Hope For America
Also, no, I'm not looking to engage a debate about the issue of gay marriage either. It just happens to be what brought this girl into the limelight. Her explanation of it is more or less where I stand on it and she's explained it far better than I ever could.
(Yes, this post is mainly to answer the sound of crickets heard elsewhere.....)
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil
Well. I guess that's that then.
As to the issue of Gay Marriage, the real issue is not how government defines it but how individuals define it and that is why it has so much vitriol surrounding it. Both sides are 100% in the right about this, which makes everyone wrong.
On the one side are those who view Marriage as a document, a legal status. It is a lawfully entered contract between two consenting parties by which they will define thier relationship to each other within the court system. It is no different than a Voter Registration or a Drvers License. To deny it to an arbirtary class of people on "moral" grounds is completley monstrous. It is such a horribly gross abberation of Civil Rights that none outside of the fringe hate groups would ever call for it. I will personally stand up and fight against any who support this type of segregation within our legal system.
The flip side are those, like the young woman in the video, who view the Holy Sacrement of Marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman before God. It is the very foundation of faith and family, what God has joined let no man tear asunder. If the 1st Amendment truly does ensure that "Congress shall make no law" that would impede our freely accepted religious beliefs, the how can they make a law that redefines a Holy Sacrement? It would be just as unacceptable to heve a law that redefines Baptisim. Why not a law that gives a broader definition to what may legally be called a Menorah? Or a law that regulates the size and recipient of all trades tithings? How about a legally accepted (and copyrighted) depiction of the Holy Profit Mohammed like we have for Santa Clause? Each of these is not only an insult to religion, but a direct assault in violation of our own constitution. I would personally fight against any government regulation of how a person is or is not allowed to freely worship their God.
So should Gay Marriage be allowed as a Civil Rights issue? Or be curbed as a Freedom of Religion issue? Two very different issues stemming from to very different concepts that happen to be called the exact same name, Marriage.
My only thoughts to add to that; I've been raised by a Christian mother who is pretty firm in her convictions that the rules of the Bible are for God's people. They're not there to be forced upon anyone else. Obviously, to be a Christian, you'd have to follow them, but if you're not, you don't have to (I mean more in regards to the salvation part than the 'thou shalt not murder' part. But not murdering people is in the secular law anyway).
Under this viewpoint, clearly gay marriage can't be sanctioned by the church and it creates significant barriers for a gay person who wants to be part of a church being part of a church, but it doesn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of marriage as a legal institution or as a secular social convention.
Of course, a lot of religious people still wouldn't be comfortable with this, but that's how I my mum could accept it from a Christian perspective.
Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
The bible is clear: Marriage is between one man and any number of women, with the optional addition of some female slaves as concubines.
What the bible says isn't all that important any way as society isn't based on it. Only two of the ten commandments are actually law, but these were also law in pagan times.
I don't see why this issue is an issue at all. If gay couples were asking for equal rights, I could understand and support that, but since they're demanding that we call it marriage, and that it's the same thing as our parents' marriage, they're not demanding equal rights but something else: respectability. That is an impossible and unattainable goal. Respectability can't be legislated. Respect isn't a rational thought about equal rights, but a sort of a gut feeling. If people believe that gays are respected in countries where gay marriage happens to be legal, they are sorely mistaken. My mind says "you should be free to enjoy a meal of worms if that's what makes you happy", but my gut says "I don't want to see it".
Luckily for them, most people don't just think with their gut most of the time, so they will get their equal rights eventually, but as long as the issue is sidetracked on the question whether it should be called marriage, they won't make any progress. Don't force people to think with their gut, because you're not going to win it that way.
In places where civil unions are allowed, which gives them the same legal protections under law as hetro couple have, marriage is not an issue. Which says to me, it is not about respectability, but rather, it is about legal rights and protections.
Which they already have as a result of the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nope. That's *NOT* all they want. They don't want equal rights. They want superior rights. Equal Protection under the law isn't good enough for them.
I don't know of any state in the US that doesn't grant them the privileges a civil union offers. That's not what they're after. They're part of a systematic assault on religious freedom in this country, which is what many of us take a stand against. The State has no right to tell Christians to allow them to marry in the religious sense of the word.
This i can agree with, but i seriously doubt that any gay people would want to have a church wedding.
Considering the above, I'd say sexual orientation falls well within the category of "unalienable rights."
It is not anyone's place to demand segregation of those whose sexual orientation is different from their own. That the gay community even feels the need to be this vocal should tell you something, its the Civil Rights movement all over again. They are sick and tired of the Christian church, hell, the ENTIRE NATION (including our previous president) trying to demonize them. If you want this to change, stop it. Drop the subject, don't talk about it, and let them get on with their damn lives.
No one single person has the right to judge what a "normal" human is, and pulling the "well, everyone else agrees with me so it must be true" argument is a fallacy (appeal to the majority). The best way to let this issue sort itself out is for our nation's anti-gay crowd to grow the hell up and stop trying to force the notion that heterosexuality is the ONLY sexuality that should be allowed. that's exactly the same as saying White people are superior to Black people, and if I remember correctly, every time we got into a heated argument about that, people died. It's only a matter of time before this one goes the same way.
Learn from history, do not repeat it.
Nobody is segregating them either. I don't see "gays only" bathrooms, drinking fountains, buses, movie theaters, or anything else that the blacks had to go through prior to 1964.
So, I think I've spent enough time listening to gay people speak about these sorts of things to have some idea of what they want, and it goes something like this:
1. They don't want to end up like Matthew Shepard because of some bigot.
2. They don't want to have their families torn apart by intolerance like this woman simply for being who they are.
3. They want to live and work here like anybody else.
4. They want to openly serve in the military like anybody else.
5. They want to go to prom like everybody else.
6. They want to not get bullied to death.
7. Oh, and I guess they probably want to marry the people they love just like anybody else.
None of which is ever going to happen if they don't fight for it. And there's no way any of us don't know that. To suggest that they "shut up about it" and live in the closet is to deny them, as Thomas says, their inalienable rights as Americans, and moreover smacks of how things would just be better off if those uppity Negroes just knew their place all Jim Crow style.
Like I keep saying, we're either going to do that liberty and justice for all thing, or we're not.
You can't legislate away evil. One would think by now that would be obvious, given we haven't been able to legislate away racism either. Yes, what they did to him was evil. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Poorly disguised anti-religious bigotry of its own. Seriously, you can't see that? Also, WTF would you expect from fundamentalist believers? That they abandoned what they know just because one of their own is a deviant? Oh, and again, you can't legislate this away.
And they already can. Nice try with the immigration issue trying to conflate that as an anti-gay issue. That was clearly a medical quarantine issue based on outdated laws on the books. Nowhere in all that did I read "we denied him because he's gay".
And now, they can, thanks to your buddy Obama. The irony here is rich though since your other best buddy Clinton was the one who instituted that policy to begin with. Also, tell me, why should anyone in the military give a rat's ass what your sexual habits are? Don't you think it would be just as disruptive to run around all the time proclaiming myself to be straight rather than just keeping my private life... you know.... private?
And apparently now they can. Except the school system isn't where this shit should be getting done. That was a very poorly disguised ACLU agenda mission, and you know how little respect I hold for the ACLU.
Kid commits suicide after mean people on the internet call him names? Has nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to how kids treat each other, even under the best of circumstances? I say this as one who endured a lot of bullying myself up until the 5th grade when I responded by decking two of the assholes who instigated it. They called me a faggot too. Clearly I'm not one, so what's that actually say about this? Kids call each other that ALL THE TIME and the word itself is bordering on having lost any meaning.
And, sadly, in a number of states they already can. The whole point of this gay marriage argument is that they don't want what the law already provides. They want to force themselves on those of religious bents to make THEM perform the marriages. Despite the obvious 1st Amendment issues here, Massachusetts went ahead with that kind of stupidity anyway.
Comparing any of this to racism where the STATE was going around killing black people left and right and passing actual laws which openly segregated them from the rest of society cheapens everything Martin Luther King Jr. and those like him fought for and achieved. If you're seriously trying to argue this is happening with LGBT's then you're, quite simply, full of crap.
tl;dr: You cant legislate away evil.
Poorly disguised anti-religious bigotry of its own.
Expressing disatisfaction at getting disowned for coming out is bigotry now?
Also, tell me, why should anyone in the military give a rat's ass what your sexual habits are? Don't you think it would be just as disruptive to run around all the time proclaiming myself to be straight rather than just keeping my private life... you know.... private?
The whole point, and the entire problem with how things were up until the DADT repeal, is that the military used to have to give all kinds of asses as to what your sexual habits were, and now they don't.
Too, try being in a relationship with somebody sometime and never ever being able to talk about it or even allude to it for fear of losing your job or getting your ass kicked. Try going to a bar with your buddies and hiding the fact you like girls. Good luck with that.
Which is to say that it's more complicated than you apparently think it is.
Kid commits suicide after mean people on the internet call him names? Has nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to how kids treat each other, even under the best of circumstances?
Yeah, I got bullied too. In grade school. When you have a large number of gay teenagers being bullied in high school specifically for being gay? I think that might be a problem.
And, sadly, in a number of states they already can. The whole point of this gay marriage argument is that they don't want what the law already provides. They want to force themselves on those of religious bents to make THEM perform the marriages.
Yes, wanting to spend the rest of your life with somebody you love. A tragic thing, I'm sure we can all agree.
If the law actually provided them the benefits of marriage, you might have a point here. Except it pretty much doesn't. Also, you can get married at the courthouse if you want, since that's the only one with legal standing anyway. Last I checked, and I checked not that long ago, legal rights for same sex couples was the main thrust of the argument. We all agree: the First Amendment lets churches marry who they wish.
Actually, no, what's going on is they've given up trying to sway the minds of those of us who are older than 25 and have begun directly targeting the kids in school with it in DIRECT violation of the wishes of many parents. Ever wonder why there's been a rise in home schooling? Yep. This is one of the reasons. The State has no business involving itself in this.
The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was very different from any of this and I'm well aware you know this to be true. Pretending otherwise isn't working with me
It is when every other word of your dissatisfaction amounts to "fuck the church, burn them all", yes. Advocating violence isn't the way to go about this, and is why the majority of the country is not responding favorably to it.
Oh, trust me, they do. Repealing DADT isn't going to change this. Rather than having everyone there be quiet about it, they'll have open conflict instead. The seeds of lowered morale. Disruptions in the chains of command. Discipline issues. All stuff I know the high ranking officials have complained about for decades because of this, which is why even Clinton agreed to DADT. The military couldn't ask, and you weren't supposed to tell anyone.
Again, why the hell does anyone need to know that Jim is gay and Bob is straight? Just go kick some ass on our enemies and be done with it. I know I don't care and don't want to know unless Jim decides it's appropriate to start hitting on me. In which case he's likely to just get hit for making unwanted advances. Sexual harassment for male-male usually doesn't end up in court to become Gloria Alred's next headline case. It ends in a fist fight.
Actually more complicated than you seem willing to admit to as well.
Fixed that for you, because guess what? Most of the bullying I saw (and endured personally) wasn't about being gay. It was simply about assholes with power complexes flexing their muscles against people who wouldn't resist. Turn the other cheek doesn't work. You want it stopped? FIGHT the bully. You don't go running to Uncle Sam to resolve your battles for you. I learned that the way everyone in my family learned that. On campus, responding to it with violence.
Bullies understand violence, and even respect it to the point they'll leave you alone if you stand up for yourself. Happens time and time again, but schools today would rather try and shove tolerance, peace, love, and pot highs down your throats instead and claim violence isn't the answer. It most certainly can be, and it's been a pretty effective national security policy for decades too.
Get out more. It already does.
Seems to me like anyone with an agenda within the USA seems to want to take it to the schools. So, they can either all get the fuck out, or they all have the right to do so. You cant have it both ways here Samson, if it is ok for the church to be trying to find backdoor ways to push their beliefs in schools, it surely is ok for gays to be doing the same.
Personally i think it is a sad reflection on your society, with its need to brainwash the next generation, rather than letting them decide for themselves. Or maybe it just shows a controlling and partisanship nature that is the very core of all things American.
Plus, as you no doubt no, parents were not objecting to it in the classrooms of the day, nor are they in the vast majority of cases now. Only a handful of Atheist agitators are doing so now, backed by ACLU trial lawyers looking to make a buck and a media case out of any little thing.
Which is irony in the extreme given Atheism is itself a religion.
Also, nice innuendo there with "back door"
Turn some of that sadness back home. Progressivism is a global movement and you're already decades in front of us on that one.
LOL, you know i did not notice it, but now you pointed it out, i had a chuckle.
Once again it's going to come down to SCOTUS to set things straight again. Fucking activist judges.
Myth? No. Fact.
Leaving out that this was a major case in the Intelligent design movement (which is not the topic here), the point here is that schools have tried to force religious agendas upon their students, usually with the backing of a fundamentalist organization such as the Discovery Institute. Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District is one of those cases. The school board purchased a large quantity of Creationist textbooks using money granted to them from the Discovery Institute, and when they went to court over it, the school board and several Discovery Institute members committed Perjury trying to deny their involvement.
And the Discovery Institute is still continuing this agenda today.
If it was a myth, why can I find records of court cases showing that this has happened quite recently (less than a decade ago)?
It's a myth because nobody is forcing anything on anyone in those districts. They WANT to do that, and the parents have given their approval. Considering it's their decision how they want their children educated, it isn't any of the ACLU's business what they do there.
The reality is that Atheists are the ones trying to force their religious beliefs down everyone's throats, despite the overwhelming majority of Americans not being Atheists. Tyranny of the Minority is just as, if not more, dangerous than the so-called Tyranny of the Majority.
@Dwip: If there's one thing history should have taught you it's that the political leanings of appointed judges rarely remain consistent with those who appoint them to those jobs. The 1st Circuit is widely known to be full of activist judges. Oh, and there's the small detail of it being New England. Republican doesn't necessarily mean Conservative, which you're well aware of. The only court widely regarded as more left-wing are the loonies out here on the 9th Circuit.