Post Reply
Page 6 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 - 6:23PM #51
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 10, 2012 -- 6:16PM, vra wrote:


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. 




I understand what you are saying. 


But, at the same time, demanding society conform to one's desires, and then turning around and talking about "discrimination" when the gate keepers say, sorry, no pass is, frankly, just playing up on subjective sentiment. People have been morally offended by homsexuality for a reason. And current efforts to condition society away from that, however succesful they might be, won't change the underlying facts. In that instance, what is currenlty being called "progress" is more likey just a collective case of denial, driven by said conditioning.


The philosophical arguments for gay marriage and "equality" fall flat, IMO. 


It becomes then, a matter of freedom of choice under secular law.


And if there is a good argument against gay marriage within that framework, I've yet to hear it. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 7:12PM #52
REteach
Posts: 14,823

VRA, you are awesome.



I see that Mitt Romney has been accused by high school classmates of bullying a kid, and at last one said it was because he was gay.  Hiring a guy who was gay and then not defending him was cowardice too.  Gag me. 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 9:28PM #53
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

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...




Hi,


Just wanted to say that even when you're married, it's still a free decision to be with your partner every single day. 


I lived with my husband for 11 years before we got married (not in a church, BTW). I'm glad we're married; it makes a lot of things easier. That doesn't mean everybody has to or should get married, that's up to the couple. However, I think that same sex couples who do want to marry, whether because it makes certain things easier, or for purely romantic reasons, should be able to do so. There's no rational reason I can think of why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 11:12PM #54
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

May 9, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mainecaptain wrote:

 Wouldn't it be delightful if some fool actually did voice their regret that both women and other minorites had been given the right to vote.


Or perhaps the right for people of different "races" being permitted to marry. I am surprised that has not been rehashed yet.





I'm only up to your post (#13) and this may have alredycome out, but Hannity had a Reverend (go figure!) on who said America's biggest mistake was giving women the vote. THere's a whole other thread devoted to this.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 11:17PM #55
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

May 10, 2012 -- 11:12PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 9, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mainecaptain wrote:

 Wouldn't it be delightful if some fool actually did voice their regret that both women and other minorites had been given the right to vote.


Or perhaps the right for people of different "races" being permitted to marry. I am surprised that has not been rehashed yet.





I'm only up to your post (#13) and this may have alredycome out, but Hannity had a Reverend (go figure!) on who said America's biggest mistake was giving women the vote. THere's a whole other thread devoted to this.




Yes I eventually noticed that, and unfortunately I was not surprised. I am waiting to see if any teabagger will try to push for any of those. I know they would get full support from some one the extreme right wing.


I wonder how far it would go. Like those trying to prevent birth control?

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 - 11:22PM #56
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

May 10, 2012 -- 3:47PM, mainecaptain wrote:

And no moral person would consider Paul Ryan's economic plan. 




And yet the House passed it. No moral person? Bang on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 12:15AM #57
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Might I note that the opening shot of the Nazi Holocaust of 1933-45 was the  infamous Nuremberg Laws? These were laws regulating who could marry whom and who could sleep with whom.


There has been rumblings of not only trying to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas, but also a call to reverse Loving v. Virginia.


This has got to be nipped in the bud because such things as the Holocaust can happen in America.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 2:59AM #58
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

May 10, 2012 -- 9:28PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Hi,


Just wanted to say that even when you're married, it's still a free decision to be with your partner every single day.



Okay. Free decision, but the relative price for saying "no" has gone up... It's like first buying a car and then saying, "Well, I still have the free decision to go by bike or public transport..."



I lived with my husband for 11 years before we got married (not in a church, BTW). I'm glad we're married; it makes a lot of things easier.



Yes, that's what I mean with the relative price issue. I see why you wouldn't unnecessarily complicate life (pay higher taxes etc.) by not getting married. It's a very practical matter of what the government subsidises, of how much money and patience you are prepared to spend on staying non-married in a situation that classically would warrant marriage.



That doesn't mean everybody has to or should get married, that's up to the couple. However, I think that same sex couples who do want to marry, whether because it makes certain things easier, or for purely romantic reasons, should be able to do so. There's no rational reason I can think of why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.



Fair enough, as long as there is a demand for the product, it should be on the market for everyone - as Biden & Obama now agreed to. Over here, people buy retro-Coke with the taste of the seventies, such stuff. Fine for them, fine by me.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 11:21AM #59
vra
Posts: 6,403

May 10, 2012 -- 7:12PM, REteach wrote:


VRA, you are awesome.



I see that Mitt Romney has been accused by high school classmates of bullying a kid, and at last one said it was because he was gay.  Hiring a guy who was gay and then not defending him was cowardice too.  Gag me. 





Thanks, but I think you'd have a difficult time convincing my wife of that. Wink


The high school incident I can pretty much ignore except for one thing, and that is I have a very hard time believing that he forgot it, especially since he recalls other events and people. 


As far as firing the gay guy, I also have to question that, but one of the things that happened last week was even more of a problem, and this even has upset some Republicans.  At a speaking engagement, a woman mentioned that Obama should be put on trial for treason, and Romney didn't make any comment back to negate.  If you remember, McCain did rebut a women during the 2008 campaign who attacked Obama's integrity and, frankly, I would expect that Obama would do the same if Romney was attacked in an over-the-top manner.  If he didn't that would very much upset me. 


Political fights can be quite nasty, and one goes into the ring well knowing that this can be the case, but some really do push the envelope.  And this election I think will be especially gnarly with all the super-pac money coming in.  By the time we get to November, I gotta feeling that about 300 million Americans will be wanting to stone five SCOTUS justices for their "Citizens United" decision.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 11:26AM #60
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Obama's people did the math and concluded Obama would have abetter chance of being reelected if he supported same sex marriage.


Obama is an astute politician and made it clear that his was a personal opinion and the decision on same sex marriage lies with each state.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 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