Same Sex marriage

[adrian]

Re: Same Sex marriage

What, you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Where's the fun in that?

I want to hear from other people that agrees with me, and how they tick.

And I was ready for the onslaught of arguments against me, but not this bad. I thought that they'd be some people that are for the same things as me, but you guys just slather on arguments and I don't know where to start to defend myself.

[Konaguy]

Re: Same Sex marriage

As someone who was name called and raked over the coals on a supposedly non-political topic.

Was this a indirect jab at me in regards to what I wrote in the Wal-Mart
thread ? sorry about going O/T but curious minds want to know.

Just for the record, I am neither conservative or liberal. Both the left
and the right drive me bananas.

[pzarquon]

Re: Same Sex marriage

I thought that they'd be some people that are for the same things as me, but you guys just slather on arguments and I don't know where to start to defend myself.

Just so long as you understand that it wasn't meant personally -- you introduced a completely valid and worthwhile issue for discussion, and we weighted in on it. I'm sure you know, by the interactions elsewhere on this site, that we can disagree and remain civil.

As for "where to start to defend [yourself]," I'd say you got a decent start. You said you opposed it, and explained why. Those of us who favor same-sex marriage offered counterpoints to those justifications. I'd say you can still flex your greymatter to see if you'd take issue with what was said - for example, my assertion about marriage not being inherently natural - or you can search deeper for another reason why same-sex marriage feels wrong to you.

If you need someplace to start, you can always Google for the phrase "case against same sex marriage." Admittedly, some of the results will be for pages setting out to dispel the case against same-sex marriage, but I think you'll find more than a few writers supporting your contention, and perhaps they'll give you seeds of thought that you can use to grow your argument.

[helen]

Re: Same Sex marriage

I feel that it shouldn't be legalized (anywhere) because why do we need it? We've been having traditional marriages since humans walked this earth, and why should we start now?

If this gets legalized, what will stop people from "pushing" other rights? Euthanasia, marijuana, abortion? They're just ripping the christian beliefs down to the ground.

I think part of the problem is that you are trying to lump "same sex marriage" as the same group as "Euthanasia", "marijuana" and "abortion". While their might be overlap not all for "same sex marriage" care for the other three.

If you want to talk about the other three, I would suggest making three seperate topics and gauge each topic seperately.

Like I said before I don't think traditional marriage is going out of style or be illegal once same sex marriage is more acceptable, let's face it if the various government bodies are trying to write laws to ban same sex marriage then wouldn't it mean it is legal now?

[adrian]

Re: Same Sex marriage

If you want to talk about the other three, I would suggest making three seperate topics and gauge each topic seperately.

I think I know the result of that.

[dick]

Re: Same Sex marriage

It's amazing the gratification one can get writing things, then deleting them before posting. Topics such as these only fuel fires and solve mostly nothing. Those who believe strongly in their ideas won't listen rationally to others' comments. This thread is a case in point. It serves to merely fire up people. Sadly, as most know what I do for a living, I can't comment on this topic specifically.

[mel]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Anyone who starts topics like this is just lighting a match in an oil refinery. The best way to stop this kind of stuff from perpetuating itself is to ignore the topic if you are from an opposing viewpoint and let the pundits who all agree with each other on the topic to have a mutual lovefest until they get bored.

[Miulang]

Re: Same Sex marriage

The reason why this country is in the sorry state it's in right now is because people like Dick believe that "discussions" like the one on this thread don't solve anything but provoke ire.

Well, if people don't ask questions and a spirited debate is not allowed to happen, how will the people who haven't yet formulated their own opinions supposed to hear from both sides of an issue? By saying things like no one can sway other people to change their mind about an emotionally charged issue is to assume that everyone already has an opinion.

I applaud Adrian for even positing the questions. If you read one of his responses above, he states that he just wanted to hear what other people of like minds had to say about the issue of same sex marriage. I believe this will be the first election he can participate in as a voter, and damn it! At least he's trying to figure out what he really believes in. Us old fogeys should be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the young people of this country to ask us the tough questions, and rather than poohpoohing this whole thing, at least try to present as much factual information so the young people of this country don't get discouraged at their first forays into political activism.

To me, it really doesn't matter whose side you're on...just be informed enough to decide for yourself who in your own mind fits your notion of a perfect leader (regardless of the political party or the race). Ask questions to gain clarity in your own mind. Don't be intimidated by louder voices. In this country, every voice should be heard and should count equally, regardless of ethnicity, religion or socioeconomic place in life.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Sadly, as most know what I do for a living, I can't comment on this topic specifically.

Are you hiding behind the fact that you work parttime for a local newspaper as a way to weasel out of posting how you as Dick Q. Public feel? Are you going around specifically focusing on this topic in your assignments? As long as you don't represent your comments as being specifically attributable to your employer, how can what you say be a conflict of interest, if that's what your concern is? Just curious.

Miulang

[lavagal]

Re: Same Sex marriage

The New Jersey Supreme Court passed its ruling regarding same-sex marriage today. Where Massachusetts has a law stating that no one from out of state can marry there, NJ has no such law. Has Hawaii lost out on this particular marriage industry? NJ rocks.

[joshuatree]

Re: Same Sex marriage

What is the main sticking point for most about same-sex marriage? Is it the benefits bestowed on a married couple? I thought most states already offer the same benefits to same-sex couples already? Is it the usage of the term "marriage" for same-sex couples? If that's the case, I consider myself in that boat. Can they choose another terminology for same-sex marriage? I'm not hard core traditionalist but I've always held the perception of marriage meaning union of a man and a woman. Doesn't mean I hold that concept higher or lower than a union of two same sexes. But it's just an image I like to cling on to. So are same-sex couples offended by that?

[tikiyaki]

Re: Same Sex marriage

dang, I'm just getting pulverized here.

I know that same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but what I'm looking at, is the future. A lot of things happened when something is made legal, and most of it is bad. Abortion should be a last option for a mother, not because she made a stupid mistake of not wearing a condom, or didn't take the morning after pill.

What about a pregnant woman who has been raped ? If abortion is illegal, is a woman who didn't want to get pregnant in the first place be forced to have a child by someone who forced sex on her, and got her pregnant?

[Bard]

Re: Same Sex marriage

The very best argument I've heard about same sex marriage would seem to be poignant to both those who oppose it and those who favor it: why is the government in the business of specifying what a religious institution can/must do with its own ceremonies? Forget that, give everyone civil unions at the government/tax/inheritance level, and let churches (or any other religious institution) decide who they want to marry.

I simply can't see why people are so afraid of same sex marriage, and I have had many gay/lesbian friends get their hearts broken on the subject, especially here in Oregon where we had some of the first same sex marriages in the country (even if they got overturned later... double bummer for those people). These things about "oh everybuddy and their dogs is gonna get married now" just ring like straw men to me.

[Hope]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Since "marriage" was originally a religious ceremony and sacred in nature, I do not believe that "same sex marriage" should be legal. It's an oxymoron, in its very essence.

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

I personally have no problem with "civil union" and the legal aspects of such, but to call it a "marriage" is forcing religions to accept the absolutely unacceptable, in the eyes of Christianity (et.al.). How can the law force an unacceptable practice upon religions? Ridiculous!

As for someone being "broken hearted" over the illegality of "same sex" marriage, can you imagine the feelings of those with strong religious beliefs against such a thing, when religion is where marriage originated?

Pahhh-leeeze! It boils down to RESPECT for one's religious beliefs, and that's the bottom line.

Now, I'll mention the fact that I'm a Republican, and a secular humanist. Put this in the pot and stir it...


http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary....marr/marr1.htm

[Bard]

Re: Same Sex marriage

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

I'm totally with you, Hope, as I said above in my post. The government has no business telling religions how to define things like marriage. This is a great example of why people like the ACLU are fighting so hard to maintain the separation of church and state. It works both ways!

If there was no wishy-washy waving of hands combination of marriage (as a religious institution) and civil unions (as a government institution), we could grant everyone civil unions and let the religions decide marriage for themselves.

'Course I don't think anyone is implying that the government will force every church to marry anyone who asks for it (that is already not the case) but I could see why people would feel threatened about that.