U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Indiana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,601 posts, read 24,923,891 times
Reputation: 7505

Advertisements

Why not just leave everything alone ... why restrict??? Don't make any moves on gay marriage, just leave it be. The second amendment is a federal protection, leave it be. Our state already restricts abortions .. leave it be.
__________________
If there won't be dancing at the revolution, I'm not coming.
Emma Goldman

 
Old 02-25-2011, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
245 posts, read 409,783 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zel Ya View Post
Great post. I totally agree with your thoughts.

It's a no-brainer that equal rights for the LGBT community is in the cards. It's just a little too late to stop the train of equality that has rolled across this country for over 150-years. The momentum is too great and entrenched to stop this train of equality.

Yes, I'm sure there's some straight, white men that would like to turn back the tide of equal rights for African-Americans, women, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Native-Americans, Cuban-Americans, English-Americans, Polish-Amercians, Swedish-Americans, Irish-Americans, Dutch-Americans, German-Americans, French-Amercians, Scottish-Amercians, Norwegian-Amercians, Latvian-Amercians, Russian-Amercians, Swiss-Americans, Italian-Amercians, Portuguese-Americans, Danish-Amercians, and the list goes on and on.

Almost every above minority group has been the target of discrimination in this country. We tend to forget the struggles these minority groups encountered when they first settled in America.

For example, there was a tidal wave of discrimination against Irish immigrants. It seems hard to fathom now, but we must NOT forget our past history.

It's very sad that the powers that be exert a lot of energy and spend a lot of money to fight equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. They will win some battles along the way, but they WILL LOSE THE WAR.
I have read through most of this board by now, after arriving pretty late. I wanted to see how some of the debate played out before I jumped in, but after reading this particular post, I couldn't help myself any longer.

Zel, you hit the nail 100% on the head with this one. I've been saying the same thing at IndyStar.com for the last month. Basically, it comes down to this: conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major human rights issue in American history. Consider the conservative stance on the following:

The American Revolution (conservatives were called "redcoats" back then)
Slaverey (conservatives were called "confederates" back then)
Black citizenship
Black voting rights
Black property rights
Women's voting rights
Women's property rights
Immigration (by all the minorities Zel mentioned)
Workplace safety/labor rights
Segregation/civil rights
Inter-racial marriage
...and now, gay marriage, abortion, immigration (again), unions/labor (again) etc.

As others have pointed out, there simply isn't a compelling, rational reason to make laws that restrict the freedom of others to live their lives as they choose. Moreover, there isn't a compelling conservative rebuttal to the challenge that gay marriage does nothing more to harm the institution of marriage than does divorce. It seems that, regardless of how conservatives feel about divorce in their own lives, they have been able to lead normal lives despite it's existence. How would gay marriage change that? Even "leftist," gay marriage-inclusive states still allow their citizens to choose NOT to get gay-married if they don't want to.

This all leads to a clear-as-day conclusion: conservatives don't want the government to recognize a group they consider "icky" for one reason or another. The conservative agenda has always been to marginalize people who are different.

Now, on the other hand, I think politics have gotten out of control in America recently, and I think compromise is important. Here is the solution I detailed in a letter I wrote to Bosma (to which he never responded):

I propose that the state altogether eliminate government-sponsored marriage as it is today and replace it with equal-opportunity civil unions. That way, when a couple (regardless of sexual orientation) goes to city hall, the agreement they enter is, without a doubt, a secular legal contract that is the same for everyone. What the couple does after that – what they call it, whether or not they have a religious ceremony – is their business. This would accomplish several important things:

First, it would expand individual liberties to all citizens equally. From what I heard during the health care debate, individual liberty is among conservatives' most cherished values.

Second, this solution limits the role of government in a very private and intimate aspect of Hoosiers’ lives – also, if I understand correctly, one of conservatism's core values. This is a small government solution to a problem that has been debated extensively without any meaningful progress.

Third, it would protect the terminology including and related to the word “marriage” from being redefined, which is important to religious groups. See "compromise."

And finally, it would bring marriage equality to Indiana, making our state a leader in equality and tolerance and ending the unfair treatment of gay people in Indiana.

I honestly can’t see why any rational person would be opposed to what I have outlined above; this proposal is truly a win-win. I think even the most backwards of conservatives knows that no amount of socially conservative legislation will stop people that are in love from being together. I can think of several local churches, even, that perform gay weddings on a regular basis. I am married, and I say with full certainty that there is absolutely nothing any politician could say that would make my wife and I any less married. I am confident that other married couples, gay and straight, feel the same way. It’s time to end the bigotry, plain and simple.


Oh, and people are idiots for buying the "jobs" platform in November. Just sayin'.

Last edited by dave.dawsn; 02-25-2011 at 12:40 PM..
 
Old 02-25-2011, 12:57 PM
 
192 posts, read 118,872 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
In the case of choice and marriage ... When freedom isn't involved.
By choice, you mean a woman can choose to end the dependency another human being has upon her even if she knows for certain it will result in the death of that human being. How is this progressive?

Marriage is one of the essential building blocks of a society. Why tinker with that? If a couple wants to be a couple why do they want to call it a marriage?...For the benefits! These benefits are intended to encourage family. Why should those benefits apply to those who simply wish to play house? Let them play house, however sincerely, but society should have no business encouraging it. If a man wants to unite with a man then he can choose to do so, but he foregoes uniting with a woman (notwithstanding poligamy, which interestingly is NOT part of the LGBT platform). You can't choose to dine at KFC and complain that your McDonald's coupon isn't accepted. Again, this is not progressive. If it is where then does it stop and why?
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:07 PM
 
192 posts, read 118,872 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
Why not just leave everything alone ... why restrict??? Don't make any moves on gay marriage, just leave it be. The second amendment is a federal protection, leave it be. Our state already restricts abortions .. leave it be.
Indiana does not want to be forced to accept a gay marriage from another state. The change would make that more certain.

The second amendment has already been infringed upon, thus the point of the state legislation.

If the state is correct in restricting abortion, then it would not be wrong to consider adjusting those restrictions. I'm sure those opposed to the current legislation would not be concerned if the state intended to change restrictions by reducing them. Then they wouldn't say...leave it be.
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
245 posts, read 409,783 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man View Post
By choice, you mean a woman can choose to end the dependency another human being has upon her even if she knows for certain it will result in the death of that human being. How is this progressive?

Marriage is one of the essential building blocks of a society. Why tinker with that? If a couple wants to be a couple why do they want to call it a marriage?...For the benefits! These benefits are intended to encourage family. Why should those benefits apply to those who simply wish to play house? Let them play house, however sincerely, but society should have no business encouraging it. If a man wants to unite with a man then he can choose to do so, but he foregoes uniting with a woman (notwithstanding poligamy, which interestingly is NOT part of the LGBT platform). You can't choose to dine at KFC and complain that your McDonald's coupon isn't accepted. Again, this is not progressive. If it is where then does it stop and why?
So if you suggest that "marriage" should be heterosexual only to encourage procreation, what do you say to people who get married when the woman is past menopause or the man has had a vasectomy?

My wife and I don't have kids, yet we filed our taxes as "married filing jointly." Should we not have that option? What about if a couple adopts (which many gay couples do)?

To answer your question, it is progressive to grant equal rights to all people, including those whom conservatives find "icky." It is regressive - draconian, even - to restrict consenting adults from having the right to live their lives simply because you don't like who they are.

In response to what your comments about abortion, I will admit that I myself do not like abortion and do everything in my power to avoid it in my own family. However, it is a thoroughly complex issue with countless facets. Conservatives tend to boil it down to "loose girls that get knocked up and don't want to deal with the consequences," when in reality it is infinitely more complex than that. Do you suggest that we, as a society, tell a rape victim that she must carry the rapist's child for nine months and suffer through the agony of childbirth after experiencing the horror of rape? Do you suggest that we, as a society, take away the right for a family to choose to end a pregnancy that is life-threatening to the mother and leave her life in the hands of chance? What about children for whom the mother (or family) is unwilling or unable to care? Maybe if we had a civilized health care system, you could argue that it is acceptable to ask that woman to give birth to the child and then allow one of the many families that want children but can't have them to adopt it...

The point is, nobody is "for" abortion. There are pro-choice and anti-choice points of view, and that's it. The "pro-life" label is a misnomer for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant, unrepentant hypocrisy of people who are at once "pro-life," pro-war, and pro-death penalty. As President Clinton said, abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,601 posts, read 24,923,891 times
Reputation: 7505
I don't like the fact that conservatives talk out of one side of their mouths stating how they want to keep government out of their pocketbooks, but boy, they want to insert government to dictate how we live our lives socially ... that's disgusting.

A. If you don't like abortion, don't have one
B. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay
__________________
If there won't be dancing at the revolution, I'm not coming.
Emma Goldman
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:25 PM
 
192 posts, read 118,872 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn View Post
I propose that the state altogether eliminate government-sponsored marriage as it is today and replace it with equal-opportunity civil unions. That way, when a couple (regardless of sexual orientation) goes to city hall, the agreement they enter is, without a doubt, a secular legal contract that is the same for everyone. What the couple does after that – what they call it, whether or not they have a religious ceremony – is their business. This would accomplish several important things:

First, it would expand individual liberties to all citizens equally. From what I heard during the health care debate, individual liberty is among conservatives' most cherished values.

Second, this solution limits the role of government in a very private and intimate aspect of Hoosiers’ lives – also, if I understand correctly, one of conservatism's core values. This is a small government solution to a problem that has been debated extensively without any meaningful progress.

Third, it would protect the terminology including and related to the word “marriage” from being redefined, which is important to religious groups. See "compromise."

And finally, it would bring marriage equality to Indiana, making our state a leader in equality and tolerance and ending the unfair treatment of gay people in Indiana.

I honestly can’t see why any rational person would be opposed to what I have outlined above; this proposal is truly a win-win. I think even the most backwards of conservatives knows that no amount of socially conservative legislation will stop people that are in love from being together.
As you so aptly stated, nothing stops gays from being together, so why be recognized as a marriage, a union, or anything else "officially"? Benefits! In one sense, it is not what they can do for society but what society can do for them. There are no civil liberties being violated.

You interestingly point out that your plan would leave marriage intact but then say it would bring marriage equality. You are right in this: a civil union recognized by the state would become essentially a "marriage", therefore a vote for civil unions IS essentially a vote for gay marriage, now or later for sure.

Lastly, I think you are also right when you said "I honestly can't see". (gotta add a little humor )
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
245 posts, read 409,783 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
I don't like the fact that conservatives talk out of one side of their mouths stating how they want to keep government out of their pocketbooks, but boy, they want to insert government to dictate how we live our lives socially ... that's disgusting.

A. If you don't like abortion, don't have one
B. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay
Well put. Freedom and individual liberty, it turns out, are only for people that look and think exactly like them. Interestingly, when it comes to things they hold dear that others find destructive (guns, pollution, etc.), nobody yells and screams "persecution" and "tyranny" louder than conservatives.
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
245 posts, read 409,783 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man View Post
As you so aptly stated, nothing stops gays from being together, so why be recognized as a marriage, a union, or anything else "officially"? Benefits! In one sense, it is not what they can do for society but what society can do for them. There are no civil liberties being violated.

You interestingly point out that your plan would leave marriage intact but then say it would bring marriage equality. You are right in this: a civil union recognized by the state would become essentially a "marriage", therefore a vote for civil unions IS essentially a vote for gay marriage, now or later for sure.

Lastly, I think you are also right when you said "I honestly can't see". (gotta add a little humor )
It's not about personal gain, but about avoiding heart-wrenching and very unfortunate situations. I read about an 81-year-old lady whose wife passed away some years ago and she had to pay $360,000 in estate taxes that she wouldn't have owed if their marriage was recognized by the federal government. Also, it is common knowledge that legal technicalities have allowed hostile family members to encroach on all kinds of decisions in gay relationships that are always up to a spouse in recognized marriages. This is about equal treatment under the law for homosexual and heterosexual relationships, not about some kind of greedy self-interest.

To clarify, when I say "marriage will be left intact," I mean in the rhetorical sense, from the perspective of the religious right. I think they're full of it, honestly; they don't like gay people and they don't want them to have equal rights. However, they insist that they oppose gay marriage because GLBT folks want to call it "marriage." Fine, let's call it civil union. But we have to call it the same thing for everybody...last time we tried "seperate but equal" it didn't work out so well. Thus, my idea for the law to call everyone's legal contract a civil union, and what they call it is their business.

As far as "marriage equality," that is just a common term for this issue.
 
Old 02-25-2011, 01:40 PM
 
192 posts, read 118,872 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast View Post
First, why is it interesting that poligamy is not included in the LGBT platform? Seems an odd comment to make. Do you think gays are only interested in wild sex parties with each other?

I think implying that gays only "want to play house" is very demeaning to gays. You know what else is demeaning? Suggesting that gays are only interested in the "benefits."

While I get that marriage is important, I also know that divorce runs rampant in this country. Both of my parents are on their 3rd marriages right now. What message does that send to me and my siblings? What message does that send to a generation of children who are in the minority when their parents do not divorce? I can tell you first hand, not a positive one.
My point with poligamy is that it too is a form of marriage, but the LGBT has not included it in spite of the said intention of freedom to choose their partner. Don't they also believe you should be able to choose multiple partners?

Gays have the right to have sex, live together, identify themselves as a couple (and call themselves whatever they wish, spouse, partner, etc). Not much left except....benefits! Surely they are not stomping their legislative feet for a piece of paper from the state. That would not be a very earth friendly attitude. When I said "play house" I meant they themselves seem to suggest it is less than they intend it to be without that piece of paper from the state. There are other ways you could have taken my comment besides concluding it was demeaning. Maybe if you had asked I could have clarified. Fortunately I don't mind offering clarification to clear my name, as I am sure other who read into my comment as demeaning could summarily hate me for it.

Similarly, I think the message you and others like you (myself included...parents divorced before I was 4 yrs old) could read is that wasn't right. Marriage is designed to be until death but we aren't perfect. I look back and think my parents did a lot wrong and use it to motive me to do better. I don't think it was the institution of marriage that was the problem. Why is it that we all want to be seen as human and have our mistakes forgiven but we are so quick to allow the mistakes of others to change the way we view life and all it can be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Indiana

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top