»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Banning of same-sex marriages
| The Alley |
|
The Banning of same-sex marriages |
|
|
ESP Member Elite
since 2000-01-25
Posts 2556Floating gently on a cloud.... |
I think it is despicable that same-sex marriages are being banned because it goes against what some people believe. What happened to live and let live? Your way may be 100% the right way for you, but does that mean it is the single right way for everybody? That if they do not follow your way, they are all wrong? What nonsense. Besides, what message are we sending out here? We are all for assualt weapons being legal, we are all for dropping bombs on any country that doesn't fall in with what we think is right, but letting people love who they want to love? Oh, no, anything but that!!???!! There is so much hatred in the world, why generate more? Do you think the gay population is going to hear you say that they are disgusting and let you take their rights as human beings away from them and then smile at you and say, "oh you are right, of course you are, if your God said it, the whole world and I also must think it's right"..? Of course they won't, they will be more than a little saddened and mighty pissed off. They will fight. Just like African Americans did. If "the majority" suddenly decided that God was evil or didn't exist, and that religious practice should be banned, would you smile and say, "Oh if the majority says it, it must be right. I will stop believing now, how silly of me not to have before"? Of course you won't, if you truly do believe. If a man truly loves another man, or a woman truly loves another woman, your hypocrisy won't change that. It will just make it harder for them to adhere to what they believe in. Why are we trying to make peoples' lives difficult for them? They didn't hurt anybody. They didn't come to your house and tell you that you should have sex with someone as the same gender as you, just because that is the way that they live. So why should you have the right to tell them that their way is wrong period, just because it's wrong for you? It is not unethical, it does not harm others. It just makes you feel uncomfortable. Well whether or not you ban it, banning it isn't going to eradicate it, it will always be there...so just live with that. It won't change your life in anyway...rain will still make the flowers grow. You can still have milk on your cereal in the morning. Your God will still love you. You can still believe what you want to believe. You can still marry the person you love, who loves you. Vent over. "Time has told me not to ask for more, one day our ocean will find its shore" ~Nick Drake |
||
| © Copyright 2004 ESP - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I am very disappointed myself by this, for I believe it goes against the American ethics of religious freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that all men (and women) are created equal. I'll bring back a comparison I made before in a previous thread (Larry C's "You Can't Win Them All" thread) from Joseph Stein's "Fiddler On The Roof". In "Fiddler On The Roof", in the small Jewish village of Anatevka in Russia, right around the turn of the century in 1905, the dairyman Tevye considers allowing one of his five daughters Tzietel to marry the local butcher Lazar Wolfe by matchmaking. But the local tailor Motel has strong feelings for Tzeitel and then soon enough she begins to fall for him and they want to be married by their own free-will, and when first learning of this, they call this "love" unheard of and say things like "He's a radical!". After all, Tevye believes in God's law and providing balance to their community, and to continue living by this tradition, and without them he says their lives would be "as shaky as a fiddler on the roof" Then the whole idea of choosing by free-will catches on, and another one of his daughters Chava ("Little Bird") falls for a Russian named Fyedka, and rumors circulate in town and then Tevye learns of this and refuses to offer his blessing, won't listen to her, said Chava is dead to him, perhaps because the Russians at the time where running pogroms against the Jews and forcing them out of their town and saw loving a Russian was bad blood, and attempts to forbid Chava from ever seeing him again. But tradition is challenged all throughout the play, and his wife Golde begins to accept these changes to some degree, as do some of the village people. . . . . . That's kind of how I relate to this issue. I support the idea of gay marriage, because I am a firm believer in those ideals I listed above and feel banning gay marriage would treat gay and lesbian citizens as second-class citizens, deny them the absolute pursuit of happiness, deny them equality, run against the long-living notion of religious freedom here. I've heard the number of benefits couples receive from marriage number to as much as 1,183 in some minds. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry would deny such rights entitled by marriage like health insurance, fair inheritance and the ability to make life-saving decisions to couples and families. And even if you disagree with gay marriage, changing the constitution shouldn't be the way to settle this debate, when real people are affected in the process. Those disagreements shouldn't belong there. And you can say that gay and lesbian citizens could just obtain the rights by getting a legal contract. They're still costly, and do not guarantee all the basic rights given through marriage. I was saddened to hear of Measure 36 passing here in Oregon 57-43, and in the months ahead protesting against this discrimination is one of the major things I'll be doing, to see to it our gays and lesbians are treated equally. I feel just like in 1905, fifty years from now we may look back on this time in history and laugh. I can understand how in one time some sort of relation or marriage may seem strange or unheard of, but in time I think more and more may become used to it or accept it. It's been a natural trend through history. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Rowley Junior Member
since 2001-04-07
Posts 30 |
This administration and the conservatives throughout our country are stopping the progression of a loving nation. It makes me sick to see this ban being put into process. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Not too long after same sex unions were taking place in Massachusetts and California, bigamists and polygamists were demanding the equal footing and legal standing of same sex unions. This was something some of those for the ban could see occurring, although most against it were for religious reasons. And not necessarily Republicans, conservatives, traditionalists or WASPs. With about 85% of the US citizenry laying some claim of Christianity, same sex unions being shot down was not as far fetched as some would like. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're comparing apples and oranges, Ali. Unless, of course, you can point us to a civil ceremony where a state official presided over a union involving polygamy, as was the case in the states you mentioned? There's a reason some are advocating an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. States can pass laws all day long and that doesn't necessarily make them legal. Anyone remember the state laws, mostly in the South, that were overturned by the federal courts during the Fifties and Sixties? The seven or eight statutes passed in various states during the last election will be tested in the courts and, almost certainly, be found wanting. You can't legislate discrimination at the state level. Fortunately, amendments to the Constitution don't come easily. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Ron, there haven't been any legalized polygamist unions yet. But they have been demanding equal legal protection once same sex unions were being done in two states. Apples and oranges it might be, but they are both fruits. One can legalize same sex unions, but wouldn't multi partner unions want the same thing, or would they be discriminated against? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
While it's not at all relevant, Ali, I personally wouldn't have any problem with legalizing polygamy. The issues are entirely different ones, however, because you are expanding tit-for-tat into tit-for-tat-tat-tat. When two people are involved, the rules should be the same, regardless of gender or orientation. When more than two are involved, as in ANY social situation, the complexity increases exponentially. Protecting the interests of all participants requires change. Protecting the interests of any two people, however, requires only a recognition they ARE people. Everything else is already in place (which is not to say everything in place couldn't be better). |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
