More Gay Marriage?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think a reasonable compromise may be to just get the government out of the marriage business and leave it to churches. The argument against that would be that there is a significant governmental interest in encouraging the type of coupling and cohesion that marriage bring, but that could be solved by still having a governmental contract similar to marriage and leaving "marriage" just to the church. I still think anti-gay folks would demagogue any attempt to do this though.

[EricMM 0]

Basically, I'd hate for parents to be labelled hateful bigots because they get annoyed about it.

Okay, annoyed bigots.

 

I'm just saying, when one's actively denying a loving couple the same rights to get hitched that you have simply because it disquiets you, thats ridiculous. You're insecure. Homosexuality bothers or scares you because you can't deal with it. And that shows a flaw in you.

[NoCalMike 0]

One problem also is this debate often turns into religious vs. non-religious, but the only debate should be what legal grounds gay marriage has to stand on.

 

Our constitution trumps anything and everything else in how we make laws, and yes this includes the bible. Equal Protection under the law means just that.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Basically, I'd hate for parents to be labelled hateful bigots because they get annoyed about it.

Okay, annoyed bigots.

 

 

 

Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it? Look, I thought the couple in Massachusetts that started a lawsuit over it really over-reacted, but, in principle, they were right . The teacher had no right to do that without their permission. If I had a a child and they came home and told me that, I would probably laugh it off, but I'd be slightly pissed that they didn't even ask for my consent. And I'm pretty liberal. I dread to think how the average person would handle it.

 

 

I'm just saying, when one's actively denying a loving couple the same rights to get hitched that you have simply because it disquiets you, thats ridiculous. You're insecure. Homosexuality bothers or scares you because you can't deal with it. And that shows a flaw in you.

And if you look at Prop 8, voters weren't going to force their beliefs on anyone, and No on 8 was headed for an easy victory, till the ads started, and people realized other people's beliefs could maybe be forced on them.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Fuck, now I remember why I'm anti-marriage.

[Lei Tong 0]

Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it?

 

I'm not going to claim that that's bigoted, but I don't really see why anyone would have a problem with that. It's not like hearing such stories is going to turn someone's kid into a homosexual.

[snuffbox 0]

I'd be annoyed if my child came home from anywhere and told me all about a talking snake and a bunch of other nonsense. But, I would not tell him that he cant go to Sunday School anymore. Human beings have a remarkable thought process, or at least the possibility thereof (not sure how many of us really choose to use it all that much). We can figure stuff out on our own. We can process the information gleaned from others on our own. We dont need to create fairtales and hobgoblins and the like to live within a moral framework. We can do this on our own. Sheltering our children has never and will never prevent them from experiencing life, and everything that comes with it, on their own.

 

I dont know how many time I can try to put these two important facets together for a few of you. It is ok to have an opinion, any opinion. It is not ok to apply your private opinions to the lawbooks that apply to other individuals. It is an absolute necessity that laws be based on facts that lay outside of personal opinions.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of gambling in the world but that doesn't provide any kind of basis for its criminality.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it? Look, I thought the couple in Massachusetts that started a lawsuit over it really over-reacted, but, in principle, they were right . The teacher had no right to do that without their permission. If I had a a child and they came home and told me that, I would probably laugh it off, but I'd be slightly pissed that they didn't even ask for my consent. And I'm pretty liberal. I dread to think how the average person would handle it.

 

I guess I'm confused. Why is teaching (or telling) a child that a "princess could marry a princess" so crazy and needs to ask for your consent? Why is that any different from a student learning about certain science subjects (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) or certain history subjects (i.e. Nazis) that a parent might disapprove of?

 

Is it because it involves sexuality and the idea that somebody else told them about homosexuality instead of you? It seems like most people who have this dislike of teaching homosexuality in schools either won't tell their children about it anyway or "want to wait for the right time" rather than realizing that a kid seeing two guys kissing in public is gonna bring up the question whether they're 4 or 10.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I'd be annoyed if my child came home from anywhere and told me all about a talking snake and a bunch of other nonsense. But, I would not tell him that he cant go to Sunday School anymore. Human beings have a remarkable thought process, or at least the possibility thereof (not sure how many of us really choose to use it all that much). We can figure stuff out on our own. We can process the information gleaned from others on our own. We dont need to create fairtales and hobgoblins and the like to live within a moral framework. We can do this on our own. Sheltering our children has never and will never prevent them from experiencing life, and everything that comes with it, on their own.

It's fine if you feel that way, but the majority of parents don't. And no campaign ever trying to win a vote on gay marriage would say to people 'it will be taught in school, but so what?' because it would guarantee they wouldn't win.

 

And if the only way to win a vote on gay marriage is to ensure people it won't be taught in school, like No on 8 tried to do, you should probably stick to your word. Or at least, get permission for it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it?

 

I hate to keep beating this drum, but I'm pretty sure it freaked people out to see interracial couples on TV or read about them back in the day, like in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Most people got over it. What's so bad about acknowledging that gay people exist?

 

Someone being uncomfortable or finding something icky just isn't a strong enough argument to marginalize a class of people.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it? Look, I thought the couple in Massachusetts that started a lawsuit over it really over-reacted, but, in principle, they were right . The teacher had no right to do that without their permission. If I had a a child and they came home and told me that, I would probably laugh it off, but I'd be slightly pissed that they didn't even ask for my consent. And I'm pretty liberal. I dread to think how the average person would handle it.

 

I guess I'm confused. Why is teaching (or telling) a child that a "princess could marry a princess" so crazy and needs to ask for your consent? Why is that any different from a student learning about certain science subjects (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) or certain history subjects (i.e. Nazis) that a parent might disapprove of?

 

 

It's different because people have overwhelmingly made it clear they don't want it taught in schools. And No on 8 acknowledged that when they ran the ad with the superintendent ensuring parents it wouldn't be. So, if you're telling people when they vote to legalize gay marriage it won't be taught in school, you should stick to that.

 

Is it because it involves sexuality and the idea that somebody else told them about homosexuality instead of you? It seems like most people who have this dislike of teaching homosexuality in schools either won't tell their children about it anyway or "want to wait for the right time" rather than realizing that a kid seeing two guys kissing in public is gonna bring up the question whether they're 4 or 10.

Now you're forcing your view on others. You insist 'they won't tell their children about it anyway' so schools have to do it for them. I would trust parents to make their own decisions on this issue.

[Jingus 0]

Since when do parents have any control over schools teaching their kids things the parents don't like? I'm sure that fundamentalists aren't happy about their children learning about evolution and prehistoric geology. Equally sure that racists would object to the schools trying to teach racial harmony and how we should all just get along. Also sure that some of your more hardcore Muslims and others who believe in the oppression of the female gender aren't happy about schools telling their kids that girls can do anything boys can do. Conspiracy theorists must hate every single thing their child ever hears in history or government classes. And you know what? Tough shit. Individual beliefs do not dictate government policy. If you care that much, put your kids in private school or homeschool them. Gays are hurt more by not getting married than straights ever could be by the opposite.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it?

 

I hate to keep beating this drum, but I'm pretty sure it freaked people out to see interracial couples on TV or read about them back in the day, like in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Most people got over it. What's so bad about acknowledging that gay people exist?

 

Someone being uncomfortable or finding something icky just isn't a strong enough argument to marginalize a class of people.

 

It's been pointed out on other posts in this thread why the gay/race comparision isn't a perfect one.

 

I don't think gay people in general will feel marginalized if it's not taught to young children. I doubt they would care. Especially since the school issue is the one major obstacle in front of gay marriage.

 

It's not about letting people off because a subject makes them feel 'icky' it's about trusting parents to make their own decisions in regards to their kids, and not margininalizing them. And like I said, it's not popular at all. So, in terms of strategy it seems like a bad idea.

[Jingus 0]

So if the real problem is not the adults marrying but the kids being taught about it, let the adults get married and change the fight to what's being taught. Don't use one part of the issue as an excuse to deny the other.

[ZGangsta 0]

The whole "some people think gay stuff is gross so that justifies their argument for voting against marriage equality" argument reminded me of this.

[JRE 0]

If a state recognizes same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages as equal- this will be taught in school. It's inevitable.

 

There are serious questions about religious freedom and separation of church and state to be considered. This concerns me- I don't want anyone's rights to be compromised- be it the rights of homosexuals or the rights of the religious.

[snuffbox 0]

Religious people do not have the right to dictate the lives of other inividuals. It's not their rights that are injured but their precious feelings.

[JRE 0]

Religious people do not have the right to dictate the lives of other inividuals.

 

This is correct.

 

 

But rights of religious groups also begin to be challenged. A Catholic Charity in Boston had to shut down it's adoption service because the government challenged them for only placing children through their adoption agency into homes with a mother and a father. They were just doing what they believed in.

 

I am for giving rights to homosexuals, but not for them being taken away from the religious.

[snuffbox 0]

That seems like an example I might need some more information (link) on.

[snuffbox 0]

For the record: I have no problem whatsoever saying/typing that the Catholic Church has no room at all to dictate any sex laws or mores to anybody.

[JRE 0]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...ends_adoptions/

 

Just did a quick Google search.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm sorry I couldn't read beyond the "couldnt reconcile" part. If they can reconcile their church's fetish for child anal fucking, they can reconcile consensual love between two adult individuals. The government didn't shut them down. They refused to stay in their 'charitable business' because they harbor an irrational hatred for certain people. And they condone kid rape.

[JRE 0]

Well...I don't want to talk about the Catholic Church- I am not of that faith and am happy to belong to a church with respectful leaders and solid doctrine. Regardless, their religion should not be the victim of prejudice for the action of certain individuals. I'm sure plenty of good is done by the Catholic church.

 

But that's all beyond the point being made- that they were pressured to close because of practicing their beliefs.

[snuffbox 0]

Maybe not their 'religion' per se but that doesn't really matter. Their Church has the power and it has repeatedly chosen to condone the rape of children. No free passes for that.

[JRE 0]

Well, shame on them then. I won't argue for the Catholic church.

[SamoaRowe 0]

I have a gay older sister who is about 16 years older than me. When I was about 8-9, my parents just sat me down and very calmly told me that her lady friend was actually the person she loves. Some people just happen to fall in love with people of the same gender. It wasn't about sex or politics, it was just the truth as plain as it could ever be told. I never questioned it and I never looked at my sister as if she was weird. It wasn't until years later when my younger sister was devastated when her best friend told her that our big sister was going to hell because she was an abomination in the eyes of her God. I had never stopped to consider for a moment that my sister was anything resembling evil, and really, why should I have?

 

So no, I do not object to students in elementary schools being made aware that gay people exist. It will not hurt them, and they will not react badly, because they do not yet have insecurities about sexual matters the way their parents do.

[Gary Floyd 0]

For the record: I have no problem whatsoever saying/typing that the Catholic Church has no room at all to dictate any sex laws or mores to anybody.

They just want to defy the logic of our sexlaws...

[HarleyQuinn 0]

In reading the article, it sounds like 4 bishops were the obstacle in place... Score another one for overly religious people. The shame is that the Charities was doing a great thing but were going to be overruled by people of the same faith.

 

The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.

 

Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.

 

But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.

[JRE 0]

The charity would have still been doing a great thing if they were to operate in accordance with the faith (just to make that clear- I'm saying the charity would be a good thing even if they only included husband and wife families....not only if they did that). After all, there are other adoption agencies with different organizations. But the law says they are discriminating. Suddenly the roles are reversed- religion is now looked down upon because of it's faith- which for millions of people is a very real thing- just as blacks have been looked down upon because of their skin color and gays have been looked down upon because of their sexual orientation.

 

You can't take away gays, you can't take away religion. Freedom and rights is deserved by both. Marriage- is what puts religion and government in each other's way because marriage is as much of a religious practice as it is a legal status. Something needs to be put in place to ensure rights for gays without compromising religious freedom.

[snuffbox 0]

One of the following is a choice: Being black, being gay, being religious.

 

For the 8-millionth time, nobody is arguing against religion. Yes it is completely irrational and often dangerous, but I am not advocating for its termination. Organized religion, however, is arguing vehemently to deny certain rights for certain individuals based on a difference. Again, that is the problem. This is not religion vs. atheism. It is not moral vs. immoral. This is allowing people to live their lives freely vs. my feelings are really touchy so certain people cant do certain things even if it never once actually impacts me or my family in an actually negative way.