EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 16, 2009 14:54:18 GMT -5
First off, if it's a civil rights issue, if equal rights says you must approve same-sex marriages, then equal rights says you must approve the marriage between two men and one woman, whether or not it's a common occurrence.
It seems that some of those of you who support same sex marriage feel free to call those who don't support it "homophobic" or "too intolerant and small minded". In other words you are "intolerant" of other people's views because they don't see the world the way you see it. In addition to my religious beliefs, I believe that marriage between one man and one woman has been shown over the centuries to be the foundation of societies and the best way to foster the continuation of the species. That's not to say it's perfect but most of the imperfections in this country have occurred in the last 40-50 years when we have seen a breakdown of the family. Prior to that time, living together outside of marriage resulted in society condemning it, just as it did having children out of wedlock. Divorce was also almost as worthy of condemnation. Today no one bats an eye and it's almost considered to be normal.
As a practicing Catholic I respect every human being, straight or gay. I attempt to treat each person with respect and dignity and resent being called intolerant and homophobic just because I oppose same-sex marriage.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Dec 16, 2009 15:05:09 GMT -5
First off, if it's a civil rights issue, if equal rights says you must approve same-sex marriages, then equal rights says you must approve the marriage between two men and one woman, whether or not it's a common occurrence. It seems that some of those of you who support same sex marriage feel free to call those who don't support it "homophobic" or "too intolerant and small minded". In other words you are "intolerant" of other people's views because they don't see the world the way you see it. In addition to my religious beliefs, I believe that marriage between one man and one woman has been shown over the centuries to be the foundation of societies and the best way to foster the continuation of the species. That's not to say it's perfect but most of the imperfections in this country have occurred in the last 40-50 years when we have seen a breakdown of the family. Prior to that time, living together outside of marriage resulted in society condemning it, just as it did having children out of wedlock. Divorce was also almost as worthy of condemnation. Today no one bats an eye and it's almost considered to be normal. As a practicing Catholic I respect every human being, straight or gay. I attempt to treat each person with respect and dignity and resent being called intolerant and homophobic just because I oppose same-sex marriage. I actually agree that the breakdown of the family has caused a huge number of problems in this country. I personally don't like the idea of living together outside of marriage. I'm not a fan of children out of wedlock. I think divorce is the lesser of evils when you're dealing with abusive spouses or really deeply unhappy couples, but it's not something I consider a casual fix for marital problems. But given the apparent benefit of having two loving adults function as a family unit, some with children and some without, I'd look anywhere we can find for those people willing to be a loving couple and create a functioning family unit. If that means gay couples, then so be it. If that means Don and Randy get tax benefits, and hospital access, and can adopt a child, then then deserve that chance. As long as they're willing to put in the time and effort and care that it takes to bring up a well-adjusted and well-raised kid, then who are we to say that anyone else is doing any better? Straight couples are the ones who have flushed the notion of "family" down the toilet. And ironically, it's some of the most anti-gay marriage communities in this country that contribute the most to the divorce rate. There's a foul hypocrisy that goes on when most people claim "family values" as a basis for denying gay marriage, and meanwhile, their lives exhibit no evidence of "family" or "values" at all.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 16, 2009 15:18:21 GMT -5
It seems that some of those of you who support same sex marriage feel free to call those who don't support it "homophobic" or "too intolerant and small minded". In other words you are "intolerant" of other people's views because they don't see the world the way you see it.
Umm... no. I'm completely tolerant of your beliefs in that regard. I just don't believe that, because you believe them, you have the right to deny another person (equal to yourself in the eyes of the law mind you) a right that you currently have because their beliefs may be different from yours. You have, in a backhanded manner, defined intolerance in trying to accuse others of it. Nice.
And, to be clear, I don't think anyone thinks that every person who opposes gay marriage is homophobic or, necessarily, small-minded. Most folks that I know that oppose it oppose it due to their religious beliefs.
With regard to the breakdown of the family, sure it has contributed to some of society's ills. No doubt. But to use that as THE reason just isn't fair or truthful. Additionally, the "breakdown of the family" isn't just confined to divorce and children out of wedlock. There's also a very real factor regarding the distances children move now as opposed to 40 or 50 years ago in order to find work, happiness, etc. This too lends itself toward looser family ties and, in some cases, estrangement as well.
Additionally, as divorce has become more and more common, I'm of the mind that there really isn't a traditional family any longer. Children that I grew up with that had divorced parents often had a very difficult time dealing with it and seldom had friends in the same boat. That is not at all the case these days. You're as likely to have friends with married parents as you are ones with divorced parents. As such, I feel like the damage done is actually less with an increasing divorce rate so, for me, I'd actually discount that as a factor compared to 20 or 30 years ago. Are divorced parents the ideal? Certainly not. But it's not nearly the aberration that it used to be and, as such, not nearly as traumatic for the children.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 16, 2009 15:31:44 GMT -5
A couple of points --
1. Houston elected an openly gay mayor earlier this week. Apparently lines have been out the door in the local family court for divorce proceedings due to the direct threat she now presents to all heterosexual couples.
2. I don't buy into the idea that government should not get into defining what marriage is simply because it already happens, and it is a slippery slope that is unpreventable. Furthermore, the law already defines or seeks definition of even more sacred institutions, including the "family." Think of any local zoning ordinance or comprehensive zoning scheme and note how certain areas are zoned for "single family use/residences."
What in the world does that mean? The Supreme Court of the United States has provided at least some guidance through Justice Powell (appointed by Nixon) - Moore v. City of East Cleveland. When a woman was charged under the ordinance because she lived with her son and 2 cousins who were themselves unrelated, the Supreme Court said good enough under the ordinance, they can live together. The decision at least gives the sense that a "family" is not exclusively 2 heterosexual spouses and their children, if any.
If we take the so-called religious argument to its extreme, it could produce some interesting results. What about 5 unrelated Jesuits who attempt to move in to an area so that they may live together and provide service to others? I think most would agree that this does not pass the sniff test of what a family is under most any definition, but, if they can't live in a quiet residential neighborhood, where should they live? (Or what about even a group of neighbors who attempt to remove the Jesuits who live in the neighborhood on the basis that they are not a family?)
Respectfully, I would suggest that allowing a government to decide what is permissible on the basis of social values here would represent a big government approach and opens up a significant opportunity to abuse that could be unlawful. Imagine letting in a group of Jesuits but disallowing a group of recovering alcoholics or a halfway house for people who are seeking to right their lives.
With that, I'm done. Hope you all enjoyed this return to 1L property class.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 16, 2009 15:38:43 GMT -5
And once again, for approximately the 70 sextillionth time in recorded history, a lawyer sucks the life out of a room.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Dec 16, 2009 15:45:04 GMT -5
And once again, for approximately the 70 sextillionth time in recorded history, a lawyer sucks the life out of a room. I'm pretty sure 90% of the posters in this thread are attorneys, currently in law school or are preparing for the LSATs I for one am a Maritime lawyer named Cherith Cutestory
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 16, 2009 15:55:27 GMT -5
I fell asleep twice reading that.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyabliu on Dec 16, 2009 16:33:22 GMT -5
I don’t get why so many people care if gays get married. Being gay myself, I just don’t see how my marriage would in any way have any negative, or for that matter, positive, effect on yours. Why do “traditional marriage” and “gay marriage” have to be opposing and exclusive platforms? Organizations such as the NOM raise millions of dollars every year to protect traditional marriage. 100% of that money goes to fighting against gay marriage (prop 8 in cal, question 1 in Maine). Why don’t they focus at least SOME of their effort and funds on less divisive and far more prevalent issues affecting marriage such as the skyrocketing divorce rates in the country, domestic abuse, etc?
Homosexuality is a reality. Refusing gays of certain rights is not going to make us disappear or go back in the closet. Giving us equal rights isn’t going to somehow indoctrinate kids with our evil ways (not the children!), turn millions gay, promote some radical agenda Boz refers to, and destroy society as we know it. It’s extremely offensive when people compare homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia and other deviant sexual activities. People just get caught up in the stigma of the work “sex”. Being gay is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. Those who claim otherwise have no idea what they’re talking about. Period. Why would I ever choose a lifestyle that would lead to persecution, harassment, and even imprisonment and death in some countries? If it was a choice, that would mean everyone on this board at some point in their lives faced this choice themselves. If so, I’m glad you guys made the right choice, unlike myself. On the other hand, polygamy is a choice. Anyone can be emotionally and sexually attracted to multiple people in their lifetime and at the same time. You’re not polygamous until you’ve made the conscious decision to act on it.
Whatever. At the end of the day, I’m going to get married whether you like it or not. Huzzah!
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 16, 2009 16:43:55 GMT -5
Thanks for your contribution, HB. I think it is an important one and harkens back to a point I made earlier this week.
I view the gay rights debate as the political successor to any number of civil rights issues in our time, and, at each turn, the "dominant" group (perhaps a poor choice of words) is seeking to restrict the benefits of society/government to others or trying to prevent a more equal or equitable distribution of benefits. Why they are doing this is at times hard to explain but at others very easy.
Give a tax break to homosexual spouses/couples etc., and you provide an economic incentive. More importantly, you reduce the tax base and make others pay more. That would be "raising taxes," notwithstanding the additional tax burden that homosexual partners are experiencing based on their personal/private practices. Were we to view this as cutting taxes, the Republican Party, by definition, would have to support it.
What I'll never be able to explain is the prevention of hospital visits by homosexual partners. That has absolutely no bearing on anything that heterosexuals have/possess. If someone has an argument on this, I'd be interested in hearing it because I am completely lost on the rationality of the position against visitation rights. Maybe it is the slippery slope argument.
First they came for the hospitals...Then they came for the churches...Then they came for a tax cut...
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 17, 2009 1:40:51 GMT -5
I don’t get why so many people care if gays get married. Being gay myself, I just don’t see how my marriage would in any way have any negative, or for that matter, positive, effect on yours. Why do “traditional marriage” and “gay marriage” have to be opposing and exclusive platforms? Organizations such as the NOM raise millions of dollars every year to protect traditional marriage. 100% of that money goes to fighting against gay marriage (prop 8 in cal, question 1 in Maine). Why don’t they focus at least SOME of their effort and funds on less divisive and far more prevalent issues affecting marriage such as the skyrocketing divorce rates in the country, domestic abuse, etc? Homosexuality is a reality. Refusing gays of certain rights is not going to make us disappear or go back in the closet. Giving us equal rights isn’t going to somehow indoctrinate kids with our evil ways (not the children!), turn millions gay, promote some radical agenda Boz refers to, and destroy society as we know it. It’s extremely offensive when people compare homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia and other deviant sexual activities. People just get caught up in the stigma of the work “sex”. Being gay is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. Those who claim otherwise have no idea what they’re talking about. Period. Why would I ever choose a lifestyle that would lead to persecution, harassment, and even imprisonment and death in some countries? If it was a choice, that would mean everyone on this board at some point in their lives faced this choice themselves. If so, I’m glad you guys made the right choice, unlike myself. On the other hand, polygamy is a choice. Anyone can be emotionally and sexually attracted to multiple people in their lifetime and at the same time. You’re not polygamous until you’ve made the conscious decision to act on it. Whatever. At the end of the day, I’m going to get married whether you like it or not. Huzzah! ROCK ON HoyaBliu.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 17, 2009 9:08:55 GMT -5
When you lay out polygamy like that, it sounds kinda great. Hmm.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 17, 2009 12:43:38 GMT -5
I don’t get why so many people care if gays get married. Being gay myself, I just don’t see how my marriage would in any way have any negative, or for that matter, positive, effect on yours. Why do “traditional marriage” and “gay marriage” have to be opposing and exclusive platforms? Organizations such as the NOM raise millions of dollars every year to protect traditional marriage. 100% of that money goes to fighting against gay marriage (prop 8 in cal, question 1 in Maine). Why don’t they focus at least SOME of their effort and funds on less divisive and far more prevalent issues affecting marriage such as the skyrocketing divorce rates in the country, domestic abuse, etc? Homosexuality is a reality. Refusing gays of certain rights is not going to make us disappear or go back in the closet. Giving us equal rights isn’t going to somehow indoctrinate kids with our evil ways (not the children!), turn millions gay, promote some radical agenda Boz refers to, and destroy society as we know it. It’s extremely offensive when people compare homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia and other deviant sexual activities. People just get caught up in the stigma of the work “sex”. Being gay is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. Those who claim otherwise have no idea what they’re talking about. Period. Why would I ever choose a lifestyle that would lead to persecution, harassment, and even imprisonment and death in some countries? If it was a choice, that would mean everyone on this board at some point in their lives faced this choice themselves. If so, I’m glad you guys made the right choice, unlike myself. On the other hand, polygamy is a choice. Anyone can be emotionally and sexually attracted to multiple people in their lifetime and at the same time. You’re not polygamous until you’ve made the conscious decision to act on it. Whatever. At the end of the day, I’m going to get married whether you like it or not. Huzzah! Good for you. May your married life be full of nothing but joy and blessings.
|
|