About gay marriage

Printable View

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 ]
November 9th, 2006, 04:46 AM
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.
November 9th, 2006, 04:49 AM
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.
November 9th, 2006, 12:10 PM
senorina

Quote:

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.

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.
November 9th, 2006, 08:09 PM
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.
November 11th, 2006, 10:21 PM
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.
November 15th, 2006, 04:27 AM
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.