Same sex marriage; A look at CP's gradual acceptance

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If we are going to pander religious people, which specific group of them should we pander to?

What a silly question. The answer is "mine", of course.

[WhiteTiger]

As to my thoughts on the matter, I found this on Facebook, and thought it well described the situation:

"To all of my friends and family who honestly believe that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling somehow infringes on your religious freedom, I have one word for you: Bacon.

I'm serious. BACON.

Bacon is legal in the United States, right? "Of course it is," you say. "What's your point?" Well, bacon is legal in the United States, even though most Jewish people believe it to be a sin. Does your love of bacon infringe on their religious freedoms in any way? Should it be illegal for you to purchase bacon, just because they believe that you're sinning when you do so? The fact that bacon is legal doesn't force anyone to eat it, and the fact that it's against some people's religion doesn't prevent those who want to from eating it. That's pretty much the definition of "Religious Freedom".

Why is gay marriage any different? Tradition? The Biblical admonishment against pork goes back just as far as its condemnation of gay sex (the scriptures that reference them aren't even all that far apart from each other), so that can't be it. I think the uncomfortable Truth is that you like bacon, so you ignore that scripture (along with all of the other Old Testament laws that you pay no attention to), but the thought of gay people having sex makes you feel icky, so you hold up that scripture as justification for your homophobia. If thinking about gay people having sex really bothers you that much, then here's a thought: Just stop thinking about gay people having sex. Problem solved.

There's a reason that your religious beliefs aren't The Law in this country (no matter how much you might sometimes want them to be). Remember the uproar about "Sharia Law"? Well, do you know what Sharia Law actually is? It's a faction of Islam that wants to enforce its religious beliefs on others, by having them made into law. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? You know what else would be terrible? Having YOUR religious beliefs made into law (or anybody's really). Why is Sharia Law a "bad thing", but outlawing things that your religion is opposed to is supposedly a good thing? Surely you see the hypocrisy there.

But back to bacon... If you believe that bacon is a sin, then don't eat bacon. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then don't get gay married.

That's Religious Freedom."

[Thor]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Still against it. The argument for it seems to be it's not affecting you and who are you to say what marriage is.

It is not affecting you, whether your neighbor gets same sex married will not change your own life in any meaningful way. Your issue is with the slippery slope, but again these ideas you suggest are other issues, Gay marriage is an issue, which has resolved, if you sincerely think we will start seeing a wave of pro incest movements and calls for equal rights, then I don't know what to say.

You do have a point on polygamy, they actually have a better argument, but socially they are very much fringe so I don't see that changing any time soon, but it could in the future, I personally am not against multi partner marriages.

However, a society is always making judgments about what marriage is and drawing limits.

This is actually why we can be confident in these movements, the same things have been said over and over as social norms evolve, the movements for women's suffrage, black rights, and now gay rights. These are based on society making moral decisions on what is right, sometimes a court is needed to pull the rest a long, which is what the supreme court is for.

Thanks by the way for chiming in, its always appreciated when people speak their sincerely held beliefs when its unpopular.

I just think 10 years from now, 20 years from now, you will look back on this like it really was no big deal.

Also for fun, here's some of the traditional marriage ideas from the ultimate authority on morals, the Bible

[Matata]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The problem with polygamy is the benefits that go along with being married. You can't have people marrying multiple partners and collecting multiple tax benefits, social benefits, death benefits etc.

The problem with polygamy is that in practice, it is frequently a form of institutionalized prostitution, where women are essentially sold and married off like cattle. It also destabilizes society by creating a large population of unmarried, frustrated men.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

For me personally, I've always wondered why a "same sex marriage" couldn't just find a different term to use and reclaim as their own. I have no problems giving them all the rights and consequences that go with marriage.

This is what "separate but equal" looks like:

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Like this image, for example:



Since I'm not going to raise a stink over this with my FB friends, I'll post my response here.

Ok, you still love them...in your strange, neglectful, exclusionary way.
No, chances are if you are excluding them from the same rights as you I doubt you are still friends.
Yes, judging them is precisely what you are doing.
Yes, you are in fact condemning them to hell if you are indeed a Christian and believe the Bible. Contrary to popular practice, you do not get to pick and choose which parts and parables fit into your lifestyle and personal choices of what a Christian is.
Yes, you will allow people to bully them. You are doing it in this image by disregarding them as persons with equal access to the rights and privileges you currently enjoy.

Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, but when it's so fundamentally flawed, contradictory, and generally dangerous and unhealthy it is very difficult to consider seriously. This was never an attack on faith, this was a push towards progressing our social environment. Do not act as though some backlash from a small, vocal, aggressive segment of supporters is akin to the oppression these individuals have faced, being rendered at best invisible and at worst criminal within as recently as 1969 in Canada.

And besides, this isn't something that homosexuals believe according to their homosexual manual. It is an embrace of love, acceptance, equality, and logic, and is as much or more in accordance with nature and natural law than an opinion or choice.

/rant. Thanks for the cathartic release, CP.

I think that the bolded above is exactly what being Christian is. The various sects pick and choose what and how to believe and interpret all the time. Otherwise I agree with you

[GGG]

When this debate started my thought was that the state shouldn't marry anyone. Leave the word marriage for people to define themselves and the state would offer economic family partnerships to anyone.

The states purpose of marriage is to establish the benefits for things like medical decisions, child rearing, income based benefits, and death benefits. And to establish the rules for dissolving the partnership.

No one liked this stance as essentially it said anyone outside of church marriages wouldn't be married and people on both sides really like the word marriage.

The part of the debate I never understood from religious people is that they accepted stage marriages outside of the church with no intent of having children. Aren't these just as offensive to the religious institution of marriage.

I know when I was 16 I was against gay couples adopting kids because I though 2 different sex parents were better. That slowly evaporated over the past 20 yrs.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think that the bolded above is exactly what being Christian is. The various sects pick and choose what and how to believe and interpret all the time. Otherwise I agree with you

And that is essentially the veiled point I was trying to make. The fact that each individual sect of Christianity gets to pick and choose which parts of "God's law" they want to enforce and obey is really where the foundation of their argument falls to pieces.

It's fine to have a tangible source of morality like the Bible, but if you're going to cite it as a reason for primacy, oppression, and segregation then you should have to consider the totality of that source.

Queers are harmful and unequal, but ham & lobster is delicious, tattoos are badass, and capitalism and usury are the crux of Western society/economy.

[The Familia]

As a traditionalist I'll admit Im against same sex marriage. I have no problem with those who are gay, I just don't agree with the marriage aspect. Call gay marriage a union, partnership, conjoining, whatever you wish, I still feel strongly in marriage of the traditional sense that has existed and been defined for thousands of years in cultures all over the world. Too many century old traditions are disappearing or changing in today's "modern" world. I'm just tired of the minority seemingly always getting their way (this extends to a multitude of areas) at the expense of tradition. Why does everything have to be for everyone? Why can't some things just remain exclusive for certain groups? Why can't women just do certain things, or just europeans, or just elderly, or just homosexuals. Why does everything have to be Equal? Life isn't fair. If it was then everyone would be in the NHL making millions of dollars and married to a model. Why can't people just accept that they can't have everything. Everyone will fall as a minority with something in regards to their life. You win some you lose some. Anyways, my post will fall into the minority on this board and I'll probably be raked over the coals. Such is life but I'll stick to my opinion. For the record, I don't have anything against homosexuals and have no hatred or ill will towards them. They deserve to be treated with respect as does everyone. I just don't agree with the marriage part.

[Looch City]

Look at it in terms of "equal opportunity" rather than just equal. Everyone should have the opportunity to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I sense a bit of sexism in your post, unwarranted or not, I'm sure. But are you saying we should go back to the "women only in the kitchen" days...?

The world should not be revolving around century-old traditions. People and societies change, cultures disappear, new cultures are born, and we move forward as a species. You can't just stop time and say, no I'm staying in my 18th century rules and that's the way the world should be.

For humans to advance as a species, there has to be progress. That starts with equal opportunity no matter your sex/color/sexual-orientation/etc.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by The Familia

As a traditionalist I'll admit Im against same sex marriage. I have no problem with those who are gay, I just don't agree with the marriage aspect. Call gay marriage a union, partnership, conjoining, whatever you wish, I still feel strongly in marriage of the traditional sense that has existed and been defined for thousands of years in cultures all over the world. Too many century old traditions are disappearing or changing in today's "modern" world. I'm just tired of the minority seemingly always getting their way (this extends to a multitude of areas) at the expense of tradition. Why does everything have to be for everyone? Why can't some things just remain exclusive for certain groups? Why can't women just do certain things, or just europeans, or just elderly, or just homosexuals. Why does everything have to be Equal? Life isn't fair. If it was then everyone would be in the NHL making millions of dollars and married to a model. Why can't people just accept that they can't have everything. Everyone will fall as a minority with something in regards to their life. You win some you lose some. Anyways, my post will fall into the minority on this board and I'll probably be raked over the coals. Such is life but I'll stick to my opinion. For the record, I don't have anything against homosexuals and have no hatred or ill will towards them. They deserve to be treated with respect as does everyone. I just don't agree with the marriage part.

You don't happen to be a white male do you?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Anyways, my post will fall into the minority on this board and I'll probably be raked over the coals. Such is life but I'll stick to my opinion.

This is a strange thing to say just in general. "A bunch of people will disagree with me but I will remain unwilling to change my view".
Personally, I don't want to be wrong for a moment longer than I have to. Why would you presuppose that your mind will not ever be changed by people with different viewpoints?

I suspect this has something to do with why you're still occupying the minority on this issue... anyone who's willing to say this has no credibility with me.

[polak]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Does it make sense though? The arguments people put forth (about drawing some kind of line in the sand) are the same straw man fallacies that were trotted out to try to prevent interracial marriages 50 years ago.

Well technically... Isn't the slippery slope proving to be correct?

First we wouldn't let people from different religions get married... Then different races.... Then same genders... Whats next?

I don't have any issues with same sex marriage and fully support it being legalized across the board. Personally, I think religion is a joke and I'm not sold on the concept of marriage anyways so I don't care if someone wants to marry a pig or a lamp post. Does it "cheapen" the idea of marriage? Maybe. So what though? Shouldn't change the way you feel about your significant other.

[HockeyIlliterate]

I'm against it.

The US Supreme Court, decades ago, conjured up some fundamental rights that they believed existed from the prenumbras and emanations from the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Leaving aside the somewhat obvious point that if a right is a fundamental right, such a right should be apparent to all and not require the divine interpretation of 9 select individuals and the viewing thereof from shadows, one should wonder how marriage (held to be a fundamental right) is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," or how gay marriage, in particular, is "deeply rooted in the US' history and tradition."

Furthermore, one should question why a right that was once deemed to be fundamental (i.e., the right to contract) is no longer considered to be fundamental, but I digress.

If marriage is (as the Court has held) a fundamental right, then does that necessarily mean that all forms and types of marriages are similarly fundamental rights? I do not think so, but the Court--at least as to gay marriage [and perhaps as to all forms of human joinder, given the looseness of the Court's opinion]--disagrees.

Yet is it the Court's right to create new definitions for age-old terms?

Cannot marriage be a fundamental right, but only as to those who can partake in that institution, insofar as that institution is defined?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court made a political, and legislative and not a Constitutional decision. Unfortunately, it is not the province of the Supreme Court to make political and legislative decisions.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Gay people want to be equal, that's what it boils down to. Creating a different isn't equal, religious people and groups don't have a monopoly on the word marriage, it really is that simple.

Well, here's the thing: Gay people aren't equal.

In fact, because everyone is different and unique, no one is equal.

So I wish people would stop expecting equality.

And I certainly wish people would stop asking for others to celebrate their differences and diversity, when at the same time demanding to be treated as equal as anyone else.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

yeah, I'm totally with you on the first part. It's a logistical nightmare to allow polygamy which is why I would be "against" it. Although, if someone could demonstrate it could work I'd be all ears.

My morality on it is, if you can demonstrate that all parties are consenting adults and are under no duress, then who am I to judge. The problem is, so many of the polygamists have child incest brides and whatnot that it's just a cluster-eff.

I think they can get away with child incest brides because it is illegal. The wedding is illegal so they don't have to get a marriage license and follow any of the laws around age of consent. If it were legal to have multiple spouses then the other marriage laws would apply.

One of the problems with polygamy as it currently stands is that only the legal spouse has any rights. If the second spouse wants a divorce she has no claim on any assets and the Dower act doesn't apply so her house can be sold without her permission.

[Galakanokis]

I have a few old friends on Facebook that are ultra religious and I am not surprised they are posting crap on facebook. One, of course, is using the slippery slope argument that now pedophiles will and in fact are seeking equal rights now that guys have. I responded with sure, if two pedophiles want to get married who are we to stop them. But if you are referring to children than as soon as we (the law/moral compass/whatever) recognize kids as consenting adults we can open the conversation back up.

I also don't really like the argument/excuse of it has no impact on me so do whatever you want. I'm not gay but I have a few gay friends and been to a couple of gay weddings. Seeing people happier, relieved, more excepted, what have you definitely has an impact on my life. More positivity is definitely better than negativity or not caring at all. It's true I don't care what people do in the bedroom but that's not what we are talking about it here. We are or should be talking about treating people as people regardless.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Well, here's the thing: Gay people aren't equal.

In fact, because everyone is different and unique, no one is equal.

So I wish people would stop expecting equality.

And I certainly wish people would stop asking for others to celebrate their differences and diversity, when at the same time demanding to be treated as equal as anyone else.

It terms of our rights, yes we should be equal. Are you saying different groups have have different rights and Freedoms?

I think you're really confusing what equality is.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

I have a few old friends on Facebook that are ultra religious and I am not surprised they are posting crap on facebook. One, of course, is using the slippery slope argument that now pedophiles will and in fact are seeking equal rights now that guys have. I responded with sure, if two pedophiles want to get married who are we to stop them. But if you are referring to children than as soon as we (the law/moral compass/whatever) recognize kids as consenting adults we can open the conversation back up.

I also don't really like the argument/excuse of it has no impact on me so do whatever you want. I'm not gay but I have a few gay friends and been to a couple of gay weddings. Seeing people happier, relieved, more excepted, what have you definitely has an impact on my life. More positivity is definitely better than negativity or not caring at all. It's true I don't care what people do in the bedroom but that's not what we are talking about it here. We are or should be talking about treating people as people regardless.

I have those equating the genetics vs. choice argument to that of pedophiles, murderers, and rapists. Basically, it boils down to the asinine statement that if homosexuals are a product of genetics and are OK in society then so should the aforementioned group of criminals.

I am fully willing to hear arguments from the opposition regarding their stance, but it is head-bashing-against-the-wall frustrating when simple logic escapes these people. The best they can muster is that it harms families, but they are either unwilling or unable to provide any reasoning.

I have yet to hear a valid argument against it other than it is buried in ancient scripture, is a matter of semantics, or is vaguely harmful to families.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

And I certainly wish people would stop asking for others to respect their differences and diversity, when at the same time demanding to be treated as equal as anyone else.

fyp.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It terms of our rights, yes we should be equal. Are you saying different groups have have different rights and Freedoms?

In the context of this discussion, perhaps only heterosexual adults have the right and freedom to marry, but only homosexual adults have the right and freedom to have a civil union.