Post Reply
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Obama Declares Support for Same Sex Marriage
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 4:08PM #41
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,783

May 10, 2012 -- 3:49PM, vra wrote:




Even though I agree that both sides are no doubt going to hype the issue while at the same time passing judgement on each other, nevertheless this should not be a minor issue because it strikes at the heart of personal and societal freedom.  If I can discriminate against one group, why not another, and another, ...?  I've been married to my wife for 45 years, so if you marry someone of your own sex, exactly how does that affect me?  How exactly is society supposedly harmed? 


To me civil rights is not a minor issue, and if it was my own civil rights that was unnecessarily denied me, I think I'd be quite upset.  Discrimination is not a minor concern to me, as I was sponsored by the Holocaust Memorial Center back in 1991 to study what discrimination could lead to by going through the death camps in Poland and then traveling to Israel to continue my studies. 


Even though the issue of gay rights is not anywhere near the same dangerous proportion as what the NAZI's did to my people, nevertheless I don't think we should take comfort in ignoring disrcimination against other groups simply because we aren't one of them. 


That's my take, and that's my concern.  In short, I believe that any unnecessary discrimination against any group is serious business.      




Requires quoting , this is exactly right.


And civil rights are never a minor issue.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 4:36PM #42
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 10, 2012 -- 3:49PM, vra wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 3:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 3:15PM, vra wrote:


To me, this is very much a civil rights issue, and I would tend to lump it along the same lines as ending slavery and equal rights for blacks, Indians, women, non-Christians, etc.  It's not just a matter of whom is going to bed with whom, largely because there's all sorts of ramifications, including economic.  I tend to think decades from now people will look back and wonder why this wasn't an issue that was settled long ago.




IMO, it's not nearly so profound as all that -- although I think the "pro" side of the issue has continually tried to frame it in those terms. If, for no other reason, in an attempt ram forward an argument and poison the wells by lumping any who disagree in with racial bigots, mysoginists, and so on. 


But in the end, that's just pandering to an ultimately untenalbe, subjective, feel-good ideal, with no basis in objective reality.


My take on it is -- legalized gay marrige (which I think is inevitable) is an affirmation of freedom of choice and expression under the rule of secular law, and an expansion of the boundaries of tolerance. Not acceptance -- tolerance. 





Even though I agree that both sides are no doubt going to hype the issue while at the same time passing judgement on each other, nevertheless this should not be a minor issue because it strikes at the heart of personal and societal freedom.  If I can discriminate against one group, why not another, and another, ...?  I've been married to my wife for 45 years, so if you marry someone of your own sex, exactly how does that affect me?  How exactly is society supposedly harmed? 


To me civil rights is not a minor issue, and if it was my own civil rights that was unnecessarily denied me, I think I'd be quite upset.  Discrimination is not a minor concern to me, as I was sponsored by the Holocaust Memorial Center back in 1991 to study what discrimination could lead to by going through the death camps in Poland and then traveling to Israel to continue my studies. 


Even though the issue of gay rights is not anywhere near the same dangerous proportion as what the NAZI's did to my people, nevertheless I don't think we should take comfort in ignoring disrcimination against other groups simply because we aren't one of them. 


That's my take, and that's my concern.  In short, I believe that any unnecessary discrimination against any group is serious business.      




I didn't say it was a "minor" issue. 


I'm saying, framing it in terms of a struggle for civil rights -- on par with blacks or women trying to get full human rights in this country -- is pandering to feel-good subjectivity.


Marriage has always been a discriminatory deal, and philosophically, as a matter of moral quality, will remain so. It's not an entitlement, as much as our society has tried to make is so.


There's no "equality" involved, and it's not a God-given right to recast the entire general principle of the institution according to the sexual desires of a very few. You can't "discriminate" against something that was never objectively real in the first place.


As I said, I think it's a matter of affirming freedom of choice, or the pursuit of happiness, as it were. Some people are apparently happier teaming up with members of their own sex. Who am I (or we) to deny them that choice? 


But I'm not willing to see it as something it is not, simply to appease feel-good subjectivity. 


Hence, as I said, it's a matter of tolerance, not acceptance. 


You see it as civil, or perhaps even human rights. I do not. 


However, the end result is the same, is it not?  Gay couples will be legally married.  


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 5:27PM #43
solfeggio
Posts: 9,237

I'm glad to see that President Obama has done this, and I hope it is the beginning of more tolerance for LGBT people in future.


What is is interesting is that our Prime Minister, Mr. Key, came out with his own statement of approval for gay marriage immediately after the President's.  The fact that this happened shows that the gay marriage issue is a hot one all over.


www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c...


At present, we only have civil unions for gay people here, and that only came about in recent years.  Our Labour (Democratic party in U.S.) and Green parties have supported gay marriage, as you might expect.


But 60% of New Zealanders are in favour of gay marriage, so I think it will come about sooner rather than later.


You will note that the BBC has reported that Mr. Obama's support of gay marriage has 'split' America:


www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18023...


And, unfortunately, gay marriages will not be allowed on military bases.


www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/10/hous...


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 5:33PM #44
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

May 10, 2012 -- 5:27PM, solfeggio wrote:


What is is interesting is that our Prime Minister, Mr. Key, came out with his own statement of approval for gay marriage immediately after the President's.  The fact that this happened shows that the gay marriage issue is a hot one all over.



Well, over here nobody cares very much, to be honest. It's a 20th century topic.


May 10, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Marriage has always been a discriminatory deal, and philosophically, as a matter of moral quality, will remain so.



Indeed... plus, I don't think it is smart to adopt an outdated business model for anyone, whether L,G,B,T, or not.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 5:39PM #45
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 10, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 5:27PM, solfeggio wrote:


What is is interesting is that our Prime Minister, Mr. Key, came out with his own statement of approval for gay marriage immediately after the President's.  The fact that this happened shows that the gay marriage issue is a hot one all over.



Well, over here nobody cares very much, to be honest. It's a 20th century topic.


May 10, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Marriage has always been a discriminatory deal, and philosophically, as a matter of moral quality, will remain so.



Indeed... plus, I don't think it is smart to adopt an outdated business model for anyone, whether L,G,B,T, or not.




You're not a fan of marriage at all, then?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 5:52PM #46
vra
Posts: 6,403

May 10, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I didn't say it was a "minor" issue. 


I'm saying, framing it in terms of a struggle for civil rights -- on par with blacks or women trying to get full human rights in this country -- is pandering to feel-good subjectivity.


Marriage has always been a discriminatory deal, and philosophically, as a matter of moral quality, will remain so. It's not an entitlement, as much as our society has tried to make is so.


There's no "equality" involved, and it's not a God-given right to recast the entire general principle of the institution according to the sexual desires of a very few. You can't "discriminate" against something that was never objectively real in the first place.


As I said, I think it's a matter of affirming freedom of choice, or the pursuit of happiness, as it were. Some people are apparently happier teaming up with members of their own sex. Who am I (or we) to deny them that choice? 


But I'm not willing to see it as something it is not, simply to appease feel-good subjectivity. 


Hence, as I said, it's a matter of tolerance, not acceptance. 


You see it as civil, or perhaps even human rights. I do not. 


However, the end result is the same, is it not?  Gay couples will be legally married.  





I'm picking up a mixed-message with the above, and I certainly don't feel that the issue is just some sort of "feel-good subjectivity", but at least we're on the same page as far as our hoped for outcome is concerned.  It is very much a civil-rights issue with legal implications that also involves allowing people to have their own choice as to whom they wish to marry.  Therefore, that's not "feel-good subjectivity"-- that's real to those who are affected by it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 5:58PM #47
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

May 10, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


You're not a fan of marriage at all, then?



True.


Marriage means in practice that you trade the free decision to be with your partner every single day for the security of a church and government-sponsored contract. It is a sign of relational timidity.


Maybe I'll marry my partner when I get relationally timid myself. Hopefully not for the next 25 years...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 6:03PM #48
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 10, 2012 -- 5:52PM, vra wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I didn't say it was a "minor" issue. 


I'm saying, framing it in terms of a struggle for civil rights -- on par with blacks or women trying to get full human rights in this country -- is pandering to feel-good subjectivity.


Marriage has always been a discriminatory deal, and philosophically, as a matter of moral quality, will remain so. It's not an entitlement, as much as our society has tried to make is so.


There's no "equality" involved, and it's not a God-given right to recast the entire general principle of the institution according to the sexual desires of a very few. You can't "discriminate" against something that was never objectively real in the first place.


As I said, I think it's a matter of affirming freedom of choice, or the pursuit of happiness, as it were. Some people are apparently happier teaming up with members of their own sex. Who am I (or we) to deny them that choice? 


But I'm not willing to see it as something it is not, simply to appease feel-good subjectivity. 


Hence, as I said, it's a matter of tolerance, not acceptance. 


You see it as civil, or perhaps even human rights. I do not. 


However, the end result is the same, is it not?  Gay couples will be legally married.  





I'm picking up a mixed-message with the above, but at least we're on the same page as far as our hoped for outcome is concerned.




I don't "hope" for anything. Overall, I'm not overly impressed with the entire "gay rights" thing. I think the current popular narrative about homosexulity is based far more in sentiment than reality. 


I'm not sure what the "mixed message" is. I don't agree, morally or philosphically, with the notion that homosexuality is just a benign variance or any sort of "equal" alternative to heterosexuality, or man-woman marriage. 


However, I also think it's none of my business -- and think that being uncomfortable around gay people is neurotic and silly. They're just people. 


Although I do understand the good intentions behind "gay rights". It's high time we got past thinking gays are monsters.


I think gay marriage inevitable, and it's between consenting adults. Therefore, it's not something to worry about. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 6:05PM #49
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 10, 2012 -- 5:58PM, CharikIeia wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


You're not a fan of marriage at all, then?



True.


Marriage means in practice that you trade the free decision to be with your partner every single day for the security of a church and government-sponsored contract. It is a sign of relational timidity.


Maybe I'll marry my partner when I get relationally timid myself. Hopefully not for the next 25 years...




I don't agree, but I can understand your reasoning.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 6:16PM #50
vra
Posts: 6,403

May 10, 2012 -- 6:03PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 5:52PM, vra wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I didn't say it was a "minor" issue. 


I'm saying, framing it in terms of a struggle for civil rights -- on par with blacks or women trying to get full human rights in this country -- is pandering to feel-good subjectivity.


Marriage has always been a discriminatory deal, and philosophically, as a matter of moral quality, will remain so. It's not an entitlement, as much as our society has tried to make is so.


There's no "equality" involved, and it's not a God-given right to recast the entire general principle of the institution according to the sexual desires of a very few. You can't "discriminate" against something that was never objectively real in the first place.


As I said, I think it's a matter of affirming freedom of choice, or the pursuit of happiness, as it were. Some people are apparently happier teaming up with members of their own sex. Who am I (or we) to deny them that choice? 


But I'm not willing to see it as something it is not, simply to appease feel-good subjectivity. 


Hence, as I said, it's a matter of tolerance, not acceptance. 


You see it as civil, or perhaps even human rights. I do not. 


However, the end result is the same, is it not?  Gay couples will be legally married.  





I'm picking up a mixed-message with the above, but at least we're on the same page as far as our hoped for outcome is concerned.




I don't "hope" for anything. Overall, I'm not overly impressed with the entire "gay rights" thing. I think the current popular narrative about homosexulity is based far more in sentiment than reality. 


I'm not sure what the "mixed message" is. I don't agree, morally or philosphically, with the notion that homosexuality is just a benign variance or any sort of "equal" alternative to heterosexuality, or man-woman marriage. 


However, I also think it's none of my business -- and think that being uncomfortable around gay people is neurotic and silly. They're just people. 


Although I do understand the good intentions behind "gay rights". It's high time we got past thinking gays are monsters.


I think gay marriage inevitable, and it's between consenting adults. Therefore, it's not something to worry about. 





I added to my previous post to try and explain if a bit more fully. 


My final point: I'm not gay, but I have seen and have personally experienced the effects of being discriminated against.  If one finds themselves in that position, it stops being "feel-good subjectivity" in a hurry. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook