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.
The majority of Americans, INCLUDING THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, don't support gay marriage. (Currently)
Let's talk Obama for a minute (in a round-about sort of way).
Honestly, I don't really understand why/how people can be FOR civil unions for homosexuals, yet AGAINST gay marriage.
I mean, I fully understand that Obama is a shrewd politician, and he's probably just splitting political hairs here, but what the heck? What, really, is the difference? It would seem to me that either a person is or is not, is either for or against.
You raise some important points, and at the same time, hint at one of the key reasons why so many people are opposed to homosexuality. As you stated, just as heterosexuality extends far beyond a sexual act, so does homosexuality. Yet, for many people, they reduce homosexuality down to that simple "act." In some ways I liken this to the objectification of women in music videos. Let me elaborate.
I understand this complaint, but part of the reason is that the sex is the main or only thing about it that's considered a sin.
King David and Jonathan loved each other very much. Maybe not romantic love, but love. Two men, or women, deeply loving each other and being willing to even die for each other is compatible within the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The sex is really what's objectionable. It is non-procreative and lacks the complementarity or interdependence of heterosexuality. A group of lesbians can, and have, separated from all men without becoming celibate. Heterosexuals can not separate by sex/gender with that kind of relative ease. If they are to live a sexual life at all they have to learn to deal with the opposite sex. The man and women are to "cleave" together to be something greater than the parts. The "parts" in homosexuality are in a sense interchangeable and not cleavable. The interplay of genders non-existent.
I think there was only one man I ever really fell in love with, mostly my attractions to men are just sexual, but I think that is not a sin the way homosexual sex is deemed a sin. For all I know it's not per-se a sin at all. Two women or two men being "kindred spirits" I know is allowed.
On a less religious matter to me being attracted to, or in love with, a man really is different than being attracted to or in love with a woman. So I think deeming same-sex relationships and opposite-sex ones identical doesn't really make sense to me. For civil purposes their should perhaps be matrimony (as the term relates directly to motherhood and procreation), female-female conjugals, and male-male conjugals. Then marriage can be limited to religious groups.
The sex is really what's objectionable. It is non-procreative and lacks the complementarity or interdependence of heterosexuality. A group of lesbians can, and have, separated from all men without becoming celibate. Heterosexuals can not separate by sex/gender with that kind of relative ease. If they are to live a sexual life at all they have to learn to deal with the opposite sex. The man and women are to "cleave" together to be something greater than the parts. The "parts" in homosexuality are in a sense interchangeable and not cleavable. The interplay of genders non-existent.
I must be completely missing something, or mis-reading this, but I absolutely cannot figure out what you're talking about here.
Let's talk Obama for a minute (in a round-about sort of way).
Honestly, I don't really understand why/how people can be FOR civil unions for homosexuals, yet AGAINST gay marriage.
I mean, I fully understand that Obama is a shrewd politician, and he's probably just splitting political hairs here, but what the heck? What, really, is the difference? It would seem to me that either a person is or is not, is either for or against.
I don't get it...
By calling it something else you recognize homosexuality and heterosexuality are different without denying homosexuals basic rights. It's also easier to protect religious rights to discriminate this way. (And yes private organizations should be allowed some ability to discriminate, otherwise Shaquille O'Neal could be in the "Little People of America" or what have you)
I must be completely missing something, or mis-reading this, but I absolutely cannot figure out what you're talking about here.
Could you clarify/explain, please?
In heterosexuality the two sexes are involved. The man depends on the woman and vice-versa. In homosexuality it's just one sex. The two men can, theoretically, live in a world where women are completely irrelevant. You see this more with "lesbian separatists" though.
I thought I was pretty clear on this, but maybe not.
Let's talk Obama for a minute (in a round-about sort of way).
Honestly, I don't really understand why/how people can be FOR civil unions for homosexuals, yet AGAINST gay marriage.
I mean, I fully understand that Obama is a shrewd politician, and he's probably just splitting political hairs here, but what the heck? What, really, is the difference? It would seem to me that either a person is or is not, is either for or against.
I don't get it...
What's not to get? It's not a popular topic and Obama isn't going to take the hit even if he thought it was the right thing. (He is a politician).
However, he is very popular with the gay\lesbian community since he isn't an "evil republican" so he pays them lip service and they continue to hand over their wool.
Politics 101....placate the fundraising base just enough to keep the cash flowing in. After all, they aren't going anywhere and will rationalize or put up with just about anything. You then work the moderate\swing voters to keep office and voila.
In heterosexuality the two sexes are involved. The man depends on the woman and vice-versa. In homosexuality it's just one sex. The two men can, theoretically, live in a world where women are completely irrelevant. You see this more with "lesbian separatists" though.
I thought I was pretty clear on this, but maybe not.
Well yeah, of course.
But a man or woman can be completely celibate - apart from heterosexuality or homosexuality - and live as though the other simply doesn't exist.
What's not to get? It's not a popular topic and Obama isn't going to take the hit even if he thought it was the right thing. (He is a politician).
However, he is very popular with the gay\lesbian community since he isn't an "evil republican" so he pays them lip service and they continue to hand over their wool.
Politics 101....placate the fundraising base just enough to keep the cash flowing in. After all, they aren't going anywhere and will rationalize or put up with just about anything. You then work the moderate\swing voters to keep office and voila.
That's exactly right.
What surprises me is that nobody could see through that. Regardless of the political spin, you're either for homosexual rights or against them.
Even so, you gotta hand it to Obama. He managed to go the entire campaign without really saying anything, and was elected President. THAT is good politicking!
Actually though, the legal thing isn't working for them in swaying hearts and minds. One side is talking marriage as a love, commitment, family state of being and the other side is talking marriage in legal terms like spousal rights/privileges. That's why the one side is offering up civil unions instead of marriage. Gays are making "marriage" sound like a business deal so the other side is offering up a business deal. Straight people don't get married because they want tax breaks and discounts.
I think to win people over, gays need to talk more about why they want to be married using the same love, commitment, family state of being language (and mean it) that the other side uses. Gays who have no interest in being married and just see this as a "gay rights" issue need to get off the national stage and just let the gays who really believe in marriage, do the talking about the institution of marriage and what it means to them.
No, the "tax breaks" and legal aspects are brought up in the debate because the anti-equality crowd tends to insist that marriage somehow belongs to religion exclusively so gays can be excluded.
And there is no reason to "win people over". There simply is no rational, valid secular reason to deny gays Equality of Marriage.
We are a Constitutional Republic for a reason. Certain rights and privlages are inherently shared by each and every citizen, marriage being one of those rights, and who gets rights isn't open to the democratic process.
It isn't done today with heterosexuals. Churches can choose or to decline to marry any heterosexual couple they please. Why even bring it up?
Because there is a serious danger of a social backlash occuring, and churches loosing their right to refuse providing wedding cerimonies based on religious principles.
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.
