it is an immorallity.
I am sure there are fear mongerers using fear in some instances, on both sides. But the majority of us see it as a wrong and immoral choice, which we do not want to embrace as a society.
So, you gladly enjoy oppressing people. Good to know.
I enjoy living ion a moral society. But that has quickly been, and is still being, torn apart and spit on.
I am not a hedonist and niether is my nation. But some in America want that to be the state of things, and have worked feverishly to accomplish that goal.
So do not get mad when many of us stand up and so no more pushing your bad choices and immorallity on all of us. You talk about pushing religion Cags. What of you and the Left pushing your agendas, your religion, on all of us? Oh that is different.
But I could argue that bias against homosexuals, not giving them equal rights, was immoral.
Why does you idea of morality over ride my idea of morality?
Again, you lack the understanding of morals and rights. This is nothing new I am pointing out.
It's NOT yournation.
Only in your mind.
I don't get mad about you or people like you. You're actually irrelevant, just like your irrational thought process.
I'm talking about rights, which is something you don't seem to understand. Again, nothing new.
I don't have a religion, so again you fail. Nothing new.
I am not trying to OPPRESS people's rights and YOU are attempting to.
@John and Cags... They already have the same rights as everyone else.
And again your very words show exactly what I said - your own personal notions of morality are enough reason to control someone elses life even though it gives you no benefit at all.
I do have to say that I'm a little befuddled about just where hedonism comes into the picture - gays wanting the same legal rights and obligations as other people has nothing to do with hedonism.
Personally I find the old, outdated notion of the golden rule to be of the highest morality. You obviously disagree, being willing - no, eager - to push your ideas of how someone should live onto everyone you can. I have to agree that an unfortunately large percentage of people (if not an actual majority) have the same desire. Exactly as I said earlier.
We all have the Right to marry someone of the opposite sex Cags. We all have that Right. What are you not gettiing? It is a rather simple concept. They have the same rights as all others.
Are you learning impaired or are YOU not reading the words I put into sentences?
Opposite sex? It is an oppression of the a person's individual right to life(which is their right to live their life how they choose to do so). It's unfair.
Same rights as all others? Nope. It's not actually, because a homosexual/gay/lesbian isn't likely to marry someone of the opposite sex, so with that said, it's an oppression of their individual right to life.
Again, learn something would you.
Cags said it right, TMM. You have the right to marry anyone you wish. That you would choose only a female is immaterial - gays do NOT have that right.
You eliminate half the human race from your own self imposed "right", which is what gays do as well. That they do not agree with your personal preference on which half to eliminate is immaterial.
As I told Uncorrectedvision in an earlier post, "That has to be the most empty and miserable argument in this whole thread. We are ALL free to to do things we don't want to do and won't do". Even you know better than to promote the idea that we are all free to do whatever YOU decide we can do.
I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that anti-gay men really prefer women.
Maybe they really are trying to restrict their own rights! They do like to try to "pray the gay away."
Well then we can all agree to dis-agree.
And I am not deciding. Society is. It is part of the Social contract you live within.
Other than that I find it hard to believe that the same people who scream about a right to take a life, Abortion, are now screaming they have the Right to live how they want because of the right to Life.
The Right to LIFE means the Right to LIVE, which is denied to over 1.3 million Americans a year.
The Right to the pursuit of happiness is what your thinking about, Cags.
And that is all good if that is how you see it. I do not. And if the American Majority has a say, gay marraige will not be allowed per Constitutional ammendments. Of course each State wiill choose as they please.
I was sure you would finally end up with this stance, since your argument had no merit.
Man, boy do you have a lot to learn.
It actually shows YOU lack understanding the undistorted explanation of Right to Life.
Awww...bringing up the abortion subject and still failing to understand rights. WOW!
Actually, if you READ the hub I have as PROOF your claims are false with regards to morals, then you would understand. But, since you don't like to learn, I am not surprised by you saying "agree-to-disagree".
Of course you don't...you have two problems which you refuse to address (a)your own ego and (b)to keep your religious beliefs out of other people's life.
Not for long. However, States will do as they choose, which is protect individual rights.
I simply will not sit here and repeat myself over and over is all. I don't agree with you all and that is that.
You want to turn that into a pat yourself on the back session, then have fun and don't hurt your arm. I have said what I have to say, so why continue.
Your arguments a weak as is proven by your continuous dismissal of people based on the fact they Believe in God. That speaks for itself as to the depth of stance and points. You have no understanding of why anyone would posses morlas to begin with, so it isn't worth the breath I have spent already.
And we have already had this conversation over and over in this forum. Your not going to change my mind or others, and we will not cvhnge your minds.
Another simple concept.
Now you sound sad. Awww...
You could have said that at the beginning of this thread, and prevented yourself from what now appears as a waste of time.
I continue, because YOU are not the only person who is paying attention to the thread.
If it wasn't for your belief, then you wouldn't have a position to begin with. It's not a weak argument, as you would apparently try to say that it is, simply because you don't understand rights and I do.
You claim to have a conscience and morals are derived from that, yet now you claim that morals wouldn't exist. Make up your mind would you?
Yes, we have and it will continue, as long as I am a member and you post irrational, sad attempts that would harm other people's individual rights.
Your mind? Let's not get into that subject. It would be a waste of my time then. As for the impact I have on other people? Don't fret, they are not you and you would be surprised what kind of impact I can have on others. In truth, you'd be surprised.
Yes, there are plenty of them, most of them are not worth the time of day and have been debunked to be meaningless.
Here's a report showing trends in American opinions on gay marriage. Opponents are now in the minority.
"A poll from CNN this week is the latest to show a majority of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage, with 51 percent saying that marriages between gay and lesbian couples “should be recognized by the law as valid” and 47 percent opposed."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co … -minority/
Here are a bunch more polls showing the trend. Nearly all of them show majority support for gay marriage:
I think it's more a case of "most Americans don't have a problem with marriage equality." But those folks who don't have a problem with it aren't the ones who are motivated to get out and vote. The homophobes who think legalizing gay marriage will automatically make them gay turn out in droves, though.
That is ignorant logic. Majority will doesn't dictate law. Just because the majority of Americans would want people with blue eyes killed, doesn't make it legal. Did they have school, or well...people where you come from? I am shocked at how absolutely "living in fantasyland" you are. It is remarkable really. You could be a case study in ignorance.
GROWTH TO DESTRUCTION?
Earnest? question? what do Austrailians think of Gay Marrage?
Please know this is not a smart A question, I really wish to kow?
I know that Australia is further behind than the US in terms of marriage equality. In some territories civil unions are allowed, but gays can not marry anywhere in Australia.
Hecklers are only showing off their own ignorance. Goes to show how people don't know their place. Plain and Simple.
http://www.battlefield315.com/2011/04/g … ained.html
And that is all I have to say about it...
Surely Homosexual activity between consenting adults is their own business
Surely it is. Untill it is pushed upon the public into institutions such as Schools, and Govt, media, etc, then it becomes all our bussiniess.
Heterosexuality should be kept as private as homosexuality is, then.
You have a picture of your wife or girlfriend on your desk? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality!
You wear a wedding ring? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality.
Did you get married in a church? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality!
Do you tell people about your children? Grandchildren? Stop flaunting your heterosexuality!
This is water.
A picture of you and your spouse is not flaunting your sexuality, unless your both undressed and in a state of arousal. Niether does a wedding ring, nor getting married in a church, nor talking about your grand-children.
Stop throwing red herrings around.
Definition of SEXUALITY
: the quality or state of being sexual:
a: the condition of having sex
b: sexual activity
c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive
You do stay true to Leftist form. Obfuscate and re-define to your own underestandings and needs. Frankfurt School much?
But you keep saying that a gay couple getting married is gay sexuality "pushed upon the public."
Did you get married?
If so, by your own definition, you 'pushed' your sexuality 'upon the public.'
"A picture of you and your spouse is not flaunting your sexuality,"
Really? What do married people do to get children? Talk about your wife, and you're talking about a woman with whom you have sex.
"nor talking about your grand-children."
Really? So the stork brought your kids, then? And your grandkids? Or were they result of sex?
Wearing wedding rings, holding hands in public, talking about one's boyfreind or girlfriend--all of these are things that heterosexual people do every day, and it's perfectly fine, but if a gay person does it, then they get accused of 'flaunting their sexuality' or 'making a big deal about being gay.'
Double standard much?
I have said it is no-one bussiness. The issue of homosexuality becomes society's bussiness when it is pushed into the schools and other social institutions, and on our children as normal, moral behaviour.
Stop twisting what I say and you wouldn't be so confused.
Yes Uncorrect... and marriage is a social instistution.
You said: "Untill it is pushed upon the public into institutions such as Schools, and Govt, media, etc, then it becomes all our bussiniess."
But you fail to see that heterosexuality is already pervading our schools, government, media, etc etc etc.
I'm not twisting what you say. I'm showing you that you're holding homosexuality to an impossible standard that you would never try to hold hetersexuality to, and in fact you would think it absurd to hold heterosexuality to.
I'm not confused at all. And you are absolutely holding gay people to a double-standard.
"And do you even know the definition of Sexuality?"
Of course. Do you know how kids are made? 'Cos you seem to think that talking to people about your kids and grandkids doesn't have anything to do with the act that made those kids, when in fact it's inherently implied.
And do you even know the definition of Sexuality? I posted it for you, so stop trying to confabullate your way through the debate.
The question wasn't about homosexual activity but about homosexual "marriage"
Isn't that already legal in some States? Pardon my ignorance, not American.
In some, because the courts usurped -(over-rode)-, the will of the majority in those state. Which proves my other point, America is not a Democracy.
Of course, that is one of the tasks of the courts and government in a free country - to protect the minority from the vagaries of the majority that would rule over them. And for no more reason than they don't like them or what they believe.
Precisely. If not for the courts "usurping the will of the majority" ("defending the rights of the minority" would be a more accurate characterization) our schools might still be segregated.
There are four states where it is legal contingent upon no state constitutional amendment banning it being passed. California passed such an amendment that is now wrapped up in court.
Apparently there are only 6 countries where gay"marriage" is legal.
Don't ever worry about being ignorant of the peculiarities of American law. I know nothing about Jamaican laws.
Marriage equality was just approved in the state of New York.
I haven't heard anyone claim that allowing gays to marry will "fix" the institution. Homophobes claim it would destroy or damage the institution of marriage, but I haven't heard any persuasive explanation of why that would be true. Also, I haven't heard any explanation of why they are opposed to encouraging monogamy in homosexual relationships although they believe in faithful, "family values" for heterosexuals.
I (being straight), for one, am all for gay marriage. No one is in a position to declare if it's right or not or if it's affecting the "institution". Basically it's none of their business. Of all the marriages, a lesibian marriage is the most stable, floowed by a gay marriage between two men and finally with a 52% failure rate - the regular marriage.
ALBANY — The State Senate is poised to vote on same-sex marriage Friday night, setting the stage for a final decision on a measure that could make New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples can wed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyreg … ge.html?hp
Perhaps Obama needs more Ballroom
Was this a discussion of Barry's foreign policies?
Obama can easily solve this entire "gay marriage" issue, and it's disgusting that he hasn't.
He can simply refuse to enforce all federal laws banning the discrimination of gay marriages.
Ron Paul has repeatedly said he would do so -- but he's "just a fringe candidate".
Peoples private lives should be their business and not the business of politicians or men of 'God'
It is interesting than one group right violating majority right.
Kind of like those black people's right to freedom violated Southern white people's right to enslave them.
And here is the extreme to which America will be dragged by all this BS and the pushing of this agenda.
-No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias
By JENNY SOFFEL Associated Press The Associated Press-
STOCKHOLM (AP) — At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.
From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.
"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.
"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.
http://www.windstream.net/news/read.php … mp;ps=1018
OMG, teachers in Sweden are calling their students, "friends" instead of "boys and girls!" Clearly, they're trying to turn the kids gay!
Why do you continue to call our attention to these utter non-issues? What is it that you're trying to distract everyone from?
It is about nullifying the differences in gender, period. Stop being so simple, Jeff. there are difference in gender, regardless of if you or anyone else want to accept it or not. The whole assault on geneder, Marriage, and supossed gay rights, is all about the secular humanist agenda and the destruction of moral America.
Which I can see America rejecting very soon.
like this idiocy...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-s … r-options/
-"Who says elementary school is too early to start discussing gender issues?
This week, educators at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, California, are teaching young children all about the complicated world of “gender diversity.” The school has designed curriculum for every grade level. Amid the resulting controversy, Principal Sara Stone is defending the initiative, claiming that it is in line with what parents want:
“If we don’t have a safe, nurturing class environment, it’s going to be hard to learn. Really, the message behind this curriculum is there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls.”
A gender expert and trainer was brought in to speak to the children:
“[There's] a lot of variation in nature. Evolution comes up with some pretty funny ways for animals to reproduce. It turns out that there are not just two options.”-
Are there?... No. You are born male or female. What you chose to act like after that is your choice and nothing more... a choice, not a natural selection of another gender. That is BS and should not be in our schools.
"Arguing that certain rights should be limited to a certain class of people is profoundly antithetical to American ideals, which is why these types of arguments eventually die off."
You nailed it, Live. Alas, reactionary people with nothing better to do will spend a lot of time and resources on stopping rights being extended to people who aren't like themselves.
Someone recently claimed that most Americans support marriage equality. I don't think that's strictly true. Probably most Americans realize that it's a nonissue and are fine with gays getting married if they want to--but they aren't going to pick up a sign and demonstrate for it, either. They've got other fish to fry. Therefore, they don't turn out and vote down the ballot initiatives designed to assign 2nd-class status to gay people. My theory is that the anti-equality ballot measures succeed because homophobic conservatives are more motivated to keep the gays down than the average joe is motivated to ensure gays' equality under the law.
Also, there are a lot more homophobic conservative activists than there are gay rights activists (even if the gay folks are pretty loud). This is an example of the tyranny of the mob, and this is why our courts have the power to strike down laws that create classes of citizens. Thank goodness for our (small-r) republican government.
I agree with you. However, the gap is actually diminishing. I think NY's passing of the law is a great example. Without Cuomo's and Bloomberg's heavy lobbying, it might have not passed, either. I think more and more straight people are open and passionately in favor of equality, when in the past it was only the anti-equality side that was really passionate. I think that trend will continue, too, as more and more people find the anti-equality's reasoning specious.
So if a boy decides to join the girls in his kindergarten class and play dolls with them, he should be told, "No, Johnny, you're a boy, you should play trucks with the other boys?" Or if a girl wants to play trucks with the boys, she should be told, "No, Suzy, you're a girl, you should play dolls with the other girls?"
What a crock. Nobody is trying to nullify differences in gender. They are trying to make all options available to all students, and let the kids figure themselves out for themselves.
I know it's a far cry from the mythical gender-segregated 1950s paternalistic utopia that the radical right wants us to "return" to, where a woman's place was in the home, barefoot and pregnant, and any dad who stays home to raise the kids is no real man at all. Change can be frightening. Little girls being allowed to play with trucks isn't all that scary, mate. It really isn't.
I thought you liked stuff like personal freedom and individual liberty?
Without really reading all those replies, I've had a thought recently:
Christian Americans don't want the government to restrict their religion. Fair enough.
Black Americans don't want to have limited opportunity. Fair enough
Tea Party Americans want the Constitution upheld. Fair enough.
Labor Unions want to control the Government. More power to them!
Gays want to be happy like heterosexuals! Christians who are up in arms about their faith being squelched say: "NO WAY!!!" As long as we get to have our rights, why can't they have their rights? This is a FREE COUNTRY where everyone has the opportunity to be happy, make decisions that don't harm others.
I don't get it. Why is it that only Christian heterosexual Americans are allowed to have their rights? How can someone who says that the government is too much in control WANTS the government to be in control of gays/lesbians?
I am straight, but I certainly do not have the authority to tell another human being what they can and cannot be, who they can and cannot love, and whether they want to be married or not. How is it MY place to restrict other people? It is NOT our right as Americans to tell other Americans what they can and cannot do (within the reasonable things like no stealing, no killing, etc...)
Ballroom,perhaps he should try a ball-park he would have more room
Iprefer my ball park to be 100% cotton
by mr. daydream 11 years ago
I know being openly gay, coming out the closet, gay rights etc., seems to be one of the latest fads in today's society. But don't you think at times society as a whole (in particular Hollywood and the music industry since celebrities have the most influence on society) comes to the resuce to pamper...
by Jacqui 9 years ago
Choice and Sexuality - The choice is for whom?This is for the 'choicers' - those who believe it is a choice whom we are attracted to - is it merely the homosexual whom must have "chosen' this attraction - that heterosexuality is 'normal' and the way one is born, and gays have been lead astray?...
by Deidre Shelden 10 years ago
Is donating to Christian orgs an obstruction of gay rights?Is donating money to Christian groups that seek to build strong families the same as fighting against gay rights? Some say such giving makes the giver guilty of hating gays. If you give to a Christian org that helps strengthen the family,...
by WayneAnsell 8 years ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
by CorporateBoss 12 years ago
Now they we are going to have gays serving openly in the military what is going to be next that they can do?Will we also be okay when they want to be President of the United States?That's coming to and when it does who going to be the First Man's man?
by DrDeanCrosby 12 years ago
Below you will read a report which describes in detail now homosexual activism, using sophisticated strategies of "retail politics",is slowly moving the United States into the same debauched national lifestyle that God found in Sodom and Gomorrah with the end result being...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|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.|