About gay marriage

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

November 8th, 2006, 01:32 PM
senorina

I was curious as to how the gay marriage questions would do, as predicted, most of the states that voted on it voted against allowing gay marriage.

Even here in Massachusetts, a very liberal state, where gay marriage is legal, all of the polls show that if it came down to a vote, the vote would be against it.

Why do you think that is?

And what do we have to do to change the hearts and minds of people on this issue?

[ November 08, 2006 09:32 AM: Message edited by: senorina ]
November 8th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Maureen in Italy

I think that part of what has made it such a contentious issue was the Born-Again-Christian agenda that has been front and center for the past 5-6 years. It somehow became okay to hate and be vocal about it.

I was happy and very surprised to see that Arizona passed it.
November 8th, 2006, 02:12 PM
taragunner

I honestly don't know, and it makes me sad that people want to deny others basic rights like this.
November 8th, 2006, 02:52 PM
senorina

Quote:

Originally posted by Maureen in Italy:
I think that part of what has made it such a contentious issue was the Born-Again-Christian agenda that has been front and center for the past 5-6 years. It somehow became okay to hate and be vocal about it.

I was happy and very surprised to see that Arizona passed it.

I don't think so. They obviously have a vocal voice on this, but you can't blame them when it comes down to a majority of a state like Massachusetts.

I personally think we have to take a different tack...I think that people resent being called ignorant and uneducated for opposing it, and that makes them dig their heels in and not want to budge.

I think its about people being afraid of change, and being strongly attached to the traditions that they are used to.

I think this kind of change will have to come in small steps, and gradually show people that the whole culture won't fall to pieces if we make this change.

It must be very frustrating to want to demand change now - but sometimes that isn't the way that will work in the real world.

This issue makes me think of that great movie about womens' voting rights - Iron Jawed Angels.

Angelica Huston's character was taking the gradual approach, Hillary Swank's character took the demand it now all or nothing approach. I think it took a little of both strategies to make the change happen.
November 8th, 2006, 02:57 PM
senorina

Quote:

Originally posted by taragunner:
I honestly don't know, and it makes me sad that people want to deny others basic rights like this.

I honestly don't think people see themselves as denying rights to anyone.

I agree with the position that we don't allow just anyone to have the "right" to marry. Related people cannot marry. Is that denying them rights? Say cousins who are in love and are willing to be sterilized so they won't have children? Poligamists have been fighting for the "right" to marry more than one person for a hundred years in this country, and I think they have a hell of a case... who are we to tell them that they only have a "right" to marry one person?

Marriage is definately defined in this country, and we are asking to have the definition "changed" to include same gender partners.
November 8th, 2006, 03:31 PM
onelove

Quote:

Originally posted by senorina:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Maureen in Italy:
I think that part of what has made it such a contentious issue was the Born-Again-Christian agenda that has been front and center for the past 5-6 years. It somehow became okay to hate and be vocal about it.

I was happy and very surprised to see that Arizona passed it.

I don't think so. They obviously have a vocal voice on this, but you can't blame them when it comes down to a majority of a state like Massachusetts.

I personally think we have to take a different tack...I think that people resent being called ignorant and uneducated for opposing it, and that makes them dig their heels in and not want to budge.

I think its about people being afraid of change, and being strongly attached to the traditions that they are used to.

I think this kind of change will have to come in small steps, and gradually show people that the whole culture won't fall to pieces if we make this change.

It must be very frustrating to want to demand change now - but sometimes that isn't the way that will work in the real world.

This issue makes me think of that great movie about womens' voting rights - Iron Jawed Angels.

Angelica Huston's character was taking the gradual approach, Hillary Swank's character took the demand it now all or nothing approach. I think it took a little of both strategies to make the change happen.<hr /></blockquote>I think you are right. Movements work that way.The aggressive people on the fringes make the middle seem less scary.

I also think people have to live with things for awhile. They would most likely not have gotten that chance without the courts.

In Vermont (granted it isn't marriage)it was bitter after the court case and subsequent legislative action. Now it is meh. Don't get me wrong there is still a portion of the public who is staunchly and vocally opposed but the majority (I'll look for the poll later if people are interested.) have no problem with the civil union.

I think the more people see same sex partnerships the more normal is seems. They are shopping for groceries, going to their childrens ball games etc. It becomes part of the landscape.

I do think this will slowly spread throughout the country. I think mothers will play a huge part in this. It is my personal opinion when mothers see that their child can have a partner, a house, kids etc instead of a lifetime in the closet hating themselves they will want that for their children. I think mothers saw how terribly hard the gay lifestyle was for people in the past and hated and feared that their children would suffer if they were gay. Remove that fear and it becomes less frightening.

The other part of the equation revolves around the courts. Custody, property, divorce, and legal benefits are all going to end up in courts around the country. Eventually a body of law will have to be designed to deal with these inevitable issues. I think that will eventually codify the rights of gay and lesbian couples.

I also think it is generational. Kids today are growing up with visible gay couples. It will seem less shocking to them by that fact.
November 8th, 2006, 03:47 PM
space4dtime

I was reading Barack Obama's book, and he was talking about the importance of finding the middle ground. Someone mentioned to me that there was no middle ground on slavery, but Obama did talk about the middle ground on slavery: The Constitution. The slavery argument was important during the framing of the Constitution, and knowing that they couldn't get it passed in the South without slavery being legal, they made it legal. But as Obama said, they also protected anti-slavery speech and protests, and eventually, slavery was ended.

Until then, I had never really considered a middle ground on gay marriage, like civil unions, to be very fair. But as a means to and end, I think it's a worthwhile goal to pursue. If we keep finding middle grounds, good things can happen.
November 8th, 2006, 05:39 PM
senorina

Quote:

Originally posted by space4dtime:
I was reading Barack Obama's book, and he was talking about the importance of finding the middle ground. Someone mentioned to me that there was no middle ground on slavery, but Obama did talk about the middle ground on slavery: The Constitution. The slavery argument was important during the framing of the Constitution, and knowing that they couldn't get it passed in the South without slavery being legal, they made it legal. But as Obama said, they also protected anti-slavery speech and protests, and eventually, slavery was ended.

Until then, I had never really considered a middle ground on gay marriage, like civil unions, to be very fair. But as a means to and end, I think it's a worthwhile goal to pursue. If we keep finding middle grounds, good things can happen.

wow.

I really have to read that book.
November 9th, 2006, 03:29 AM
taragunner

Quote:

Originally posted by senorina:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by taragunner:
I honestly don't know, and it makes me sad that people want to deny others basic rights like this.

I honestly don't think people see themselves as denying rights to anyone.

I agree with the position that we don't allow just anyone to have the "right" to marry. Related people cannot marry. Is that denying them rights? Say cousins who are in love and are willing to be sterilized so they won't have children? Poligamists have been fighting for the "right" to marry more than one person for a hundred years in this country, and I think they have a hell of a case... who are we to tell them that they only have a "right" to marry one person?

Marriage is definately defined in this country, and we are asking to have the definition "changed" to include same gender partners.<hr /></blockquote>I guess what I meant by 'rights' are the rights that come lock, stock and barrel with a typical marriage certificate: The right to make medical decisions for your partner, the right to share health or other benefits usually afforded to a spouse, etc.
November 9th, 2006, 03:36 AM
taragunner

oops, another double post.

[ November 08, 2006 11:38 PM: Message edited by: taragunner ]

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page