About gay marriage

[JunkintheTrunk]

Great points, spaced and onelove.

I tend to want things now, now, NOW and see any kind of middle ground as a bad thing. (Yeah, it's hard being extremist.) I'm just starting to take the longer view. In the end, we're not creating the world for ourselves, but for the ones that come after us.

Still, I think that Britney and Kevin Fwhatever should be banned from marriage. Now.

[Stormyskies]

I think in their heart of hearts, people are not ready to embrace it. The tactic of the gay movement is to shout down anyone who opposes them and attack them. Anyone who doesn't go along like a little sheep is labeled all kinds of names, so therefore, a lot people don't speak up...however, when it comes time to vote, they vote their heart. I've often heard how Christians try to cram their beliefs down people's throats, and yet I see the gay movement as doing the exact same thing, only then it appears that it's fine and dandy to manipulate people.

[senorina]

Originally posted by Stormyskies:
I think in their heart of hearts, people are not ready to embrace it. The tactic of the gay movement is to shout down anyone who opposes them and attack them. Anyone who doesn't go along like a little sheep is labeled all kinds of names, so therefore, a lot people don't speak up...however, when it comes time to vote, they vote their heart. I've often heard how Christians try to cram their beliefs down people's throats, and yet I see the gay movement as doing the exact same thing, only then it appears that it's fine and dandy to manipulate people.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well Stormy, I think that you are not one of the people who are on the fence about this one! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Believe me I realize that your opinion on this is as valid as anyones, as is your vote.

I think there are millions of Americans that are on the fence, leaning towards not approving gay marriage, and I think the people who support gay marriage have to try to change the hearts and minds of those people if this is going to happen.

I think your point that people try to cram their beliefs on others is probably valid - whether it be a christian or a homosezual - but lets face it, not all christians or homosexuals are like that. They just happen to be the ones that get the most visibility.

And while I don't think its right for christians to announce that others are evil and going to hell, I don't think its right for supporters of gay marriage to call non supporters stupid or intolerant.

I feel positive that this change will happen, its just a matter of when.

[space4dtime]

I've been told, and I think it's true, that when trying to persuade a group of people, you're really trying to target 80%, because 10% of the people already agree with you, and 10% of the people will never agree with you. It's the 80% inbetween that can be swayed by a persuasive argument, and it's there that the focus should be.

[funkycamper]

I'm all for gay marriage (or civil unions). I really don't care what you call them. Although I do think that fighting for gay civil unions makes more sense. I think that has a bit less of an edge for some people. And I'm all for doing it now.

However, I'm pragmatic.

Senorina brought up "Iron-Jawed Angels". You also need to remember the rest of the history of women's rights outside of getting the vote.
* Birth control and education about birth control was still illegal in many states. The birth control pill was just as controversial when it came out as abortions still are today. And abortions were illegal until Roe v Wade in 1972? or so.
* Women still weren't considered full partners in the work place. It wasn't until the modern women's movement that started in the 1960's that women started getting more job opportunities. It wasn't until the 80's that women started to see a bit of parity in the job market. And we're still not really all the way there yet, but we're getting closer. Until the modern era, women who worked were either pitied because it was assumed their husbands couldn't/wouldn't support them or that they only worked for "pin money". Self-fulfillment and autonomy were concepts never associated with women for decades after we got the vote.
* Women could still be legally beaten by their husbands. In fact, modern Domestic Violence laws and assistance centers really didn't spring up until the 1980's. Wow!! It sure took awhile.

I could go on but I think this illustrates the point I want to make. Someone else (I'm sorry I don't recall who) said in this thread that it will take us getting used to seeing gay couples in society before enough people will be likely to want to give them legal sanction for their relationships. And that it might take mothers seeing their gay children in happy relationships rather than hiding in closets to help push forward this change.

I agree. Unfortunately, as a society we just aren't ready yet. It took decades for women to throw off most of the gender discrimination practices that were societal norms. Gays have only felt comfortable coming out for a short time. I hope it doesn't take as many decades but I just think it's too soon yet.

I hope society proves me wrong on this. I know I support full equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual preference. It seems easy and silly to disallow anyone these fundamental rights. But I'm sure it will come. We just need to be patient and keep working for it. (I know, it's hard to be patient when something is wrong).

Hope this all makes sense.

[senorina]

interesting:

The South African parliament on Tuesday approved new legislation recognizing gay marriages _ a first for a continent where homosexuality is largely taboo.
The National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill, worked out after months of heated public discussion, by a majority of 230 to 41 votes despite criticism from both traditionalists and gay activists and warnings that it might be unconsitutional. There were three abstentions.
The bill provides for the "voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized (sodomized ??) and registered by either a marriage or civil union." It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.
But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her "conscience, religion and belief."
"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa- Nqakula told the National Assembly.
The bill had been expected to pass given the overwhelming majority of the ruling African National Congress, despite unease among rank and file lawmakers. It now has to go to the National Council of Provinces, which is expected to be a formality, before being signed into law by President Thabo Mbeki.