"I Care about Civil Rights... but not that much"

[knightni]

Civil rights movements start small by definition.  Eventually the minority becomes a plurality, and the plurality eventually becomes the majority.

 

Why, I can remember a time here on this very board when chicken plookers and coffee table lickers were considered outcasts. . . 

So, you're saying that the majority of the people in the world will be homosexuals in the future?

[Balta1701]

So Knight, if we called it marriage, but did not force any churches to perform them or recognize them if they chose not to, would that fit your standards?

 

I see no reason why anyone, anywhere, should force a priest to marry 2 people he does not believe should be married, even if its for racial reasons. There are always other options. Judges, for example, or other churches.

 

If a church chooses to perform them, is there some reason that the church should be forbidden from doing so?

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, you're saying that the majority of the people in the world will be homosexuals in the future?

That is correct. Stop the breeders and get this population explosion thing under control!

[Balta1701]

That is correct.  Stop the breeders and get this population explosion thing under control! 

Don't worry...the end of the age of oil will take care of that for us.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If a church chooses to perform them, is there some reason that the church should be forbidden from doing so?

 

" 'Cuz God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, you Californy ijut"

 

^^^ Really, really green ^^^

Edited September 8, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[southsider2k5]

It's the new me.  Respective & cordial. 

 

I disagree that this is this generation's civil rights issue.  IMHO there is simply not enough support for it to be considered as such.  Likewise with media segmentation occuring on a mass level these days I think it's going to be very difficult for such support to manifest itself.  It is more likely that government's will move away from marriage altogether to better deal with issues of divorce & alternative lifestyles.

I've decided to try a different experiment first.  I am going to put forth my best effort to represent the minority opinion in a respective & cordial way.  Let's see what happens.

 

Not a problem. If you ever want to try it, let me or any of the other admins know about it.

[knightni]

So Knight, if we called it marriage, but did not force any churches to perform them or recognize them if they chose not to, would that fit your standards?

 

I see no reason why anyone, anywhere, should force a priest to marry 2 people he does not believe should be married, even if its for racial reasons.  There are always other options.  Judges, for example, or other churches.

 

If a church chooses to perform them, is there some reason that the church should be forbidden from doing so?

The term "marriage" is a relgious term.

 

Homosexuality is against most churches' beliefs.

 

Civil unions would be the way to avoid the majority of conflict by the churches.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Don't worry...the end of the age of oil will take care of that for us.

No more oil?!? Then I seriously have to rethink this homosexual future thing. . .

[Kid Gleason]

So Knight, if we called it marriage, but did not force any churches to perform them or recognize them if they chose not to, would that fit your standards?

 

I see no reason why anyone, anywhere, should force a priest to marry 2 people he does not believe should be married, even if its for racial reasons.  There are always other options.  Judges, for example, or other churches.

 

If a church chooses to perform them, is there some reason that the church should be forbidden from doing so?

 

A church isn't forced to marry anybody. Before I could get married in the church I got married in, I had to jump through hoops galore. I was raised a Luthern, but my wife was Catholic. To marry in the Catholic church, I had to go through classes and agree to a bunch of stuff, some of which included the raising of my kids in a Catholic church. If I didn't agree to these things, all or some I am not sure, the church could easily have said "no" to me.

[kapkomet]

It's the new me.  Respective & cordial. 

 

I've decided to try a different experiment first.  I am going to put forth my best effort to represent the minority opinion in a respective & cordial way.  Let's see what happens.

 

Good deal. I Think you'll find that a lot of us will be a lot more receptive of your views, then, even if they're wrong.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We are actually debating two issues in this thread. The first is gay-marriage. The second is condescending style of posts.

 

Please re-read your post & try to imagine how it sounds to someone who is devoutly religious. Ask the question is it condescending? I'd prefer the mods take no action.

We are learning here. I simply want to point how that it would be natural for me as a devil's advocate to echo the same style in a reply.

 

As to what you said naturally I disagree with your references to unequality, condemned to hell, & how sad, & dark ages model. Those are all very condescending to a devoutly religious person.

 

Likewise they are anything but true from my personal experience. She's the boss & I'm her right hand man. Why? Because my religious culture makes it so. Yes we believe in equality of minds but we also believe that the Mother has a higher standing in the HH. And when the kids are departed she will still have that standing. That standing requires me to filter my thoughts when we don't agree on something. To be as gentle as possible in disagreement.

 

One of the things that drew me to messageboards in general is the need not to have to filter thoughts. I'm a tough SOB in the presence of males & the ego desires an outlet for that. It represented a vacation from normal life. I can be raw, bold, unafraid, & unabashed in my thoughts. But things have changed now & discretionary filters are preferred.

 

I do not expect the institution of marriage to evolve as you suggest. It is more likely to be marginalized as the institution itself has weakened substantially after the "if it feels good it must be right" philosophy swept through the major markets in the world.

 

Furthermore advances in technology might further eradicate the need for the institution in our lives. This phenomenon is present in Japan & elsewhere in Asia as the number of single persons & never married continues to grow. It is more likely that 25 yrs from now the entitlement issue will have evolved but the cultural side will be so segmented that it will be a "to each his own" philosophy.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[SpringfieldFan]

Caution: Conservative and Religious viewpoints below:

 

I would like to respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the marriage definition will, or should, evolve beyond the religious-based understanding. That implies marriage is merely what we choose to make it. I think our current definition of marriage is based on fundamental truths which you cannot evolve from without devaluing it:

 

"Marriage" means man and woman coming together with the purpose of producing and nurturing children. That is the "thing" that marriage is defining. What conservatives like me desire is for that "thing" (producing and raising kids) to be uniquely defined and respected as the most valuable function of our society. In fact, from a religious perspective, human life is priceless since our bodies are in God's image. We share the responsibility of creating life with God himself, so it makes sense that the human race is best served when we follow that natural design. "Marriage" as we define it now, is special. If you open the term "marriage" to same-sex couples, then you redefine the term and the uniqeness of the institution as we understand it is diminished, if not lost. There is then no way to refer to the value of male/female marriage uniquely or in a way that celebrates its special purpose. It all gets confused and we can lose sight of what marriage is truly meant to give us. I guess the counter-argument might be "what about married couples who choose to stay childless". Well, I am catholic so you probably guess where I would take that argument, lol.

 

Could we just invent a new term for same-sex unions but confer them all the perks of marriages? I suppose so, but I think that the entitilements married couples get are how we "subsidize" the value of bringing new life into the world and nurturing it. Simply put: its worth paying for. Same-sex unions don't provide as much value. Isn't it ironic how conservative thought works? Its desire here is for us to be willing to pay so society as a whole benefits. It almost seems liberal. Also, the rational here isn't the suppression of a "disgusting or immoral" lifestyle. Whether that is or isn't true, the whole goal of "protecting marriage" is the respect and elevation of the value of traditional marriages.

 

I hope that gives some rational on why folks like me feel there is a stake in the same-sex controversy. It isn't the most clear explanation, I admit, but hopefully it suggests that we really don't just intend to suppress people's private actions, judge them, or hate them...

 

SFF

[FlaSoxxJim]

I still don't understand how the importance, sanctity, uniqueness, etc., of your marriage would be at all affected by allowing same-sex marriages, but I appreciate your sharing your perspective.

[kapkomet]

I still don't understand how the importance, sanctity, uniqueness, etc., of your marriage would be at all affected by allowing same-sex marriages, but I appreciate your sharing your perspective.

/Pours gas on the fire (somewhat tongue in cheek)

 

Because it makes the institution of marriage cheaper. Heck, let's marry our cats and dogs, because we love them. In Tennessee, let's marry my sister, because we can. I mean, I'm a guy and she's a girl... nothing wrong with keeping *it* in the family... it ain't hurtin' no one.

 

/uh oh...

Edited September 8, 2005 by kapkomet

[FlaSoxxJim]

And herein lies the impasse.

 

Setting aside the notion of marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc., same sex marriages cheapening the institution is a purely subjective belief. Agreat many people not too long ago believed interracial marriages did the same thing, but we have largely matured past that point as a society. I fully expect we will do the same here, but the timeframe remains to be seen.

[SpringfieldFan]

I still don't understand how the importance, sanctity, uniqueness, etc., of your marriage would be at all affected by allowing same-sex marriages, but I appreciate your sharing your perspective.

 

You are right, mine wouldn't. However, the next generation, and the one after that...would not (as easily) realize what family-based marriage really offers, why it is important, and why it is indespensible to society. Society, and young people especially, are already having a hard enough time seeing how valuable life and family committment is. I became a parent three years ago and until then I didn't fully appreciate what it was all about. I had to trust my church, parents, and role models. That is a really hard trust to maintain when the rest of society, and sometimes political climate, just screams the opposite. Not everyone even has the benefit of responsible role models, so it becomes even more important for certain values to be as self-evident as possible. I don't mean to say all our kids will turn gay, but the lack of respect for the value of human lives in this gratfication age cannot be healthy, and cannot lead to real happiness.

 

SFF

[Reddy]

"Marriage" means man and woman coming together with the purpose of producing and nurturing children.

 

ya know, people do that when they're not married too... called sex... and then they're like "oh s*** now we have a kid"... but do they always get married? no. and if they DO get married, that kinda devalues the term then doesnt it

[kapkomet]

And herein lies the impasse.

 

Setting aside the notion of marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc., same sex marriages cheapening the institution is a purely subjective belief.  Agreat many people not too long ago believed interracial marriages did the same thing, but we have largely matured past that point as a society.  I fully expect we will do the same here, but the timeframe remains to be seen.

It is subjective, unless you start reading the bible, which is "subjective", too, some would say.

 

Can o worms opening up with this one? Of course it's not like we haven't kicked the doo doo out of this in other threads, huh?

Edited September 8, 2005 by kapkomet

[SpringfieldFan]

And herein lies the impasse.

 

Setting aside the notion of marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc., same sex marriages cheapening the institution is a purely subjective belief.  Agreat many people not too long ago believed interracial marriages did the same thing, but we have largely matured past that point as a society.  I fully expect we will do the same here, but the timeframe remains to be seen.

 

I can agree about the subjectivity of it. Regarding interracial marriages: I see it differently. Different races were seen as less valueable human lives, which is always an immoral viewpoint. Basing marriage on that is clearly wrong. However, nobody sees gays as less then human, at least not right thinking people. Also, having a child and raising it under a male and female influence is possible with mixed couples; not with same-sex couples. I appreciate your point, but I just don't think the premises here are the same.

 

SFF

[Reddy]

It is subjective, unless you start reading the bible, which is "subjective", too, some would say.

 

Can o worms opening up with this one?  Of course it's not like we haven't kicked the doo doo out of this in other threads, huh?

 

 

sure is subjective. the part about homosexuality being wrong is the same part that says women are unclean the week of their period. and that anyone who touches them in said time are unclean. this is the part that says you should stone people for swearing. if we followed that we'd all be dead. pick and choose, pick and choose, that's what it's all about.

 

sorry for fanning a flame.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Reddy

[Wong & Owens]

I would like to respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the marriage definition will, or should, evolve beyond the religious-based understanding.  That implies marriage is merely what we choose to make it.  I think our current definition of marriage is based on fundamental truths which you cannot evolve from without devaluing it:

 

OK, my turn to disagree. Respectfully of course. Marriage has been, and always will be, what humanity chooses to make of it. Marriage in the past has been defined as an alliance maker between two clans, a way to pool resources, a means of protection, etc. It may have flown under a religious flag, but the true purpose of the ritual had little to do with mandates from god. The current "definition" of marriage is only about 200 years old--a very short period in the grand scheme of things. I don't think it's realistic to think it won't continue to evolve--possibly into oblivion if current divorce rates and increasing age of first time marrieds are any indicators

 

"Marriage" means man and woman coming together with the purpose of producing and nurturing children.  That is the "thing" that marriage is defining.

 

If you're correct, then why isn't there also a push to prohibit straight people from getting married who can't or won't procreate?

 

 

"Marriage" as we define it now, is special.  If you open the term "marriage" to same-sex couples, then you redefine the term and the uniqeness of the institution as we understand it is diminished, if not lost.  There is then no way to refer to the value of male/female marriage uniquely or in a way that celebrates its special purpose.  It all gets confused and we can lose sight of what marriage is truly meant to give us.  I guess the counter-argument might be "what about married couples who choose to stay childless".  Well, I am catholic so you probably guess where I would take that argument, lol.

 

But these are religious terms, not secular. Nobody is advocating forcing churches to marry anyone they dont want to, but in a country founded on "liberty and justice for all," the United States has no business not providing the same benefits for gay unions as are provided for straight ones. I dont think any gay person cares whether it's called marriage, or life partners or permalovers, so long as they get equal rights and protection under US law.

 

I suppose so, but I think that the entitilements married couples get are how we "subsidize" the value of bringing new life into the world and nurturing it.  Simply put: its worth paying for.  Same-sex unions don't provide as much value.

 

That's an opinion. My opinion is that any couple that creates more than 2 children is selfish and socially irresponsible. Same sex, and childless straight, unions can also bear the brunt of caring for the millions of "valuable" children currently up for adoption because their straight parents apparently missed the "value" discussion at Lamaze class. Less value in that? Why?

 

Isn't it ironic how conservative thought works?  Its desire here is for us to be willing to pay so society as a whole benefits.

 

My opinion is that those deemed worthy of what they consider decent society is who conservative thought wants to benefit. Show me an honest conservative that claims life is so important, and I'll find you a dozen that wouldn't think of ever adopting a black child.

 

Whether that is or isn't true, the whole goal of "protecting marriage"  is the respect and elevation of the value of traditional marriages.

 

Nothing is more disrespectful to your definition of marriage than the 50% divorce rate, or the hesitancy of younger people to even enter into it.

 

I hope that gives some rational on why folks like me feel there is a stake in the same-sex controversy.  It isn't the most clear explanation, I admit, but hopefully it suggests that we really don't just intend to suppress people's private actions, judge them, or hate them...

 

I hear ya, and I think alot of your thoughts make sense. I may not agree with them, but I think I know where you're coming from.

[SpringfieldFan]

ya know, people do that when they're not married too...  called sex... and then they're like "oh s*** now we have a kid"... but do they always get married?  no.  and if they DO get married, that kinda devalues the term then doesnt it

 

Yep, it sure does. I 100% agree. Sex and marriage are (should be) inseperable. Sex is part of the definition of marriage and when used outside of marriage, it cheapens it and is likely to cause problems. Again, I think it goes back to the need to have a clear understanding of what marriage truly means. Same sex marriages isn't going to help that.

[Reddy]

Yep, it sure does.  I 100% agree.  Sex and marriage are (should be) inseperable.  Sex is part of the definition of marriage and when used outside of marriage, it cheapens it and is likely to cause problems.  Again, I think it goes back to the need to have a clear understanding of what marriage truly means.  Same sex marriages isn't going to help that.

 

so then why is the political push towards stopping gay marriage and not towards protecting the ACTUAL sanctity of marriage from the people that you and i are talking about?

[KipWellsFan]

one big WTF is needed for this thread

[KipWellsFan]

one big WTF is needed for this thread