|
|
Post by kats on Jul 16, 2004 6:26:34 GMT -5
in the words of chris rock (paraphrased, as i forget the exact words) 'why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married? why shouldn't they have to be as miserable as everybody else?'
and edit: riley, just so you're not wasting your armour...you canadians reek of tolerance. it's revolting. i'm now kicking you in your accepting groin, you arsemaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 16, 2004 6:32:05 GMT -5
I've said before that while I lean towards being against gay marriage I'm not completely firm in my beliefs on the subject. Therefore, I'm going to leave the "is it right or is it wrong" out of my comments, and just respond to two issues that have been brought up here.
First, on the issue of "moral decay" and how, if at all, gay marriage applies to the issue -- I think that it does, only in that the most commonly heard arguments in favor of gay marriage are the same as I see for moral decay "but that's what makes me happy, so that's what I'm going to do". That line of thinking, IMO, is the problem that causes the moral decay that we're facing. Now before my words are twisted into claims that I believe abused women should stay in their marriges and that "doing what is right' is more important than being happy, please understand that I think there needs to be a BALANCE between responsbility and happiness, not an either or. So no, I'm not fighting against happiness, I'm simply saying it's not the end all be all. You see the effects of "this is what makes me happy" in all sorts of ways. The parents who neglect their kids needs in order to pursue their own happiness. The people who set out to have a child by non-traditional means because that's what they need to be happy. The woman (or man) who goes after the married man (or woman) unconcerned about breaking up a family, because he's the man she wants to make her happy. Happiness is a good thing, but sometimes the happiness of one person comes at a great price for others. And I personally think there's a bit too much emphasis on achieving your own personal happiness at the expense of others. So that's how I see this playing into moral decay ... not that heterosexual marriages are threatened, but just that traditions are being knocked aside, without questioning why they've been the way they are, simply because we need to make sure people are happy. If this weren't true, then I believe the compromise suggested by JLLM (which was considered perfectly acceptable a few years ago) would be considered more acceptable, rather than this all or nothing "call it marriage" fight.
Second, I'll go on record as saying that I"m one who detests the notion of amending the Constitution to define marriage. But I'll also go on the record as saying that I detest the notion of forcing an unpopular agenda on this country via the courts. In a republic, we should be able to hash out these issues, hear all sides out, and come up with a compromise. There is no reason to amend the Constitution for this issue ... but there is also no Constitutional basis for forcing the issue on states whose voters would not take it on themselves. It's not an issue of rights as far as I'm concerned. Every one (over the age of 18) in this country has the "right" to marry. Gay people are no different from straight people in this. It's not an issue of being able to marry ... it's an issue of being able to marry WHO YOU WANT TO. I know some great married men. If this were truly a civil rights issue, then my civil rights would be being denied too, because I'm being kept from marrying them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 16, 2004 6:37:36 GMT -5
Chrisfan, just out of interest and without the intention of going into a huge argument about it, I was curious if you believe in artificial insemination. For heterosexual couples who can't have kids. Just asking because you said something about having a child through unnatural means. I was wondering if this was included.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 16, 2004 6:39:23 GMT -5
No. I mean more along the lines of Diane Keaton, who reaches an age, decides she wants the experience of being a mother, and adopts merely because she wants to.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 16, 2004 6:43:27 GMT -5
Eeek. I had no idea she was doing that. I have issues with that, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuneschick on Jul 16, 2004 6:53:10 GMT -5
I usually stay pretty far away from the CE boards, but this is one topic that I just can't refuse comment on.
With all due respect, I can't relate to the uproar over same sex marriage, not even a tiny smidgen. Not to jump on Riley's bandwagon, but he voiced my own thoughts exactly.
My thoughts are pretty simple too. Same sex marriage is legal here , and I'm pretty sure Canada's moral fibre is still doing OK. To be honest, most of us don't even think about it anymore - there was the initial media frenzy, and then it died down and let people get on with their lives... and surprise, no one's life changed at all, except the couples who were overjoyed to suddenly not be discriminated against because of something they can't change.
Sure, there are still people who think it's outrageous - but they have yet to demonstrate how gay couple have affected their own marriages in any way. I'm waiting.
Like Riley said, I'm not entirely sure what this sacred "standard" is that opposite couples are apparently so good at. What's the divorce rate at these days, still hovering around 50%? How about shows like The Bachelor and Who Wants to Marry my Dad? Or the celebrities (hello Britney) who get married every time there's a full moon? To me, those situations undermine the value of marriage far more than a gay couple ever could, even if they tried.
I'm getting married next spring. One of my best friends and his partner of three years are planning on getting married later next year. Somehow I fail to see how that undermines my own relationship - instead, I'm thrilled because my friend is kickass and I'm happy to live in a place where he is refused the same happiness because he happens to like men.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuneschick on Jul 16, 2004 6:56:12 GMT -5
(OK, it took me longer to write that than I thought - I started that after Riley's first post!)  |
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 16, 2004 7:04:21 GMT -5
I've met 2 gay and married couples, all very nice people. One pair living here in Halifax, who'd been together 25 years, and got married probably a few years ago, perhaps one of the first if not the first gay couple to get married in Nova Scotia. The other married couple were living in Vancouver, they were a bit younger then the men from halifax, just as good decorators and exceptional taste in music  , anyways both very nice guys who i didn't feel had much moral threat towards society. Now some may say that being gay is a perversion......yes that MAY be true, i don't know, I don't care. I know though if someone is going to equate gay people with child molesters, or sexually deviant people (which i don't think i've seen anyone do on here), then they may as well toss in straight people into that equation too. As the old saying goes "I'm not prejudice, i hate everyone equally." Their are assholes, pedophiles, and Creed fans in every race, gender, nationality, and whatever sexual preference you have. I do think the moral decay of society would make an interesting conversation though. Anyone want to start? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 16, 2004 7:37:49 GMT -5
Stratman, I also mean to answer you on your quesiton on opinions of Bush not addressing the NAACP. It certainly does show how election year rhetoric gets, given that he's done the same thing every year he's been in office, and most people wouldn't know it until this year! I support the decision. As you've said, this is a group that has not just not supported Bush, they've been downright nasty in their rhetoric about him. They've criticized him for pandering to blacks through his campaigning in the 2000 campaign ... so why would he do just what the criticized him for, and go to speak to a group specifically because they are black?
I think that Rod Paige did a GREAT job of responding to the uproar in the WSJ yesterday. And I have to say, I'm very glad that the uproar has been what it was, and the issue is being dealt with. For a long time, many conservatives have been asking why the Democrats have such a strong hold on the black vote, given that they have not delivered any results of any note. Through this action, in addition to some others, that conversation is finally happening on a larger stage. You have people like Don King saying "don't just let the Democrats assume they have your vote. They have to work for it. They ahve to deliver something for it". If Bush not addressing the convention, Bill Cosby speaking out, Don King deciding to get political, etc can get the conversation started to push for people to truly DELIVER to the groups they try to get votes from, rather than just talking and convincing those groups that the other side is against them, all the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 16, 2004 7:54:43 GMT -5
What Georgie Jr. does has a direct impact on the lives of people around the globe, given the magnitude of the job he's chosen. Unemployment and deficit spending impact households. Fred marrying Frank really doesn't... Well said Riley. There's bigger fish to fry in election year. Let the conservatives/God Squadders argue it out with the gaybo sidesaddle brigade, and lets move on to something important. I couldn't agree with you more. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 16, 2004 8:08:38 GMT -5
Well said Riley. There's bigger fish to fry in election year. Let the conservatives/God Squadders argue it out with the gaybo sidesaddle brigade, and lets move on to something important. I couldn't agree with you more. The cirticism may be fiar, but is is focused in the right place? WAs this an issue that George W Bush set out to bring up during an election year? Or was it an issue that was put out there by other groups, and it was demanded that he take a stand on it? Either way, he basically commented on it once, calling for the amendment. He took the shocking action of being a politician, and taking a firm stand on a social issue. He did not ignore the war in Iraq to put all his heart and soul into passing the amendment. he hasn't even made it more than perhaps a passing comment in his stump speeches. Is gay marraige an issue that all Americans should be allowing to decide this election? No ... and we're not ... and neither candidate is asking us to. |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jul 16, 2004 9:42:28 GMT -5
Kat - I neglected to say thanks, but could you kick me in the groin again please? Or better yet if you can somehow make it appear like I took a hockey puck in the nads it looks much more credible for the insurance company. "Heated debates resulting in pelvic damage or rearrangement" are apparently not covered in my policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jul 16, 2004 9:44:54 GMT -5
"Heated on-line debates resulting in a conservative/Republican foot being delivered to your ass" is covered incidentally. I checked before I popped in here today.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 16, 2004 9:50:38 GMT -5
With that knowledge, consider yourself duly kicked in the ass Riley. |
|
KayJay
Struggling Artist
Posts: 192
|
Post by KayJay on Jul 16, 2004 10:25:48 GMT -5
Just to let everyone know, Strat is having trouble logging in. He'll do what he can as soon as possible to get this mess fixed. YIKES!
Karla
|
|
, anyways both very nice guys who i didn't feel had much moral threat towards society.
