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.
You, here and any other post that suggests same sex couples are superior
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I'm a heterosexual, and I can acknowledge there's evidence to suggest homosexuals do certain things better as both spouses and parents. I don't see anything wrong with that. I actually have never seen anyone on this board (other than me) even bring this up, come to think of it. Unless you're referring to anecdotal evidence?
You, here and any other post that suggests same sex couples are superior
indeed. That was not an attack on heterosexuality; I myself am heterosexual. Merely mentioning the evidence is not attacking someone. You being uncomfortable with it doesn't make it wrong to bring up
In the past fifteen or twenty years there has been a radical shift in public opinion concerning same-sex "marriage". I remember a time when the question of whether homosexuals should have the right to marry was a non-question in almost all but the most liberal sectors of society. Rather, homosexualist organizations concentrated their efforts on fighting against discrimination and the like. It seems like only in the past decade, and especially the last 5 years, has same-sex marriage become an issue attracting major public attention.
We've had a discussion of how the public came to accept the idea of homosexuals arrying so rapidly, but I am posing this question on a more personal scale:
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1. By my parents, originally, although the Catholic Church was most influential in shaping my later views on same-sex marriage.
2. Around the age of 15, or in 2002, when I began to debate the issue in an online teen forum.
3. No changes.
1. I don't recall any single time or even a progression I could plot but I've never had any issues with gays or lesbians and the idea of them marrying doesn't scare me in the slightest. It won't affect me marrying and I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise.
Keep gub'mint out of the bedroom and stop legislating morality. I don't want to live in a theocracy.
2. Only in the past few years as it's become such a hot issue.
3. No change. I've always wanted gub'mint to stay out of bedrooms, mine or anyone else.
I was fairly young and it was a non-issue for me, meaning I was unaware of gay marriage, until a sibling came out of the closet in the early-eighties. I can't say that my opinion changed so much as crystallized as a result of watching him struggle for rights that I take for granted. I am firmly in the equal marriage rights camp.
indeed. That was not an attack on heterosexuality; I myself am heterosexual. Merely mentioning the evidence is not attacking someone. You being uncomfortable with it doesn't make it wrong to bring up
"I myself am heterosexual"
Yes, you have said that.
"Merely mentioning the evidence is not attacking someone."
Ok, attack is too harsh. I'll say justifying or strengthening the point of view then: Play up the good points of Homosexuality and Play up any negatives associated with Heterosexuality or Christianity. This whole point is interesting considering there are more Heterosexuals accepting of Gay marriage than there are Gays but many proponents of Gay marriage seem to think its acceptable to insult Heterosexuals.
Like said before I'm ok with SSM I'm just not down with every GLBT issue out there and I don't know how all Gays could be either
Ok, attack is too harsh. I'll say justifying or strengthening the point of view then:
Not seeing a problem with it so far...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun
Play up the good points of Homosexuality and Play up any negatives associated with Heterosexuality or Christianity.
That's just the thing; I didn't do the latter. I didn't say heterosexuals were bad parents or even less than great parents. Just pointed out that in some ways, homosexuals may tend to be better on average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun
This whole point is interesting considering there are more Heterosexuals accepting of Gay marriage than there are Gays but many proponents of Gay marriage seem to think its acceptable to insult Heterosexuals.
Whoever's doing that is wrong. But I haven't heard/seen any gay rights advocate insulting heterosexuals in general. I have seen a few of them ridicule Christianity (which is wrong, too) but not heterosexuals.
Utter nonsense. Clearly, you haven't read any of the appelate decisions that have struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For example, the holding the District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (as it was then named) that sexual orientation could he construed as a suspect class. How does that possibly lead to plural marriage or incestuous marriage? Feel free to explain that to us.
The simple fact is that barring plural marriages does not prevent anyone from marrying a consenting adult of the gender to which they are naturally attracted. Nor do consanguinuity limits. Period. They don't. But barring same-sex marriage does.
Tell you what: cite the points of law in the cases from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, or California that struck down same-sex marriage bans that necessarily apply to incestuous marriages and plural marriages. Cite the specific logic, and explain to us how it applies to those other instances.
After all, you are the one making the claim that they do just that. Fine. Cite them, and explain yourself.
Of course, we all know you won't, because you can't, because your assertion is bogus.
If I am "naturally" attracted to my brother or mother, consanguinity limits certainly hinder my freedom to marry. Likewise, who is to say that marriage consists of only two people? The lack of a universally-applicable definition of marriage with a consistent logical backing is what hinders the pro-same sex marriage argument and leads to the "incest marriage" or polygamy arguments. If one wants to marry his sister, or four people want to marry one another, the same "logic" apparently proposed by many that would permit same-sex marriage - such as "they are in love with each other, why not let them marry?" or "equal rights for all!" would also permit incestuous marriages (at least between sterilized partners) and plural marriages.
I have read the Iowa decision, back in 2009 for an American Government course I was taking. The judicial opinion, I believe, was based on the principle of equal protection under the law. The court was unable to prove that two males or two females requesting a marriage license constituted a situation dissimilar to a male and female couple requesting a marriage license. And there is what the same-sex marriage debate hinges on: the definition of marriage. There is a significant segment of the American population that believes that marriage is not only legally defined, but also ontologically - outside of any law - as between a man and a woman. As the laws of the nation should be in accordance with the laws of nature, recognizing a union between two members of the same-sex is abhorrent to them. The Iowa decision hinged on several arguments for traditional marriage made by the defendants, some of which were found to validly underlie the institution of marriage. Yet many of the reasons the court found valid could be considered invalid - for example, one of the purposes of marriage being to provide an optimal environment for the raising of children. In addition, one could argue too that a man requesting a second marriage license concurrent with that of another woman would not violate any of the rationale for allowing marriage considered by the court, and hence be in similar standing to a single man and a single woman marrying. The simple fact that same-sex marriage proponents seem incapable of producing a clear definition of marriage - as demonstrated by a thread I started on here a while ago asking what the definition of marriage is - leads one to think that by the lack of definition yet the existence of marriage, it is theoretically open to any kind of union, at least between consenting adults (since the "new morality" still insists on consent as the one condition of an upright act).
The results were not what I expected. According to the results of polls now and the results of polls taken in, say, 1996, a far greater percentage of Americans support same-sex marriage (with the "don't know" proportion staying relatively low, if I remember correctly) and naturally, you would expect those who once opposed same-sex marriage to now be in favor of it. What it seems like from reading most of the responses is that those who support same-sex marriage did not generally hold a prior position contrary to their current one, but rather never thought of the issue until recently. This could be because of the young age of many of the assiduous posters here, or because former opponents are ashamed of having been opposed to same-sex marriage.
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.
