Voting Against Marriage Amendments

[Green Gaia]

I've noted my opinion and as weak as you may find it, why can't you just say "let's agree to disagree?"

Victor, you're my friend and I'd like to stay that way. I wish I could just say "let's agree to disagree" as if this whole issue were of no consquence. But it does have consquences for many, many people and I'm sorry I can't just ignore that and pretend it doesn't.

Why did you have to note the "we're not so bad" comment?

But morally reprehensible was ok?

The "gay rights" movement is not about mere legal equality but truly forcing others to believe as they do - precisely what the religious right is routinely accused of! Can you not see the irony and blatant hypocrisy of this?

I'm not trying to change anyone's religious beliefs, I'm just bringing attention to the discrimination behind these so-called, "Marriage Protections" acts, which have nothing to do with protecting anything and everything to do with denying an entire group of citizens equal rights. Hold whatever religious beliefs you want, but no one should discriminated against by our government because of other's religious beliefs.

 

[Quiddity]

So wait, I want to be able to legally marry Liz because I want to... force others to believe that it's not bad, or something?

I just don't get what you're saying.

That what is being seeked is not just legal approval but also moral approval. And if I don't accept the latter, I never get a "let's agree to disagree". It almost always turns into a moral discussion.

 

[Mike182]

no, maize cannot claim to speak for every single gay person, but, her oppinion is incredibly similar to most of them, and i commend her for speaking out! now, if i might back Maize up here, most gay people don't really mind people the tutting and disapproving of them, not compared to being assulted, descriminated against at work and in the educations systems, suffering extra costs with the loss of a partner. yes, it would be nice to walk down the street and not be scowled at, but that is not very high on my list of priorities!


victor, i am sorry, but to agree to disagree is not acceptable until we are all on an equal footing. when it is a level playing field, i (and most gay people) will be quite content to agree to disagree, and let you hold what every oppinion it pleases you to have - but until we have an equal playing field, agreeing to disagree is saying that we are content to hold our place as inferiors, and we are not.

note: when i say inferiors, i mean we "happy to accept that you deserve more rights than us, because we are in some way lesser than you"

 

[Jaymes]

That what is being seeked is not just legal approval but also moral approval. And if I don't accept the latter, I never get a "let's agree to disagree". It almost always turns into a moral discussion.

I honestly don't give a damn if churches say I'm the spawn of the devil (unless they follow me around and harrass me or somesuch); a lot of other gay people I know are like that. It just gets really old really fast when you have people everywhere you turn saying "you're a sinner, you're going to hell, you're dirty, you're sick, something's wrong with you. Do you like your own sex because you were molested as a child? Surely that's the only reason anyone could ever be gay". Hence the backlash and every once in a while the frustrated screaming of "NO I'M NOT!"

 

[michel]

So wait, I want to be able to legally marry Liz because I want to... force others to believe that it's not bad, or something?

I just don't get what you're saying.

You know where I stand, Jensa.
Victor Said:-

I've noted my opinion and as weak as you may find it, why can't you just say "let's agree to disagree?" Why did you have to note the "we're not so bad" comment? The "gay rights" movement is not about mere legal equality but truly forcing others to believe as they do - precisely what the religious right is routinely accused of! Can you not see the irony and blatant hypocrisy of this?

Victor is making that point that he believes that you not only want equality, but that you want is for everyone to accept that gay 'partnerships' are 'O.K'. In his position, with his religious beliefs, that is something he cannot subscribe to.

(at least I think that is what he is saying).

You hopefully will have equality,but there are sections of society whose approval you will never earn. It is sad; I see both sides, and I respect both views.

Sheesh.....I told myself i wasn't going to get involved.

 

[Buttercup]

And that's all we want. Legal rights. Religions can continue to do whatever the wish in regards to marriage.

This is exactly why I would vote yes. I don't see how it's fair to deny this right to anyone. Why should someone not be allowed to marry because of someone else's religious convictions? That's what it boils down to.

But, on the other hand, I do not think churches that teach homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God should have to change their views either. I stand by that as well.

 

[pdoel]

I voted one man, one women. But I don't mind giving protections and rights to gays and lesbians. But since the avenue that has been choosen to get these rights are thru marriage, I will not support it.

Here's a question. Is this based on your religious thoughts on the matter? If so, would you support a bill that outlawed anyone who has been divorced from allowing to remarry? Would you support a bill that would keep anyone who has had premarital sex have a "marriage"?

There are many legal practices in this country right now that are against my religious beliefs. However, I realize that my religion does not speak for all. I can't imagine forcing people to live according to my personal religion.

 

[Green Gaia]

That what is being seeked is not just legal approval but also moral approval. And if I don't accept the latter, I never get a "let's agree to disagree". It almost always turns into a moral discussion.

I just want to make sure I'm intrepretating this correctly: Are you saying that when gay people defend ourselves from being attacked on moral grounds, we're really seeking moral approval?

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, you're my friend and I'd like to stay that way. I wish I could just say "let's agree to disagree" as if this whole issue were of no consquence. But it does have consquences for many, many people and I'm sorry I can't just ignore that and pretend it doesn't.

I didn't intend to sound like it will not have any consequence. It most certainly will and I wasn't asking you to ignore it either. But I do think this line of ignoring has become a bit fuzzy and blurry when some are in a dialogue/discussion setting. Do understand that it does appear to be pushed even after saying "let's agree to disagree", the issue is pushed. How does this not look like "believe as I do" at that point?

But morally reprehensible was ok?

I do not see homosexuality as sin Maize. I walk another path and try my best to specifically isolate the sinful acts from a persons sex. Heterosexuals struggle with sin as well.

I'm not trying to change anyone's religious beliefs, I'm just bringing attention to the discrimination behind these so-called, "Marriage Protections" acts, which have nothing to do with protecting anything and everything to do with denying an entire group of citizens equal rights. Hold whatever religious beliefs you want, but no one should discriminated against by our government because of other's religious beliefs.

Or non-religious for that matter. Can't you see that?

 

[michel]

Here's a question. Is this based on your religious thoughts on the matter? If so, would you support a bill that outlawed anyone who has been divorced from allowing to remarry? Would you support a bill that would keep anyone who has had premarital sex have a "marriage"?

There are many legal practices in this country right now that are against my religious beliefs. However, I realize that my religion does not speak for all. I can't imagine forcing people to live according to my personal religion.

Touché.

 

[pdoel]

If the movement sticks to legal equality and not moral approval it has better chances of accomplishing what is being seeked. But since discussions that surround homosexuality always turn into some kind of moral approval it will always get resistance. I'm not really sure how this can be done.

I'm confused. In the attempts to get gay marriage or even civil unions approved, I've never once heard of an ammendment forcing moral approval. Unless it's your stance that any homosexual relationships is immoral.

In which case, I defer to my questions above. Many believe that marriage between people of different races is immoral. Some believe that marriages between people of different religions is immoral. Many believe that premarital sex is immoral (even though the mass majority engage in it). Many believe that divorce is immoral and that to remarry is nothing short of adultery.

What should we use to define morals? Personally, I think raising children to be intolarent of others is just about as immoral as it gets. And I think pushing for any laws that allow discrimination or promote intolerance is immoral. But that's just me.

 

[Green Gaia]

You hopefully will have equality,but there are sections of society whose approval you will never earn.

And we quite understand that. I know I can never go into certain churches or organizations or places and be accepted for who I am (if I am open and honest) and expect be treated as anything other than "that dirty dyke" - I get it. I don't care. I just don't go to those kinds of places.

 

[Quiddity]

Crap, not again....I just posted one post, and received like 5 posts to counter me. Please be patient with me.

 

[BUDDY]

I believe that God sees marriage as a spiritual union between a man and a woman. I believe that the government should see marraige as a union between two consenting adults, because of the way the constitution is written. I will vote against the discrimination of same sex unions by our government.

 

[Quiddity]

victor, i am sorry, but to agree to disagree is not acceptable

See what I mean?

 

[pdoel]

To place all our bets on marriage is to give a framing victory to the GBLT opponents. Marriage confers many rights in a civil sense. It is a legal union with respect to the state. However, most people view marriage as a religious union and any attempts to change it as a full on assault on their faith. Is it any surprise they fight back? I do not believe this necessarily makes them homophobic, only fearful the sanctity of marriages in the context of their own faith.

I disagree. I think that's the exact definition of homophobia. These same people of religion have stood by, and most have even practiced things that are very much against the religion they are using to denounce homosexuality. People pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to follow. Divorce? Eh, doesn't fit with the times. Premarital sex? Yeah it's wrong, but I want it!

There are religions out there that I don't agree with in the least. Christians have no problems with Jewish people marrying. Or Buddhists, or even atheists. If we're going to stick with the "marriage is a religious institution", then why do religious people accept the marriage of two atheists?

At one point, I didn't care if it was called a civil union or a marriage. I just wanted the ability to make a committment with my partner, that would allow us to protect ourselves in the event of a tragedy. Then, I saw a woman from either the house or the senate speak on the matter. I wish I knew her name, but I don't.

Anyway, she was a black woman. She was fighting against the ammendment making a marriage between a man and a woman. She said anything less than a "marriage" is unacceptable. She says she remembers the times of having to drink out of different water fountains, or fight to get into the same schools. She said she's been through "separate but equal" and it's not right.

I have to say, I completely agree.

 

[evearael]

if it is an issue of the sanctity of marriage, then they would be legislating principles their faith says marriage should revolve around.

Politicians do the legislating and this does not necessarily honestly reflect a desire to push the entire agenda of a particular denomination. Normally they legislate just enough to stay in office. Remember Terry Shiavo's law? It had absolutely no effect because it was out of their jurisdiction, it was a empty plea for votes.

 

[Quiddity]

I honestly don't give a damn if churches say I'm the spawn of the devil (unless they follow me around and harrass me or somesuch); a lot of other gay people I know are like that. It just gets really old really fast when you have people everywhere you turn saying "you're a sinner, you're going to hell, you're dirty, you're sick, something's wrong with you. Do you like your own sex because you were molested as a child? Surely that's the only reason anyone could ever be gay". Hence the backlash and every once in a while the frustrated screaming of "NO I'M NOT!"

You are barking up the wrong tree. See my post to Maize post#49.

 

[evearael]

I think that's the exact definition of homophobia.

This is hilarious because I am bisexual.

 

[michel]

And we quite understand that. I know I can never go into certain churches or organizations or places and be accepted for who I am (if I am open and honest) and expect be treated as anything other than "that dirty dyke" - I get it. I don't care. I just don't go to those kinds of places.

Well, I hope you are wrong; besides, anyone who uses words like that deserves to be boycotted.