| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| therippa |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 1:35:37 PM
I feel like ranting. This is prolly going to be pretty scattered, but I hope I can get my feelings across.
I live in San Francisco (well, just a little north), so every morning on the radio I've been hearing about the gay marriage thing going on here. I think it's great that Gavin Newsom (the mayor of SF) got the ball rolling on this, and that he is defending his stance on it with all he has. I watch national tv and see our leaders up in arms about it, like it matters to them. I hear the term "sanctity of marriage" get thrown around. When I think about marriage I think of Britney Spears being married for 48 hours, prisoners on death row be allowed to marry, shotgun weddings, and the 52% divorce rate. When I hear the term "gay marriages" I think of the people who have already been together for years and years and years, waiting for this to be made "legal".
President Bush is trying to get a ban on gay marriages put into the Constitution. I saw Senator Kennedy on tv saying that President Bush is the first president in history to try to have bias written into the Constitution. One of the people on the morning show I listen to said this is a re-election issue, and that Bush doesn't care. The people that vote for Bush also have their heads stuck in their assess, and think this is a good thing. Not that it really matters, because Kerry feels the same way. Realistically, Kerry or Bush is going to be the next president, and they feel that 10% of the population should be considered second class. I hear a poll that 50% of the country thinks this should be made illegal. I think about that...half of my country have a hate for something that has no effect on them!
Maybe it's time I move to Canada. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 08:27:19 AM
CONSTITUTION'D!! ow, my gay marriage. |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 11:43:57 PM
In a nutshell, I am not gay but if two guys or two girls want to marry, I could care less. Who am I to stop them from being happy?
dan p said:
quote:
because on the whole, i give less than a shit
hehehehehehe... hehehe heheeehhehe ....
sorry that just reminds me too much of Austin Powers. "On the whole, I'd say that Preperation H feels good". |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 10:24:34 PM
i use to try to agrue with people who have a problem with homosexuality for religious reasons. i found you get nowhere when you try that, because you'd pretty much have to disprove the religion, which can't be done. you can't just go, "no. your faith is wrong." because you don't know that. faith can't be argued either way, so it's useless to try.
personally i have no specific objections to gays, because on the whole, i give less than a shit about who anyone has sex with. it's just not worth while enough to talk about. |
| Locarius |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 8:33:16 PM
Yes, for me it is religious reasons. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 6:15:23 PM
voting against same sex marriage isn't automatically hate.
i'd be inclined to agree with most of what jemez says.
also, some people object to gays for religious reasons. to bust on them for that would be busting on them for their religion, and really i don't think that's any more right, since we all get so up in arms about every time someone says god in this country. |
| James M. |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 5:22:33 PM
what problem do you have with a gay lifestyle? if you dont mind me asking..
James |
| Locarius |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 4:25:57 PM
I dont think it is about semantics. The issue, I believe, for the population that does not support it is "by voting that gay marriage should become legal I am condoning a gay lifestyle". It is hard to morally seperate what should be allowed legally and what one believes is a correct lifestyle.
Personally, I think from a legal point of view, gay marriage should be legal, but I dont agree with the gay lifestyle. If it were to come down to a vote, I would vote against a motion to legalize in an effort to promote my beliefs. |
| JemezFoodPeople |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 3:58:11 PM
I am going to try to take some kind of stab at this from my linguistics and philosophy background
the only way to stand behind the bill to ban gays from marriage issue and still remain free from discrimination is to define the ontology if marriage. To say that the definition of marriage is the name of a civil union between two heterosexual people is different from saying it is a legal endorsement of two people's love. It is therefore no more discrimination than saying "gay people aren't allowed to be straight" (because gay people aren't straight) or "Married men aren't allowed to be bachelors" (because by definition, a bachelor is an unmarried man.
On a more extreme philosophical angle, it is like saying that triangles feel discriminated against because they are not allowed to be called "four-sided figures."
You see, this argument shows that Bush's ( and many conservatives') view of marriage isn't necessarily the much-maligned view of " a civil union that SHOULD be between a man and a woman" but rather " a specific civil union in which the two constituents are in fact a man and a woman."
Personally, I think that the ontology of marriage shoudl be changed as per the nature of our civilization. the conservatives are too caught up in the semantics- the dictionary definition of marriage, and not relaizing the true meaning for which it is a symbol - love. Love that is by choice, not just by family. Members of a family get certain rights as hospital visits, inheritance, etc, and then a person can choose to extend that family by marrying someone else. So what if two homosexuals procreate- does that mean that they shoudl not receive those rights? What if a heterosexual couple is infertile or does not wish to have kids? Certainly they shouldn't be denied the right to marriage... right, Bush?
The important issue is rights. The title is of less importance, but indeed is what is being thrown around with much malice. therippa, you're right- the "sanctity" of marriage isn't harmed by homosexuals, it is undermined by our own society-straight or otherwise.
I believe that civil unionship is a right that gays should have. I also think that it should be deemed morally appropriate to identify that union as "marriage." As of now, it is not legally appropriate to do so, but that is precisely what I believe needs to be changed. I know that I'm not alone. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 3:44:31 PM
For the record, Bush is against Gay "Marriage". Not Civil Unions. |
| PJK |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 1:59:56 PM
I think marriage is between a male and female, however I have no problem with gays creating a union of sorts. My thought is the gay community want the same rights, ie: insurance coverage, tax breaks etc that is given to married couples. To me a united couple, however it is constructed should be equal. I remember when there was so much stink over inter-racial or inter-faith marriages.
Personally, even though I feel that marriage is between a man and woman, I just don't care what gays call it. I don't condone a gay lifestyle, but I have gay friends and they are wonderful people and don't ever try to push their lifestyle on others. Funny that we spend so much time on "love" issues, but went to war with no problem at all.
I am for equal rights for all. As for Bush, I am not even going to go there, but understand that the Constitution itself was bias in that in didn't allow women or minorities the right to vote nor did it recognize equal rights.
I for one am tired of hearing this on the news.
|
|
|
