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.
Im not for gay rights. "Gay rights" seems to be nothing more than an insistence on getting married and trying to validate and make mainstream their choice to be gay. Fine. Doesnt affect me, so good luck. But its not my problem so I dont feel any obligation to support their cause either.
Problem is, the opposite of "support" is "oppose" - so if it ever came to a nationwide (or statewide where you live) vote, which way would you go? And do you have to be personally affected to care about equal rights? I care about these issues deeply, even though I'm a straight white person - possibly because I'm also Jewish, so I understand any one of us could be the next target.
I believe in natural rights - the rights of every individual to freedoms and the rewards and consequences of freedom of choice, the right of every individual to seek his or her own happiness as long as their seeking does not infringe on any one else's rights. Consenting adults have the right to co-habitate howsoever they choose - and to enjoy the successes and suffer the consequences of those choices.
IOW, all people are (or, should be) free to choose to do what ever makes them happy - but don't demand or expect me to pay for their choices, any more than I demand or expect them to pay for mine. Neither politics nor religion have the right to force their morals or codes or behavior modifications on any individual - unless that individual is harming others and keeping them from enjoying and practicing their rights to choose. Choosing to 'go to hell' is an unalienable right, just as is choosing to be a success or failure, or choosing a male or female mate. Free will is key, and it is neither religion nor government's right to force any lifestyle over another.
I believe in natural rights - the rights of every individual to freedoms and the rewards and consequences of freedom of choice, the right of every individual to seek his or her own happiness as long as their seeking does not infringe on any one else's rights. Consenting adults have the right to co-habitate howsoever they choose - and to enjoy the successes and suffer the consequences of those choices.
IOW, all people are (or, should be) free to choose to do what ever makes them happy - but don't demand or expect me to pay for their choices, any more than I demand or expect them to pay for mine. Neither politics nor religion have the right to force their morals or codes or behavior modifications on any individual - unless that individual is harming others and keeping them from enjoying and practicing their rights to choose. Choosing to 'go to hell' is an unalienable right, just as is choosing to be a success or failure, or choosing a male or female mate. Free will is key, and it is neither religion nor government's right to force any lifestyle over another.
That's good and all, but we all pay for marriage benefits whether or not they apply to our relationships. The federal government has chosen to reward certain relationships with special benefits. I can only see two options... either allow gays to marry also or stop making them pay for hetersexuals to do so.
Once again, can you tell me why heterosexuals hold exclusive rights to marriage? Over 10 1st World countries already have same-sex marriage, and call it marriage. So the designation already exists for gay people.
Why can't heterosexuals have "civil unions" and gays have marriage? By your logic, that would be just as fair. And before you bring the "tradition" argument, modern day marriage is not traditional. It's very modern. If we want to stick with tradition, we would be advocating pedophilic marriages and polygamy.
OK. I'll tell you why heterosexuals "hold exclusive rights to marriage". (Not that they do anymore.) They hold those rights because that is the way marriage has evolved over centuries within existing Western cultures and societies. Now you are proposing that the "right" to that term be taken away from heterosexuals to be replaced with the term "civil unions" and the term "marriage" be given to homosexuals to describe their legal unions. I don't think that idea will fly with the large majority of heterosexuals.
OK. I'll tell you why heterosexuals "hold exclusive rights to marriage". (Not that they do anymore.) They hold those rights because that is the way marriage has evolved over centuries within existing Western cultures and societies. Now you are proposing that the "right" to that term be taken away from heterosexuals to be replaced with the term "civil unions" and the term "marriage" be given to homosexuals to describe their legal unions. I don't think that idea will fly with the large majority of heterosexuals.
That's good and all, but we all pay for marriage benefits whether or not they apply to our relationships. The federal government has chosen to reward certain relationships with special benefits. I can only see two options... either allow gays to marry also or stop making them pay for hetersexuals to do so.
Stop making everyone pay for everyone else's choices. If you choose to have 10 kids, why should I pay you for that privilege (people who have 10+ kids pay no income tax)? Maybe I want ten kids, too or maybe I only want 8; but I'm smart enough to know that I can't afford them on my own. So should I rip off my neighbors because they choose to be childless? Of course not! Maybe you want to be a life partner with someone of the same or opposite sex - why should I pay for your choice?
Equal is equal, fair is fair. No one should pay for anyone else's choices. I won't vote in the poll because there needs to be another choice - I am for equal rights for all, special privileges for none.
Taking away the term "marriage" from heterosexual unions and giving exclusive rights of that term to homosexual unions would more aptly be called "devolution".
Last edited by Cunucu Beach; 09-18-2011 at 10:55 AM..
Taking away the term "marriage" from heterosexual unions and giving exclusive rights of that term to homosexual unions might as easily be called "devolution" as "evolution".
Devolution really doesn't mean anything at all and is usually only used by those who are ignorant of how biological evolution works.
I don't think gay marriage should be sanctioned of recognized by the respective states, however.
Having said that, I gotta relate to y'all an opinion a gay friend of mine has repeatedly voiced throughout the years on this matter. This dude is about 70 years-old now, and as far as the whole "gay scene" goes, and has evolved, he's seen it all.
He is a retired Economics professor from UC Berkely, and he lived in the San Francisco Bay Area during the '60's and 70's. We'll call him Jay.
Jay is of the opinion that many gays bring discrimination and attention upon themselves. He calls it "ghetto-izing themselves." He reasons that, by protesting and holding demonstrations and parades and attempting to get legislation passed to further their cause, they are in reality making it harder on themselves. He believes they would be far better off keeping their sex lives private, and just oging about their business, and not even broaching the matter unless direct prejudice or discriminaton is foisted upon them. That's when they should act, Jay claims. But not before, when, in most cases, there is really no cause to do so. He feels many gays wear their sexual inclination "on their sleeves" and are actually "itching for a fight" when their usually not need be one. Oh yeah: he too is against Gay marriage being legalized. He even voted against it!
Jay is probably the wisest man I know, as well as one of my oldest, closest friends. I just wanted to pass this along.
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.
