Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
shaka5

Ny votes against......

293 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker

Doesn't matter. Do Homosexuals want these rights or not? If they do, they will either have to wait 5 to 10 years or they will have to do a sales job with a different package (Civil Unions). Otherwise all the equality speech in the world is not going to turn around the people who are voting against these iniciatives.

People are voting against Gay Marriage on mostly Religous grounds, right? So if you take the religon out of the equation then there will be much less problems. It is a simple fact of a large percentage of the current US mindset.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

MMW, I applaud your Christian church for marrying same sex couples and because I believe that no one should be deprived of their right to happiness. Your church is in the very very small minority.

It isn't that small of a minority in the US, it's just that it's not widely advertised because of the possible backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

It isn't that small of a minority in the US, it's just that it's not widely advertised because of the possible backlash.

And, I'll be honest, not all Quaker Meetings perform same sex marriages, mine does, others do not. The case is similar for Unitarian churches. They have some of the same philosophies in regards to same sex marriage and relationships. I even know of a Methodist church in this area that performs same sex marriages. The ones that do it kind of keep it quiet; it's between the couple and God, and it's really no one elses business is the general philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

An interesting exchange Startraveler tried to engage. I almost thought I understood trueyoutrueme's position and then he'd go off again. Something I wanted to say was that TYTM's position that all decisions are moral is an interesting concept. But I will throw this out, my morals can be different than your morals. Who is to say you can discriminate against mine? Because that's the situation. The represented majority is discriminating against the represented minority with respect to the legal benefits of marriage. It is nothing to do with representation. It has to do with law. Discrimination is something we Americans abhor and have passed voluminous legal code about. And we don't stand for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I think it's rather simple: any two consenting adults can form a legally recognized union.

If they want a marriage, then they need to get Church consent, and Churches already have rights to choose who does or does not get married by priests, they have had for years now.

End result? Gays get the protection and recognition under law that any other registry office union gets.

The sticking point is the word marriage. And IMO one step at a time and get legal civil unions established first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

I think it's rather simple: any two consenting adults can form a legally recognized union.

If they want a marriage, then they need to get Church consent, and Churches already have rights to choose who does or does not get married by priests, they have had for years now.

End result? Gays get the protection and recognition under law that any other registry office union gets.

The sticking point is the word marriage. And IMO one step at a time and get legal civil unions established first.

I don't disagree with that... civil unions are a good place to start. Lessen the blow for the blowhards that are tripped up over vocabulary. I really have always thought of "marriage" as something that has a religious ceremony attached to it, a civil union doesn't. Here's an idea...

If you are opposite sex couple and get hitched by a Justice of the Peace or similar non-religious ceremony, let's call THAT a Civil Union too. That works for me. Fair for everyone. Sure, those same sex couples who want to be "married" in front of a minister will have to find a church or other religious organization to bless that union, but it shouldn't be THAT hard to do. Some will do it now, it's just not recognized by civil law--which as I stated before is irony at it's best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Given how marrage didn't start out as a religious thing, but a property/possesions thing. "I give you my daughter for x amount of cattle, grains, and chickens." I really don't see why it has to be so muddled with semantics and meanings. Seriously, if two concenting adults.. male/female, male/male, female/female want to get married, then let them.

It's not going to destroy society.. it's not going to open the flood gates for all those "Oh well, what if someone wants to marry their DOG!!" things.. after all, they said the same types of things when people were wanting inter-racial marrage and it didn't. It's not going to destroy the sanctaty of marrage, since it's obvious the meaning and reason for marrage has changed greatly over the millenias.

Though.. I still like the idea of handfasting.. that would cut down divourse alot.. could possibly cut down on the cheating.. *ponders*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

The "next they will marry their dogs" crap is exactly that...crap.

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Kids= not adults

Animals = can't consent

Heck, don't care if it goes to man/woman/man/man/woman or what ever. As long as no one is coerced and everyone is carrying their weight, I really don't care.

Nibs

Edited by HerNibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The "next they will marry their dogs" crap is exactly that...crap.

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Kids= not adults

Animals = can't consent

Heck, don't care if it goes to man/woman/man/man/woman or what ever. As long as no one is coerced and everyone is carrying their weight, I really don't care.

Nibs

What you are not considering is that a couple decades ago people were saying, "Two men getting married is crap." How are you to know what will be going on in 15 or 20 years? Perhaps it will change to one consenting adult. There is no way to know. You are using current ethics and morals to try to determine the future, when the future will actually have its own morals and ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

What you are not considering is that a couple decades ago people were saying, "Two men getting married is crap." How are you to know what will be going on in 15 or 20 years? Perhaps it will change to one consenting adult. There is no way to know. You are using current ethics and morals to try to determine the future, when the future will actually have its own morals and ethics.

Well, I look into our past history and see that progress is made towards tolerance and understanding.

Women couldn't vote. Can now.

African Americans were OWNED and had NO rights. Not so any more.

It was legal to abuse your wife and kids. Not any more.

So I am not really just basing it on my/current ethics or morals. I'm looking at a pattern that I see just from MY lifetime.

In order to have just one consenting adult you are removing the rights of another.

I don't see us going that far backwards.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaka5

What you are not considering is that a couple decades ago people were saying, "Two men getting married is crap." How are you to know what will be going on in 15 or 20 years? Perhaps it will change to one consenting adult. There is no way to know. You are using current ethics and morals to try to determine the future, when the future will actually have its own morals and ethics.

that's the thing...we shouldn't have to wait 15-20 years...we shouldn't have to vote for this, looking back on history is pointless...look at all the hate now against homosexuals, it's not gonna end no time soon and it's a shame

Edited by shaka5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

What you are not considering is that a couple decades ago people were saying, "Two men getting married is crap." How are you to know what will be going on in 15 or 20 years? Perhaps it will change to one consenting adult. There is no way to know. You are using current ethics and morals to try to determine the future, when the future will actually have its own morals and ethics.

Then lets cross that bridge if we come to it.

Right now, we're not discussing cats and dogs living together, or some Welshman who wants to marry a goat.

We're talking about two, legally aged, same-sexed individuals who pay their taxes, haven't broken any laws, who want their relationship to be considered to have the same legal recognition as different sexed couples.

As I understand it, there are certain benefits that come from being a legal spouse, benefits that are denied to same-sex couples.

In the home of the brave and the land of the free, can you really see the equity in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimi81

Gotta say that I am surprised about this one. New York seems to have a "anything goes" mindset towards almost everything. Why is there so much surprise? Just as there are people who believe gays should be allowed to marry, there are those who believe they should not be allowed to do so. It isn't a matter of "growing up" but rather a matter of personal preference or opinion.

But who are we to deny others the right to marriage? I really don't feel like this is something that should be voted for. If you aren't for Gay marriage thats fine......so marry someone of the opposite sex and people marry whoever they want. Who someone else chooses to marry has nothing to do with me, I say live and let live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimi81

I thought the law was for everyone including the minority hmmm maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so ;)

You should respect everyone until given a reason not to and being gay is not a good reason.

Why do obsess about "there" behavior? This is like when I was a kid and if you touched a girl you got girl germs ewwwwwww LOL Hope your not a peeping tom looking through gay people windows and pointing ewww gross. I say what ever turns your crank as an adult is all good as long as long as both parties are cool with it. Some Americans sleep with there guns, now thats freaky ;)

:lol:LMAO!! You would think that's what some of these people ard doing. Why the hell else would you care what's going down in someone elses bedroom!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimi81

The people have a right to attach any legal benefits that they choose to in reagards to behavior. The left-wing is trying to do that with almost every type of behavior with their greenie agenda.

You just want to deny people the right to representation on this issue alone. I am sure you do not oppose legal benefits in regards to the greenie agenda though. That is highly hypocritical.

Why do you keep equating homosexuality with behavior.....I don't understand that :hmm: ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaka5

Why do you keep equating homosexuality with behavior.....I don't understand that :hmm: ?

Thats his way of hiding hate, bigot thoughts, etc......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

It amazes me how those who support left-wing ideology always express some sort of hatred for our parents, grand parents, great-grandparents, etc.... It is a pathetic and bigoted mindset.

Oh, they would go all the way back to the cro magnon as an excuse for someone's behavior today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Oh, they would go all the way back to the cro magnon as an excuse for someone's behavior today.

Bigotry is taught and who has more influience over us than our parents? or your parents parents. Just as religion is and how beliefs are handed down. Pretty simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

Bigotry is taught and who has more influience over us than our parents? or your parents parents. Just as religion is and how beliefs are handed down. Pretty simple really.

I believe human kindness is a natural thing and one can be born naturally good. You know very well how we all mature and at certain age we become who we really are regardless of what was taught at home, sometimes it take one bad friend, right?

By the way, in the United States the government has taken over parents as more influential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DelusionalReasoning

Stepping back, I can understand where everyone on both sides are coming from. However, as we are a Republic, not a Democracy, if two homosexuals want to marry, they are not treading on my liberty (I am not losing anything for this to happen). They are saying that they love each other very much and want to make that commitment (not to mention the "perks" as others have noted). We need to get past mob rule mentality (democracy). Homosexuals have just as much right to be happy as I do.

But then again...maybe I think to simply (doubt it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

Bigotry is taught and who has more influience over us than our parents? or your parents parents. Just as religion is and how beliefs are handed down. Pretty simple really.

Silver Thong, 'bigotry' is a matter of perception, depending on the society one lives in.

Consider that not too many decades ago open "gay" relationships would have been a social No-No; but these days opposition to such relationships is (as a general rule) regarded as bigotry.

In that sense, you are correct: "... who has more influence over us than our parents?"

Today, most young parents probably teach their children that gay relationships are the norm -- as opposed to what their parents taught them.

The point is that the view as to what constitutes "bigotry" changes as generations come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Silver Thong, 'bigotry' is a matter of perception, depending on the society one lives in.

Consider that not too many decades ago open "gay" relationships would have been a social No-No; but these days opposition to such relationships is (as a general rule) regarded as bigotry.

In that sense, you are correct: "... who has more influence over us than our parents?"

Today, most young parents probably teach their children that gay relationships are the norm -- as opposed to what their parents taught them.

The point is that the view as to what constitutes "bigotry" changes as generations come and go.

Not when the bigotry comes from religion and it's 2000 yr old books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

Not when the bigotry comes from religion and it's 2000 yr old books.

Not in this modern age of worldwide web. Got to move on Silver...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Not in this modern age of worldwide web. Got to move on Silver...;)

So the internet makes people anti gay? I have moved on, I'm waiting for you guys to catch up ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theGhost_and_theDarkness

I'm coming into this a little late. . .I've read most of the pages.

I have some questions that I want answered directly. . .because, to be honest, I can't comprehend why some people are so dead set against gay marriage. I want someone to answer (like an adult, I must add) how a gay couple getting married affects you, directly, in a negative way. What harm does it do to you as a person.

I've seen this question asked many times in many ways, but I have yet to see a clear answer to it. The logic behind the answer is always skewed. I want a logical answer. My mind, apparently, can not comprehend anything less. Are there any precedents that would make you assume that gay marriage would be the moral undoing of our nation?

There was a time in history where I can understand where gay marriage would go against the definition of marriage. Procreation was a big deal, you weren't supposed to have children unless you were married. Marriage was not based on love, but either a business transaction and/or a means of getting more people to work and keep a community functional. We have reached a time where marriage is now based on something completely different. Sometime within the last century or so, marriage has become based on attraction and emotion. . .here in America, at least.

It seems to me that if you want to keep with the tradition of marriage, you would marry someone your family chose who was within your class, they would pay for them, and you would live with them and have children with them whether you liked them or not. And, if you didn't have children, then your marriage would be seen as a failure. Yet, I do not see many people clutching to those long honored traditions very hard. . .Thus, I find the argument of destroying the sanctity of marriage a bit hypocritical.

I'm actually with Silver Cougar on this one. . .handfasting would be SO much simpler. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.