Right now, in the state where I currently live, the Right / Republicans are pushing for a Marriage Amendment to be voted on in November. It will lay out in the Law, that 'marriage' can only be between a man and a woman. Needless to say, I think the idiotiod argument that if this doesn't pass, guy will be marrying their sheep, is just stupid flack, thrown out there by fear mongering twits.
But, I've given it all thought, as I'll have to vote on it too.
.
And after thinking about it, I gotta tell you, the Libertarian in me thinks I've got no more business saying who can and cannot get 'married', than the GLAAD group has in saying we have to close all the churches and synagogues and all the religion based schools. An amendment like this sounds like making GLAAD people, the new 'colored people' to me.
How is this NOT a new Jim Crow Law?
Maybe what the GLAAD people need is the same kind of legal 'protections' straight people 'enjoy' by getting married. Then they can go be forced into court over dogs, furniture, oh yeah and over the kids. Let them enjoy a legal blindsiding when the relationship goes south and they get a court date instead of a Birthday Card. They too can 'enjoy' the benefit of having someone else put their head on the block for money spent by their 'husband' or 'wife'. They can be left holding the bag for thousands of dollars worth of debt if their 'husband' or 'wife' dies suddenly and they've got big mortgages, car payments and $15K of credit card debt.
I've always been pretty much of the opinion that so long as YOUR daily life doesn't cause me pain or cost me money, have at it. And I'm living in a mixed race neighborhood now which I don't care about. So two gay guys or two gay women moving in across the street would be an improvement over the scummy, always arguing, druggy heterosexuals that are in there now.
.
.
Schteveo
16 comments:
I've always agreed with Kinky Friedman:
"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
Let's face it. You can't beat Kinky for saying the right thing and cutting to the heart of the manner.
I can understand your point Steve, but what about the larger picture? What does allowing gays to legally marry do, not just to your block, but to our society as a whole? What about traditions, values, and morals? What about the strongly-held religious beliefs of tens-of-millions of people who see homosexuality as an abomination? Should they be ignored?
IMO, this big push by activist gays for "marriage equality" is nothing more than another effort on their part to have their lifestyle "officially and legally" accepted by the rest of society.
After successfully having a special law invented, (hate crime law) which gives gays special protections above and beyond those enoyed by the rest of us, they are doing what activists always do, they're pushing the envelope as hard as they can, to get as much as they can. And notice they always use the liberal courts, because when the issue comes up before We The People, the gays usually lose. (other than in places like San Francisco)
Personally, i don't like people pushing their beliefs on me, be they religious, sexual, or anything else. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business, not mine. If two people truly want to be together, that state-issued piece of paper should mean nothing to them. All the things gays "claim" to want from/for their partners can be done for any two people in a lawyers office. It doesn't need congress and it doesn't need to infringe on the beliefs of others.
IMO, marriage is a religious function and should not involve the govt. in any way. Also IMO, "only" people who are "physically and genetically" able to produce an offspring should be allowed to adopt a child. But, i'm just sayin...
Spider – in reply to my comment earlier on the “why is the blog dying” your comment above is a perfect example of the sort of thing that caused me to tire of this site and stop posting here. You said:
I can understand your point Steve, but… … traditions, values, and morals?
You use traditions as an example of things that are good, but traditions are just as often not very good. Traditionally, in the southern United States, black people were seen as inferior to white people. Traditionally, in American business, women were marginalized into support roles and never allowed to grow within the company. Traditions are an argument that is used by your side of the debate all the time, but the argument always falls flat. Just because something has “always been this way” does not mean that it is not a good idea to look into changing that. People were always dying from polio before they developed the polio vaccine, too. The “appeal to tradition” is actually a listed logical fallacy in most logic textbooks.
As for values – what values are you afraid of? Love? Two individuals who are in love being able to show that and commit to each other?
And morals – can you understand that there are some people who don’t ascribe to your concept of what is moral and what isn’t? Can you understand why you shouldn’t be the sole arbiter of what is and is not moral for other people? To me, someone like you telling another free man what he can and cannot do and using threats of government force to get his way is BY FAR more immoral than two people of the same sex falling in love and wanting to get married.
What about the strongly-held religious beliefs of tens-of-millions of people who see homosexuality as an abomination?
What about them? Why should their strongly held belief that I may or may not ascribe to have anything to do with what I may or may not do with my life? Say Mr. Smith has a strongly held religious belief that people who spend their lives telling others what they can and cannot do should be hung. Should HIS strongly held belief be ignored? What about the strongly held religious beliefs of Muslims in this country that a woman who walks on the street without a veil and a male escort should be stoned to death? Should THEIR strongly held religious beliefs be ignored?
Christians in this nation need to realize that not everyone here lives by their rules and their morality. Before they worry about the mote in my eye, they need to concern themselves with the plank in their own.
IMO, this big push by activist gays for "marriage equality" is nothing more than another effort on their part to have their lifestyle "officially and legally" accepted by the rest of society.
You’re entitled to your opinion. Our society is already well aware that homosexuality exists. As far as it being accepted, that is up to each individual. A fight to keep “society” from “accepting” it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept. Homosexuality exists, whether your society accepts it or not, and if I were a homosexual, I certainly would not allow other individual’s lack of acceptance of my choice drive me into the shadows. I would live my life as I live my life now – being me, in every way. YOU are the one who has to deal with that, Spider, not them.
(Continued in next post)
After successfully having a special law invented, … … the gays usually lose. (other than in places like San Francisco)
I agree that the hate crime laws are totally bogus. However, I don’t see the connection between hate crime legislation and gay marriage, other than they both deal with gays. I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here. Are you arguing that the gays are joining forces in a concerted effort to take over our society? What if all they are trying to do is to stop being treated like second class citizens, forced by people like you to live in fear and in the shadows their entire lives for fear of discrimination and retribution because of their “abomination” of being in love with another human being?
Personally, i don't like people pushing their beliefs on me, be they religious, sexual, or anything else.
And yet, in your entire post up to this point, that is exactly what you were doing to others. Irony?
What you do in the privacy of your home is your business, not mine… …doesn't need to infringe on the beliefs of others.
How does a government-recognized marriage between gays “infringe on the beliefs of others?” Please explain.
marriage is a religious function and should not involve the govt
I agree that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, but I suspect that if they weren’t, and if gays created the “First Baptist Church of the Gay” and started getting married without government control of it, you’d be the first in line shouting about it. But marriage doesn’t belong to Jesus or God. It belongs to humanity. It was around long before Jesus or Buddha or Zoroaster walked the Earth.
I personally agree that marriage is a religious function Spider. But that ship sailed when some governmental body decided JUDGES could marry people at the courthouse way, back, when.
As to traditions and morals, I believe you can't dictate via law, things like who sleeps with who, who they can marry, whether you have to be married TO sleep together...ergo, marriage and tradition continually get massaged.
I think God will treat them, actually God will treat all of us, according to the kind of lives we lead. And if Dave and Marvin, or Sheila and Debbie want to get 'married', they'll have to explain it later. I just don't want to stand in their shoes at the end of their lives. And in case you hadn't noticed, their 'lifestyle' has been legal for a couple decades now. Or at least they've quit enforcing those laws.
And plenty of stuff infringes on other peoples beliefs. The topic that sends many from the Right over the edge, is gay rights.
On the Left it's guns.
Both sides think they're right and they're SURE that the other guys issue is killing the country.
But at some point, and as I said, my inner Libertarian started thinking about this one. And I can't cross this line.
.
.
Goober,
I agree with much of what you said. But I just left Spider's wheelhouse on this one, earlier in the week. It had been bugging me for a while, and I can tell you if the Religious Right had stuck ti the topic, I might not have changed my mind.
But I heard one too many radio spots telling me that an amendment approving legal Gay Marriage meant my gay neighbors would have sex in my yard, in my living room, on my deck and while my grand kids were watching.
I hate stupid political ads and I don't care from which side.
BTW, I was just as set FOR the new liquor laws here 20 years ago, when the Religious Groups were saying mixed drinks in clubs and bars would mean THOUSANDS of drunk drivers on the road everyday at 5 o'clock.
I hate outrageously inaccurate statements. Especially when I suspect the guys paying for the ads know better!
Goob, I'm glad you piped in too.
And if nothing else, Spider's comments and mine and yours should show anyone looking in that we DON'T always agree in here. This is NOT a pat each other on the back over mutual agreements blog!
I just found this quote, from Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit.
.
.
"I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons."
.
.
I guess that's where I am too.
Goober, perhaps you missed it in my post, so i'll repeat it. "IMO" That means i'm not telling anyone what to do, think, or feel. I'm not telling anyone to believe what i believe,and unlike gays, i'm not using the power of the govt. to force people to accept my lifestyle. What i am in fact saying is, all the people around the world who hold very strong objections to gay marriage, and the gay lifestlye, should not be ignored simply because you and other gay supporters think they don't have a right to object.
This country and our society were founded on traditions, values, and morals. I never said they are/were all (or always) good, but they shouldn't be ignored, even by those of you who apparently don't believe in such things.
"And yet, in your entire post up to this point, that is exactly what you were doing to others. Irony?"
Again, you either can't read or can't comprehend. Unlike gays, i was not pushing my "beliefs" on anyone. My "opinions" are mine and i don't force them on anyone via legislation or court order.
"But marriage doesn’t belong to Jesus or God. It belongs to humanity. It was around long before Jesus or Buddha or Zoroaster walked the Earth."
I'll let that statement stand on it's own, as it's too bizarre to even comment on.
Oh crap. It's late and I've had a few drinks, so I probably shouldn't jump in here, but since y'all want to know why participation has been decreasing, I'll go ahead and make a fool of myself.
Spider, in your response to Goober, you were doing fine - engaging in a dialogue and all that good stuff - up to the point where you said "you either can't read or can't comprehend."
IMO, FWIW, and all that good stuff, it's perfectly fine to disagree with people, and to argue your position. But when you start with the personal insults, well, that's where I lose interest.
I didn't see anything in Goober's comment that reached that level. Granted, it was an aggressive pushback, but I didn't see anything overly personal in it. My preference is to argue positions, not personalities. YMMV.
Schtevo - loved the quote: "I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons."
Tim, there is a bit of "history" there that you're not aware of. I also don't see my remark as a personal attack, something i'm not in the habit of doing. It was intended to be an aggressive response to what i saw as an "overly aggressive" pushback to my post. But i appreciate your observation.
Gentlemen, this might be THE best conversation here in a year. I know every posting and it's subsequent comments can't be this good. Bit I'd love it more people would 'mon back and write a line or two.Honestly, as much as Spider and I agree on things, we do have you moments.
Personally, I relish the disagreements in here, they make me "THINK"! That's why I crossed the aisle on this topic.
I'm slowly getting back to me Libertarian thoughts. And I just to be left the "F" alone to live my life, I can't very well go across the street and strip that off the next person.
Spider, I shouldn't post after drinking. You're right and I'm wrong. I apologize.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate many things that I don't have to accept.
Goober, perhaps you missed it in my post, so i'll repeat it. "IMO" That means i'm not telling anyone what to do, think, or feel. …i'm not using the power of the govt. to force people to accept my lifestyle.
This is actually sort of funny, because that is exactly what you ARE doing, and you just can’t see it. By making something illegal, you are doing exactly what you are accusing THEM of doing - using the power of law and government to forward your ideology. You say "they're trying to use government to force me to accept being gay" all while trying to use the government to ban them getting married. I see a lot of irony in that, as I mentioned before. I don't mean any offense in saying these things, I'm just pointing out that when you say that you hate other people trying to push their beliefs on you, while trying to push your beliefs on them, it seems a little inconsistent. And no, I don't believe that by prefacing everything with IMO you somehow become exempt from that, because all THEY are doing is expressing THEIR opinion when they say the things they say. That's all any of us are EVER doing when we say things. However, only you are trying to keep in force a law that keeps free men from living a life that they choose for themselves, so in my world view, only you are the one forcing your beliefs on anyone.
I think that's where you and I part ways on this issue. They aren't passing a law that says that you have to accept gay marriage. All they are trying to do is make it legal. You can still have your opinion. You can still not like it. But if you want to ban it, and you want to be righteous about having a say in banning it, you're going to have to show some way that it harms you, directly, without resorting to very vague claims that it is going to somehow destroy society in some way as-of-yet undetermined.
What i am in fact saying is, all the people around the world who hold very strong objections to gay marriage, and the gay lifestlye, should not be ignored simply because you and other gay supporters think they don't have a right to object.
And what I'm saying, and you seem to be missing, is that I don't think you have any right at all to tell another free man what he can and cannot do as long as it doesn't harm you in some way. Neither do I. Neither does any man in any society that can truly claim to be free without farce.
You aren't being ignored, it is just that you haven't been able to show some actionable harm and so your opinion, which is exactly what you have claimed and confirmed it to be, is totally, completely, and irrevocably irrelevant.
Your argument, extended to gun rights, could be a very dangerous thing to set as a precedent. If the opinions of people with no vested interest in the debate can somehow start to count, somewhere around 42% of your countrymen’s opinions, all of whom think that you shouldn't be allowed to own guns, would start to "count" in that debate.
If you can't show harm, then you aren't being harmed, and you don't have a say in the matter. If simply having an opinion about what another free man should do with his life is a valid reason to intervene in his life and tell him what he can and cannot do, even when those things harm no one else, then we are all screwed, because I know people who have opinions. Strong ones. And you wouldn’t like them if they were forced into your life just because people who have opinions shouldn’t be ignored, as you claim.
This country and our society were founded on traditions, values, and morals. I never said they are/were all (or always) good, but they shouldn't be ignored, even by those of you who apparently don't believe in such things.
If they are bad, they should be ignored. Every "tradition" that we have that erodes a free man's personal choice and freedom is a bad tradition. Period. It should not be respected, and should be ignored by every definition of that term.
I'll let that statement stand on it's own, as it's too bizarre to even comment on.
What is bizarre about it? Christians like to claim marriage as a religious institution that belongs to them, giving them some sort of claim over it so that they can tell other people who can and cannot get married. All I was doing is pointing out that marriage, as a societal function, existed long before organized religion. You've co-opted it, but that doesn't mean that it belongs to you, or that you have any legitimate say in it.
I guess I'm not all that sure why you thought that statement to be so bizarre. I'm sorry if it was confusing.
As for your response about our "history" and my pushback being overly aggressive:
It was exactly this sort of hyper-sensitivity and inability to consider world views that differed from one's own that drove me away from here in the first place.
Spider claims we have a bad history because we disagree on a lot of things. He calls any disagreement with what he writes "overly aggressive" when I do not see anywhere that I was anything less than cordial in my response. In fact, throughout our history, when the name calling started, it was always from him to me, never vice versa. I've been called a bleeding heart liberal on this site more times than I care to count, when nothing could be further from the truth. I am absolutely suspect of authoritarianism of all bents, no matter which side of the political spectrum it originates from, and Spider is unfortunately very much an authoritarian.
He has an attitude that only his opinion counts, and then claims that isn't true when you call him on it. The persecution complex is horribly tiring. I remember now why I left.
Spider, as always, if you took offense to any of this, it wasn't intended, and never was. I fear, however, that you are taking offense, thus proving my point beyond what my mere words could possibly drive home.
Peace be with you, brother, I meant no harm and never did.
Post a Comment