Is that why we no longer have "whites only"......
.
As the gop would say, "ah, the good'ol days!"
Is that why we no longer have "whites only"......
.
Is that why we no longer have "whites only" hotels, drinking fountains, and restrooms? Because change came in gradual steps from within?
Check your history.
If you go past the mid 1900's, you'll see that we came from "White Man's burden" and "noble savages" mentality to justify slavery and colonialism, to emancipation and abolition of slavery, to the 13th and 14th amendments, to the breakdown of the imperial colonial system and the independence of colonies, to the civil rights movement, to more organic uplift and educational movements that provide inner city black children with at least some exposure to the educational opportunities that wealthier white children take for granted. Those are all gradual steps from some starting point in the past.
Rights are not something freely given, so I wouldn't expect them to come easily. Lesson from history.
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.Could an anti same sex marriage person please explain how gay marriage would effect you negatively?
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.
Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!
Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.
Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.
State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?
But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.
And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.
It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.
My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.
Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
An excellent point. And, you're absolutely right.Spurious argument. It's infringing on your religious freedoms when you force a church/religious group to recognize gay or straight "life partnerships." It is not infringing on your religious freedoms if there is a legal definition of the word marriage that has legal/tax implications.
The funny thing is that I'm not actually anti-gay marriage. I'm just not pro-gay marriage. As I said, the way it is being framed concerns me greatly...and that concern seems to be common.I guess I support gay marriage by default due to my extreme indifference (same with abortion - I'm neither gay nor female, so neither one is my call), but from a pure dialectic standpoint, your argument doesn't fly.
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.
Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!
Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.
Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.
State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?
But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.
And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.
It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.
My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.
Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
An excellent point. And, you're absolutely right.
In theory.
In practice, the two never stay so neatly cubbyholed. That is where the problem comes in. Many who are against it, fear the creeping influence that this would represent.
The funny thing is that I'm not actually anti-gay marriage. I'm just not pro-gay marriage. As I said, the way it is being framed concerns me greatly...and that concern seems to be common.
What's the difference?
The legal side of it doesn't bother me in the slightest...and if the churches want to perform the ceremonies, let them. But, leave it up to the churches.
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.
Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!
Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.
Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.
State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?
But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.
And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.
It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.
My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.
Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.
Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!
Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.
Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.
State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?
But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.
And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.
It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.
My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.
Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
Is that why we no longer have "whites only" hotels, drinking fountains, and restrooms? Because change came in gradual steps from within?
Check your history.
I just cant understand how a country founded on religious and personal freedoms, could ever limit what two consenting adults want to do, when it effects no one else at all.
Could an anti same sex marriage person please explain how gay marriage would effect you negatively?
Check your numbers, it isn't as big a difference as you might thinkThat's the second reference to the civil rights movement I've seen in comparison to the gay rights movement. One group, the blacks, were utterly demonized as a subhuman race of inferior beings to be subjugated and used as farm equipment and labor.
Outside the beliefs of the most bigoted right wing radicals that was never the case with gay people. There's no intellectual merit to your comparison beyond saying the government's forcing function on that issue was a necessary step.
The difference between the gay rights and civil rights movements comes down to simple numbers, there are a HELL of a lot more black people than gay people. It was a powder keg of racial tension which had repeatedly erupted into riots which could have easily devolved into open revolt. The government had to step in or watch National Guard and Police forces mow down American citizens.
I dooon'''ttttt really see that happening with the gay community, so yes the slow and steady process of acceptance I listed is one powerfu option.
You are totally missing the point. It has nothing to do with quotas. If you are married, your assets can be transferred tax free. Also health insurance is tax free. Now gays cannot do any of this.Not anti-gay marriage but a family member of several.
Quotas is the only way I could see it affecting someone. Same thing with people's gripes about affirmative action quotas, I think one of the predominant fears is that a system will be put in place where a qualified applicant to a position or institution is turned down because of a quota requirement. X number of positions set aside for this group or that group of people.
Not anti-gay marriage but a family member of several.
Quotas is the only way I could see it affecting someone. Same thing with people's gripes about affirmative action quotas, I think one of the predominant fears is that a system will be put in place where a qualified applicant to a position or institution is turned down because of a quota requirement. X number of positions set aside for this group or that group of people.
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.
I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.
Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!
Ok so if one of them dies then the state treats the other as a friend, not a partner and all assests are taxed, if they were married this would not be the case
Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.
Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony. So I was married by a JP, does that mean I was not really married? come on wake up
State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death? Exactly, but the law does not agree with that
But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state. I have a friend whose mother attended church every day, and he did the same when he was younger, but since he had moved away the priest refused to marry him and is wife.......Asshole....they already have that...Gays aren't asking to force churches to marry them,. they are asking for the same legal rights that hetros get
And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.
It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem. It has nothing to do with faith and how many times must you be hit over the head to understand that it is all legal and it has nothing to do with religion
My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved. Ok this proves that you have no clue whatsoever. Marriage is entirely a government act. You have to get a marriage license, you can't get married without it. Who do you think issues it? You really don't know what you are talking about
Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
No, it means that you are legally married, but not religiously married.Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony. So I was married by a JP, does that mean I was not really married? come on wake up
Did you even *read* my post? Legal rights are one thing, religious recognition is another.I have a friend whose mother attended church every day, and he did the same when he was younger, but since he had moved away the priest refused to marry him and is wife.......Asshole....they already have that...Gays aren't asking to force churches to marry them,. they are asking for the same legal rights that hetros get
Absolutely none. Hitting someone over the head is not the way to convince anyone of anything but your inability to communicate.It has nothing to do with faith and how many times must you be hit over the head to understand that it is all legal and it has nothing to do with religion
Completely wrong. Marriage is *both* a religious institution, and a legal arrangement. You're focusing on only part of it...the part that is most beneficial to you.My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved. Ok this proves that you have no clue whatsoever. Marriage is entirely a government act. You have to get a marriage license, you can't get married without it. Who do you think issues it? You really don't know what you are talking about