Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Since when did it become sane to withhold certain rights from a segment of the population based on religious or personal grounds?
Well since we are redefining what marriage is, and making exceptions for ONE GROUP, I would expect you support polygamy, or a cousins getting married etc.
Why not?
Why can't we expand it so a bi-sexual can marry both a man AND a woman.
Why are THOSE groups being discriminated against?
This movement is not about "rights". It's about forcing others to accept a lifestyle action they do not on a personal and/or religious level. (And don't even for one minute insult millions of African Americans and try to make a connection.)
If it was about rights, civil unions would be fine. But they are not and it got pushed from that to "marriage", then it got pushed to change the verbiage in the state constitution to eliminate "gender"...THEN it got pushed in legislation that it WILL be taught in schools the homosexuality is "normal". It's not.
The "push" will stop when everyone conforms to the ideal that homosexuality is normal and just dandy. We all should try it once in a while. So WHO is being "forced" into something?
Come down to CT and see the process and how it worked. People who support traditional marriage (The majority) got railroaded in the name of "equal rights". Yea? For WHO?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishnfool
I think you'll find the people on the opposite side of the argument on this to be much more supportive of your right to live you life as you see fit and raise your children according to your belief system. They simply wish you would do the same.
I beg to differ. See my comments above. I now have to send my child to a private schools or allow him to be indoctrinated that two men can somehow make a family and populate the world.
JViello - fortunately you do not make the rules. Through our legislature we all get to make and change the rules. We have decided that not legalizing an emotional and economic bond between two free citizens because we do not approve of their sexual preferences is reducing their rights under our Constitution. We decided to change that.
I am a citizen of New Hampshire and I agree with this action simply on the basis of not restricting others in a manner I would not tolerate being done to me. If there was, and there was, a rule that said that I could only fall in love with and marry a female, I would be more than miffed. For the sake of my gay friends I always have been miffed. My response would be, “Where the hell does the state get off telling me what I can do and with whom? It is none of my neighbors and by extension the state’s business.
If I had children I would teach them that the human, and apparently many other animal populations, are wired to prefer having sex with their own sex and not the opposite. I didn’t make this so, I have just observed it to be true. So why should I argue with what is natural just because I do not think it proper. I need to adjust my thinking from what I was taught as a child when homophobia was rampant in our culture. For me it was easy to do because none of the other crap my parents taught me very realistic either.
For what it is worth my preference is none of your, or the State’s, damn business.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
JViello - fortunately you do not make the rules. Through our legislature we all get to make and change the rules. We have decided that not legalizing an emotional and economic bond between two free citizens because we do not approve of their sexual preferences is reducing their rights under our Constitution. We decided to change that.
I am a citizen of New Hampshire and I agree with this action simply on the basis of not restricting others in a manner I would not tolerate being done to me. If there was, and there was, a rule that said that I could only fall in love with and marry a female, I would be more than miffed. For the sake of my gay friends I always have been miffed. My response would be, “Where the hell does the state get off telling me what I can do and with whom? It is none of my neighbors and by extension the state’s business.
If I had children I would teach them that the human, and apparently many other animal populations, are wired to prefer having sex with their own sex and not the opposite. I didn’t make this so, I have just observed it to be true. So why should I argue with what is natural just because I do not think it proper. I need to adjust my thinking from what I was taught as a child when homophobia was rampant in our culture. For me it was easy to do because none of the other crap my parents taught me very realistic either.
For what it is worth my preference is none of your, or the State’s, damn business.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Greg, your legislature is an extension of the people. In CT anyway, the COURTS overruled the people. I don't believe in legislating from the bench.
Did NH put it to referendum?
Anyway, ironically your post is purely emotional and not logical. Prove me wrong by answering some of the things I brought up.
Well since we are redefining what marriage is, and making exceptions for ONE GROUP, I would expect you support polygamy, or a cousins getting married etc.
Why not?
In a personal ceremony of their choosing....sure, why not. None of my business, to each their own.
If you read my post, you will realize that I am all for government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Because they are in it, and certain tax breaks and legalities are entailed with "marriage", well then you run into a whole mess of issues when it comes to polygamy. I will point out that none of those issues arise with homosexual marriage though, so it's a moot point.
Cousin's have long been married in this country as well. Giulinai, Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson...all married their cousins. If you're worried about keeping the tradition of marriage alive and well I would think you would support the marriage of cousins
Quote:
This movement is not about "rights". It's about forcing others to accept a lifestyle action they do not on a personal and/or religious level.
Please define "accept". What burden does a gay marriage place on you? I would imagine there are TONS of currently legal lifestyle choices that people lead that you don't "accept".
Quote:
If it was about rights, civil unions would be fine.
I would 100% agree if civil unions carried with it the same rights and privileges as marriage does. It does not.
Quote:
The "push" will stop when everyone conforms to the ideal that homosexuality is normal and just dandy. We all should try it once in a while. So WHO is being "forced" into something?
Again, there are tons of things that are legal that you would find abnormal. Just because something is legal does not mean you have to condone it.
Going back to my example....do you support the rights of a KKK member to peacefully demonstrate in public? To raise their children according to that ideology?
I would assume (and hope) that you disagree with that lifestyle choice, that philosophy, and find it far from dandy. You don't have to accept it and are perfectly entitled to voice your opinion against it. You certainly don't have to teach your children that it is normal or okay. So their existence really doesn't seem to infringe in any way on you.
How is gay marriage any different?
In the end it boils down to this: You are granting certain individuals a right that you are not affording to others. You can frame it however you want, but it always boils down to that. Any time you do it, it is discrimination.
Simple solution - put it to a vote. Have a referendum.
Tyranny of the majority. It would probably be voted down. That does not make it okay.
In our republic, the majority does not have the right to oppress the minority. When judges over rule these votes, they are not being activists, they are simply upholding the rule of law.
By your logic, slavery would have been perfectly acceptable in the 1820's had it been put to a vote.
JVillo - What, specifically is illogical about my post. I started with the observation that there is a wide range of sexual preference in human and non human populations and the ideal that the majority cannot prevent the minority fron unharmful activites and a limit on the state's right to violate individual privacy.
On the latter point, I do not want the state observing my sexual preference or activities and I believe I do not have a right to interfere with others.
Tyranny of the majority. It would probably be voted down. That does not make it okay.
In our republic, the majority does not have the right to oppress the minority. When judges over rule these votes, they are not being activists, they are simply upholding the rule of law.
By your logic, slavery would have been perfectly acceptable in the 1820's had it been put to a vote.
Many other states have had votes. There is nothing wrong with voting on this as it is a legal issue. Everyone has the right in the united states to get married. "Married" means two people of opposite gender in 37 states (check the state constitutions) and to the Federal government. It is gay activists that want to redefine the meaning of a word for their agenda. It is as ridiculous as arguing about the meaning of the word "is". Too bad our forefathers did not have the foresight to see that people would actually think they can redefine words and had spelled out "one man and one woman".
I like the slavery reference; when is this fool going to call those opposing gay marriage "Nazi's".
JVillo - What, specifically is illogical about my post. I started with the observation that there is a wide range of sexual preference in human and non human populations and the ideal that the majority cannot prevent the minority fron unharmful activites and a limit on the state's right to violate individual privacy.
On the latter point, I do not want the state observing my sexual preference or activities and I believe I do not have a right to interfere with others.
When did the state ever state that it wanted to observe anyone's sexual preference or activities.
I wonder if GregW's right to individual privacy would extend to bestiality. "Honest officer Smith, I was just helping my sheep over the fence."
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
