| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2012 01:23:37 PM · #5876 |
I just wish it was happening in an inclusive way, not a 'leave them behind' way.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2012 02:09:51 PM · #5877 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I just wish it was happening in an inclusive way, not a 'leave them behind' way. |
I realized a while ago that my contribution to "the gay agenda" was to just show up and be myself, changing opinions one person at a time. I work for a defense contractor, so you can imagine who my coworkers are. I have pictures of my wife on my desk, and I tell water cooler stories about a very interesting and fulfilling life outside of work. My experience is that I will sometimes meet someone new, and it's clear that I'm an advanced topic for them. But people who might have a problem with me behind my back are polite when I'm right in front of them, and once they see that I'm a real person with similar goals and values, they change sides. Studies done as far back as the 1970's showed that people were more likely to be in favor of gay rights if they knew at least one gay person. If I'm that person, then I've at least done something.
You're never going to change the opinion of the blowhard spokesperson for the other side, but real people who don't have anything to prove aren't so entrenched. Focus on them. |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 02:31:00 PM · #5878 |
According to the latest polling data from the Pew Research Center the US overall reached the tipping point in favor of marriage equality just over a year ago
and, despite regional differences, every region has grown increasingly favorable.
 |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 03:04:19 PM · #5879 |
| Extensive discussion on implications of recent election results about to start on NPR's Talk of the Nation program; podcast and transcript should be available this evening/tomorrow. |
|
|
|
11/16/2012 08:18:33 PM · #5880 |
How the heck did I find my way here?
Personally, I feel it is none of my business who anyone else marries. I asked no one but my wife, if I could marry her. For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would feel they can give, or withhold, permission for another consenting adult to marry.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2012 08:35:21 PM · #5881 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would feel they can give, or withhold, permission for another consenting adult to marry. |
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, there's a massive constituency of people out there who DEFINE marriage as a heterosexual union, so for them, by definition, gay marriage is an oxymoron, it can't exist. In a very absurdist way, it's literally become a semantic argument, where the semantics are used to mask the personal revulsion that certain people feel when they encounter overt homosexual pairing activity. It's mind-boggling to me, but there it is... |
|
|
|
11/16/2012 09:09:58 PM · #5882 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well Mouse, Rome didn't fall in a day. Give the USA time. It's well on it's way. |
...surely you aren't suggesting that allowing gays to marry will lead to the downfall of the USA do you?
Ray
|
|
|
|
11/16/2012 11:10:46 PM · #5883 |
| In the post "don't ask, don't tell" world, we now have a LGBT support group on the base where I work. And one of the officers I know has just adopted a daughter. He's a single guy and his significant other is a single guy. And no one really seems to be too terribly bothered by any of that. :-) |
|
|
|
11/17/2012 05:46:49 AM · #5884 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well Mouse, Rome didn't fall in a day. Give the USA time. It's well on it's way. |
...surely you aren't suggesting that allowing gays to marry will lead to the downfall of the USA do you?
Ray |
Consider the source. |
|
|
|
11/17/2012 09:29:15 AM · #5885 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ambaker:
For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would feel they can give, or withhold, permission for another consenting adult to marry. |
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, there's a massive constituency of people out there who DEFINE marriage as a heterosexual union, so for them, by definition, gay marriage is an oxymoron, it can't exist. In a very absurdist way, it's literally become a semantic argument, where the semantics are used to mask the personal revulsion that certain people feel when they encounter overt homosexual pairing activity. It's mind-boggling to me, but there it is... |
When the last hungry mouth is fed, when the last homeless person has shelter, when the last ill person has access to health care, when the last child has access to a quality education, then maybe then I might see some sense in trying to define marriage. Till then, the whole matter of us trying to enforce some misguided belief on others, distracts from the important things in life. How anyone could let a child go to bed cold and hungry, while donating thousands of dollars to try to stop two people of the same sex from getting married, is beyond me. I certainly do not see it as fighting for "family values." |
|
|
|
11/17/2012 12:41:41 PM · #5886 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I certainly do not see it as fighting for "family values." |
And really, if the "sanctity of marriage" is at stake, perhaps concentrating a wee bit more on the nearly 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples would provide better bang for the buck.... |
|
|
|
11/25/2012 10:23:01 AM · #5887 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I just wish it was happening in an inclusive way, not a 'leave them behind' way. |
...
You're never going to change the opinion of the blowhard spokesperson for the other side, but real people who don't have anything to prove aren't so entrenched. Focus on them. |
And that is precisely why I now see my neighborhood activities as way more effective than convincing people here. My neighbors don't have a convenient layer of abstraction between me and them... they SEE me. They can return a smile and a wave, or stop on the sidewalk to have a chat about our respective dogs.
In three months I've made my ~decade of labored writing look near pointless. The only thing I've gained here is pessimism. |
|
|
|
11/25/2012 11:01:49 AM · #5888 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And really, if the "sanctity of marriage" is at stake, perhaps concentrating a wee bit more on the nearly 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples would provide better bang for the buck.... |
What a novel concept!
Nah! It'll never take.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2012 01:43:56 PM · #5889 |
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to take on two cases about same-sex marriage, we bring you this manifesto from the Heritage Foundation.
Originally posted by Heritage Foundation:
There are many good reasons why citizens in 41 states have said over and over that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. And as ample social science has shown, children tend to do best when reared by their mother and father.
Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits the public good.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. State recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing adults to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and their children.
While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and childrearing.
In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that sees marriage as primarily about emotional bonds or legal privileges. In other words, it is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Same-sex marriage is the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other bonds.
Government should not obscure the truth about marriage by accepting that revisionist view. In redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships, government would weaken marital norms, which would further delink childbearing from marriage and hurt spouses and children—especially the most vulnerable. It would deny a mother or father to a child as a matter of policy.
The harms resulting from redefining marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and force the state’s welfare to grow even more. Citizens would lose more of their freedom of religion and conscience. |
There are so many flaws in the reasoning here it's absolutely ridiculous. To name just one: in the linked "study" of "social science" in paragraph one, there's no mention of same-sex couples at all. The "study" makes statements about the benefits of keeping marriages intact.
Note also that in their attempt to justify denying "marriage" to same-sex couples, they are divorcing love and companionship from the marriage equation, reducing marriage to a one-dimensional relationship dedicated solely to the raising of children. So much for the barren and elderly among us.
Feel free to pick some more holes in this appalling document, folks. |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 03:42:18 PM · #5890 |
| Why is it that things like this always bandy about the word 'truth' when there is no such thing present anywhere in them? |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 03:45:43 PM · #5891 |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 05:53:59 PM · #5892 |
Here's a thought.......wanna do something for kids to preserve the "conventional" marriage? Do something about the abysmal divorce rate.
And allow same sex couples the same opportunities to adopt and give children more possibillities of good homes.
Message edited by author 2012-12-08 17:55:53.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2012 06:27:41 PM · #5893 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...Note also that in their attempt to justify denying "marriage" to same-sex couples, they are divorcing love and companionship from the marriage equation, reducing marriage to a one-dimensional relationship dedicated solely to the raising of children. So much for the barren and elderly among us. |
My sentiments exactly.
I am ever so glad that I live in Canada where this issue was resolved many, many years ago.
In 1967 I believe, our former Prime Minister Pierre E.Trudeau stated that the State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation... something that is truly applicable in this instance.
Same sex marriages in Canada have been legal since 2005.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-12-08 18:32:28. |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 08:36:35 PM · #5894 |
Originally posted by Heritage Foundation:
Government should not obscure the truth about marriage by accepting that revisionist view. In redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships, government would weaken marital norms, which would further delink childbearing from marriage and hurt spouses and children—especially the most vulnerable. It would deny a mother or father to a child as a matter of policy.
The harms resulting from redefining marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and force the state’s welfare to grow even more. Citizens would lose more of their freedom of religion and conscience. |
The fact is that marriage is at risk, but not from the threats the Heritage Foundation sees.
More and more children are born outside of marriage. Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a share that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures released Wednesday. Citation the risk is not of having too many marriages for the good of children, but not enough of them.
Only about 12 % of gay men have children in the household, while lesbian couples have children in over half of homes in my area. So the assumption of those households being childless is false; furthermore children of gay couples are at least as well adjusted as those from heterosexual unions. " A five-year review of eighty-one parenting studies published in the 2010 Journal of Marriage and Family, for example, reported that children raised by same-sex parents are “statistically indistinguishable” from those raised by straight parents in terms of self-esteem, academics, and social adjustment. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association all agree that same-sex couples are just as fit to parent as their heterosexual counterparts."
So really the only reason to ban gay marriage from a question of faith, because it is banned in scripture. Yet divorce and re-marriage is also banned in most religious texts and those fail at a spectacular rate. In the U.S., 50 percent of first marriages, 67 percent of second, and 73 percent of third marriages end in divorce. but we have people like Limbaugh and Gingrich who are on their third marriage railing against gay marriage as being an insult to the sanctity of marriage.
For the sake of society, we need to make marriage more popular; to allow any one who wants to, to marry; but we need to make divorce and re-marriage far less common.
Message edited by author 2012-12-09 01:23:38. |
|
|
|
12/11/2012 10:41:16 AM · #5895 |
Maybe all of us against same sex marriage should move to Africa.
Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist |
|
|
|
12/11/2012 11:03:49 AM · #5896 |
Gay marriage....it's really all about money isn't it?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2012 11:42:56 AM · #5897 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Gay marriage....it's really all about money isn't it? |
It really shows the depths of your ignorance and insensitivity to make a statement like that.
Just freakin' Wow....
|
|
|
|
12/11/2012 06:08:27 PM · #5898 |
... and that is an absolutely novel thought. Let me know when you leave, I might even chip in for the boat ride. :O)
You may also want to consider just how valid of a study this is since it is seemingly based on limited data and time frame.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/11/2012 06:45:17 PM · #5899 |
You are forgetting they aren't Catholic. So... have fun with that. |
|
|
|
12/12/2012 06:08:07 AM · #5900 |
| as it is unlikely many posters here regularly read Fox news, thought I'd share this article explaining the role of gene regulation |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:40:28 PM EDT.
