Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I would see things through my lens, sure, but I would also understand that I was elected to serve the people who elected me and that even if it went against my beliefs it would be my responsibility to them as an elected official, to vote for what they asked me to vote for. That's why I'll never be politician, lol. Unfortunately in some cases, this is not what happens. I don't envy them for being in a position where their beliefs conflict with the beliefs of the people of the area that they serve, or if the area they serve is split almost 50/50 which is often what it is with the gay marriage topic. But I still think that even people who are Christian who believe being gay is a sin, they are not God and it is not their place to judge those people. It is God's place. It's not as if they have a gay neighbor, it means God will judge them for not condemning their gay neighbor. Quite the opposite, I'd think.
@Karasti, that sounds good, but let's examine it a little more closely.
If you were an elected official who voted what your constituents wanted, there are long periods of American life during which you would have voted for slavery, for the Japanese relocation centers during WWII, against the legality of interracial marriage, against most civil rights legislation, in favor of producing chemical and biological warfare agents, against segregated military units, against women in the military...I could go on.
The state which is closest to being run by doing what the people want is California. Oy vey, what a mess that state is in!
It's been odd this week listening to the various sides all basically predicting what the Supreme Court will do, while actually simply stating what "their side" wants. Ironically, there's only one guy who I've heard that has it exactly right -- and it's a person I loathe -- Rush Limbaugh. He told it like it is -- now -- that "his side" lost and that gay marriage is inevitable. For once, I wish the conservatives would listen to Rush.
Good point, @vinlyn, I didn't really think about it like that. Like I said, I'll never be a politician, I'm not sure I could even manage to be on the school board!
Eventually society starts to realize that what they thought was right, is no longer right. I gave a lot respect to all the LGBTQ community for coming out and having the courage to be themselves in the face of a society that rejected them. Because they were willing to do so, more and more people find that "oh, so and so is gay (or whatever) and hey they are OK! they aren't demons who are teaching gay sex to my children! Society hasn't fallen apart because they are in our midst, raising families and buying houses and holding jobs!" That was the biggest reason for this shift, I think. A lot of people of course recognize that people are just people. But others have had to have examples shown to them because they can't just understand something without it being right in front of them. Look at the turn around Dick Cheney has done! I don't know that I would have the courage to just say "here I am, world! This is me, love me for who I am even though you think it's against your beliefs!" and that is what so many of them have done. I have high respect for them for that.
Yes! There's nothing like having your own gay child to change a mind! That's what Cheney and Portman found out. It's different when you don't know a -- gay person, a Jew, a Black person, a Muslim, etc. But when you get to know people that are not like you, you begin to see them as people and not nameless groups.
I support gay marriage and/or civil union. I support whatever it is that is going to give a gay couple the same rights as a non-gay couple. I know that some people would want to be supported by their church, but this is not really the main issue. Nobody can force a church to love its members equally.
I changed my profile pic to red on FB because I have a gay teenager whom I love and support and do not want to live in a world where my child is bullied and condemned by society simply because of who she chooses to love. Not because I was just jumping on a bandwagon. As far as I can tell, those friends of mine who changed their pics are also really for equal rights.
@Karasti- I love what you said about people having the guts to come out publicly and stand up for what is right. You are right-- what has happened is that the majority of people have had to face their fears about what they believed to be true about the GLBT people. It isn't until we face our fears that we see them to be based on false assumptions. I think this is one of the big reasons I have welcomed Buddhism into my life-- because I sit with my fears EVERY day (or nearly every day), and I'm able to transform them. (Not saying I don't have a long, long, long way to go, but progress is good.)
My daughter is the youngest member of a local chapter of a GLBT youth group and I am amazed at what these kids are doing-- AMAZED at their bravery and the work they are doing to try to get our very conservative (very Christian, very Catholic) community to see the light. Just recently, coordinators for our city's St. Patrick's Day parade (in Cincinnati) refused to let them march. They petitioned to everyone they could to try to get the decision reversed. Many prominent members in our city's government-- the mayor, vice mayor, ex-vice mayors, city council members, local unions for firefighters, plumbers, electricians-- all these people refused to march in the parade and stood in solidarity with this youth group. It brings tears to my eyes that people do care. It also brings tears to my eyes that there are such haters out there that will refuse to let kids who are fighting for equal rights to march in a parade. I know that we are on the cusp of a fundamental change in this country regarding equal rights. All of these people fighting for this change are not fighting in vane, even if it takes 10 more years.
Your right to associate with, live with, be with or marry whom you please is your fundamental right, who is the state to determine that for anyone? It's sad were even asking permission.
I like the word awesome. Not as in "awesome, dudes!!" but the true meaning of the word, as in Awe-some. A lot of things in life cause me to be full of awe.
I like the word awesome. Not as in "awesome, dudes!!" but the true meaning of the word, as in Awe-some. A lot of things in life cause me to be full of awe.
@blu3ree Considering our tax forms require you to be married, how do you propose they get the "tax write offs n what not" without being married? And if it is the religious sacrament thing that gets to you, in every case that I'm aware of, churches retain the ability to not marry anyone they want. They do not have to perform the rites of marriage for gay people, or anyone else. So, with that in mind, how does them being "Married" affect you and/or your marriage at all?
@karasti well maybe they should rewrite the thing for tax write offs. Because from a political standpoint it makes sense for them to receive equal benefits.
I just want people to be happy. If being treated equally, including getting married, a real marriage and not some "second class" civil union type thing is what makes a couple happy, then there's no reason I've ever heard why not. The excuses that are used against it are so ludicrous, it tells me all I need to know about the opposition.
@karasti well maybe they should rewrite the thing for tax write offs. Because from a political standpoint it makes sense for them to receive equal benefits.
Thats really all i wish to address.
From a political standpoint? How about from a HUMAN standpoint they are as deserving as the same right as every other human being on the planet? I don't understand the hangup people have over "marriage." A marriage is what the people in it, make it. The government, or other people have no business being in someone else's relationship. Every single argument I've heard against it is easy to blow side open, and what it always, always comes down to it "They are different, and it makes me feel uncomfortable." It is all fear based, and sad. I'll make sure to include you in my metta meditation tonight, it seems you need it as much as the gay people you deny equal rights to.
Personally i think they should get the same political options and tax write offs n what not.
But i do not believe they should be able to marry.
So let's set up this scenario; Person A works for a large, "respectable" corporation, and part of Person A's salary package includes home, health and life Insurance coverage, for themselves and any spouse and family they have. Person A lives in a committed relationship with Person B - who happens to be the same gender as Person A. Person B gets hurt in an accident and needs hospital care and follow up - maybe for weeks or months. Person B isn't allowed/ won't be covered as a 'spouse' on Person A's health insurance because they are not the 'traditional' man/woman marriage - with legal recognition.
Same thing could happen if Person A wants to cover Person B on their life insurance, or homeowner's insurance. Yet, one is free to insure one's pet (against injury to or for damages done by pet) but one has a damn high row of hurdles to jump if one wants to insure a "partner or spouse" with no LEGAL paperwork to back up that "marriage". Not so easy.
Then there's issues when it comes time for next of kin 'rights' /medical decisions... without LEGAL authorization, Person A's family can (and most often do) contest allowing a legally unrecognized marriage partner from making medical decisions and/or handling wills, etc. Thousands of same sex partners are contested out of wills and barred from hospital ICU's by disapproving family members around the country every year. Why? Because the government won't recognize them as a 'married' couple and give them the same LEGAL PROTECTIONS and RIGHTS as hetero marriages.
Civil rights and protections under the law, are not supposed to be handed out according to your/mine/government/religious approval. Civil rights and protections under the law are supposed to be for EVERY citizen.
When I was younger, I was idealistic. I believed in rights, freedoms, etc. etc. Now that I am older, I see that we are all cut from the same cloth, subject to similar emotions, and have the same propensity for hate. It does not at all matter who is persecuting whom - yesterday's persecuted are today's persecutor. Such is life.
I just want people to be happy. If being treated equally, including getting married, a real marriage and not some "second class" civil union type thing is what makes a couple happy, then there's no reason I've ever heard why not. The excuses that are used against it are so ludicrous, it tells me all I need to know about the opposition.
Certainly in they werent happy before they were married they wont be after marriage to think that happiness comes after picking some fruit is wrong.
Certainly in they werent happy before they were married they wont be after marriage to think that happiness comes after picking some fruit is wrong.
By that logic, ALL marriage should be outlawed...
I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion from blu3ree's statement. If someone isn't happy with his or her partner before marriage, chances are he or she won't be after. If that person is happy with his or her partner before marriage, there is a chance of things working out. There was nothing in that statement that leads me to conclude that marriage should be outlawed.
I don't think that is what the poster was saying, that "if the are unhappy they will suddenly be happy when they are married." Most of my gay friends and family and neighbors are quite happy with life in general and their relationships. My neighbors (lesbians) celebrated 25 years together this fall. My best friend and his (only) partner have been together for 15 years. They are all quite happy with each other. That doesn't mean they aren't suffering bad feelings because of how they are treated and talked about by a lot of other people. When it comes down to it, because we like to pick nits on here, does it really matter what everyone else thinks? No. But when you log in to read the news or pick up a paper or whatever and over and over again you see people arguing for why you are a bad person, why your relationship of 25 years will suddenly cause the downfall of society if you are allowed to get married, etc...well that weighs on a person. Ask them sometime, they'll tell you how it makes them feel to be treated as second class citizens. As Buddhists we are supposed to help stop suffering in the world. Not just our own, but everyone's. Not contribute to it.
I just want people to be happy. If being treated equally, including getting married, a real marriage and not some "second class" civil union type thing is what makes a couple happy, then there's no reason I've ever heard why not. The excuses that are used against it are so ludicrous, it tells me all I need to know about the opposition.
Those of us who believed that the best route to take was civil unions never saw that as something "second class". We saw it as a way to gain some "immediate relief" that in some states would be the most that could be hoped for in this day and time. We also saw it as a stepping stone to the more full status. But, perhaps I'm just being realistic. We wanted to see progress in substance and get hung up on a word.
It's very nice to think that everything could change overnight. But not very realistic. After all, every civil rights journey that I'm familiar with was a step-by-step progress.
...The government...have no business being in someone else's relationship...
Actually, that's a different discussion. Gay marriage is asking for government recognition. Having government not sanction any marriage is another viewpoint...and one worth of discussion.
When it comes to 'splitting hairs' over what to call [same sex marriages/unions]... I agree with @vinlyn - if I understand what he's saying- call it "civil union", call it "marriage", call it whatever you like.... but whatever title, what's important is that it's recognized by the government exactly the same as religious/traditional man-woman marriages in all aspects of law and civil rights, with no discrimination allowed by non-religious employers, companies, corporations, healthcare, etc.
I agree with the civil union idea myself, but I'm not gay so I stopped saying anything about it. I was kicked off a gay rights allies FB group because I was trying to point out that I *myself* would prefer if the government would label all legal unions, as unions, and leave the term "marriage" for the religious. I'm married, but religion had nothing to do with it. My marriage, using the reasoning the anti-gay marriage rights folk use, should not be legal either, yet it is based solely on which genitals we have. What I should have is a union, because my marriage flies in the face of the things the religious hold important just like gay marriage does. But anyhow, the guy who moderates that FB page told me that him, and the people on there who are gay, want MARRIAGE or nothing. I don't know how popular that point of view is or isn't, but it just seems to me they are shooting themselves in the foot. If their main goal is to achieve the rights, why give them up just to hold on to a particular title?
Though I should add, I think if we are going to give gay people legal unions, then they all need to be changed to legal unions. Because even though they might gain the rights, it still seems wrong to me to say "ok, even though you don't fit the bill for religious marriage, you can still have one, but we're going to deny gay people the right to use the word marriage because their lifestyle is against the majority religion's beliefs." That makes no sense to me. Are we then going to change all marriages between people who are infertile to unions because they aren't really marriage? What about non-religious marriages?
@vinlyn I should have phrased that differently, I guess. Obviously the government is involved in our lives in many ways. But I don't think they should be able to dole it out the way they do. "Marriage for you, no marriage for them" etc. I still don't understand how DOMA isn't against the constitution, and I hope that SCOTUS finds that it is.
One of the reasons I preferred "civil unions" is it that it took one of the big arguments away from the religious right who kept basing much of their argument on the historical difference of "marriage".
When it comes to 'splitting hairs' over what to call [same sex marriages/unions]... I agree with @vinlyn - if I understand what he's saying- call it "civil union", call it "marriage", call it whatever you like.... but whatever title, what's important is that it's recognized by the government exactly the same as religious/traditional man-woman marriages in all aspects of law and civil rights, with no discrimination allowed by non-religious employers, companies, corporations, healthcare, etc.
It comes down to one of two options: either "redefine" marriage (note the quote marks) so as to include same sex couples or redefine civil unions in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the benefits that marriage confers in terms of legal rights, government recognition, filing taxes, etc. etc.
"Marriage" in the US once meant a certain relationship between two people of the opposite sex who were of the same race. It got redefined. Marriage used to be (and in some places still is) a political arrangement, a contract between two families arranged by the parents. Certainly in the US we don't think of marriage like that anymore either. Marriage was redefined from a polygamous arrangement (or with concubines) in the Bible. Somewhere along the line it also got redefined. Social relationships are not set in stone. They evolve and develop over time for myriad reasons. They sky isn't falling now anymore than when blacks & whites were allowed to marry.
But the real point is not what it is called but what this legal contract is called, but what benefits in does or does not confer upon those people. This is a secular, not a religious issue, and people keep trying to muddy the waters with that (by that logic atheists should not be allowed to marry either). That is the heart of the inequality issue. Call it whatever you want, but as things currently stand, the difference between a marriage and a civil union is not a semantic difference. So one way or the other, either the word "marriage" need to be "redefined" or the term "civil union" needs to be redefined in such a way that it is truly identical to marriage in all but name.
I'd venture to say that the most vocal opponents would be just as opposed to any publicly acknowledged relationship, no matter what label was given it. Its just "icky"-- and same sex couples shouldn't have to suffer because some people can't get over their own sexual hangups.
I was just watching the parliamentary debate and apparently the argument for opposition comes down to " We find the Idea Icky " In the UK certain safeguards will be put in place to ensure Religious freedom is protected.
I ask, often, why my marriage is allowed then if gay marriages are not. I'm not having any more children, both my husband and I have been sterilized. We did not have children after we got married at all. We were married on a rooftop by a friend who got his license to perform marriages off the internet. There was no mention of God, and in no way was our marriage a religious rite of any sort. Yet I'm legally married just the same. When I ask why the gay marriage opponents are ok with that, the answer I get (if I get one at all) is always "but there could be a miracle and you could get pregnant." Uh, no, but ok. What about couples who are infertile and will never reproduce? What about the elderly? They never have answers for these things, and it's because there are none. The religious and churches do not hold the entirely of weddings and marriage in their hands. I agree with @riverflow. They just cannot get over the "it's icky" part.
I had to laugh, because a guy I grew up with told me a while back that he didn't want marriage legalized because he didn't want his kids growing up to see gay people "shove their tongues down each others throats." As if it makes gay people go away if they can't get married. The best part is, he lives in Minneapolis, which one of the gayest cities out there. I hope his kids educate him, because no doubt they will have gay classmates, and friends with gay parents. He also said that if one of his kids was gay, he'd disown them because "I won't sacrifice my morals for anyone, not even my kids." He shortly after ceased to be a friend.
Well, I'd prefer to say that I am civilly unioned instead of married, but it will take time for that vernacular to catch around here. My husband and I were married via Justice of the Peace on a hillside overlooking the city, which was like a quick stop on our way to our honeymoon. I loved it-- so little stress involved and we were focused on each other instead of all of those crazy details people obsess over (and never mind the fact that we saved-- what is it, $20,000 that people are paying now?). BUT, as I researched laws in our state and ideas for our vows that I wrote, I learned that by law, we had to say in our vows something that had to do with God. So, if that remains the same and same-sex legal unions are granted, couples will still be "married" if you are defining that term in a religious light, even if they are not married/unioned in a church. Of course, I am sure lawmakers (being that so many of them around these parts are Christian, or at least market themselves as such), will make some crazy new law up for same-sex couples.
@chela that's interesting on the legal requirement for vows. I never thought that would be possible! My husband and I chose our vows from a mix of traditions and things we wrote ourselves. No mention of God whatsoever. Odd that they require a mention of God but don't require the person performing the wedding to be a pastor/minister/priest etc. I'm with you on saving the money. To each their own and all, but we spent $700 total on our entire wedding, including our rings, and spent the many thousands on a house instead, lol.
Marriage is unambiguous. You don't need a lawyer to know what rights you do and don't have - everyone gets it, it's embedded in our culture, and everyone respects it - or else. Any other label must try to spell out every single benefit and right, and inevitably falls short.
If you don't see the utility of marriage or think some other label can be just as effective as marriage, you've simply been fortunate enough to not learn otherwise the hard way.
But i do not believe they should be able to marry.
I don't believe you should be allowed to marry. Now what?
You know, Lincoln, that's actually a very good point.
There are many reasons one could come up with for people not to be allowed to marry...not smart enough, ugly, gay, bald, uneducated, drug addicted, alcoholic, etc. And the question really comes to where does a society decide the line is. And right now we're really beginning to see a big shift.
1/4 of my facebook friends are rednecks from the Bible belt so I didn't jump on a bandwagon. To my surprise a number of the rednecks also put up the equals sign. This makes sense because there are gay people everywhere not just in the liberal groups. My FB friends aren't especially liberal. Those not rednecks are from GR michigan the evangelical church capital of the world, though also with good values on the golden rule and so forth.
0
Barrasoto zenniewandering in a cloud in beautiful, bucolic Victoria BC, on the wacky left coast of CanadaVeteran
I recently applied for a job in Thailand with a Christian charity. Their policy is to hire only Christians. We had a good discussion about whether it would work for me to be with all Christians and we decided that it could work. But then they asked my references if I'd ever had a homosexual relationship. It made me angry and embarrassed that they were asking my friends about my sex life. Angry that they practise discrimination against gays. That was the point when I realized that I would not be able to work with them. Disappointing, though.
@Barra, I'm not sure how that particular charity works, but I would see working for an organization which tries -- actively or subtlety -- to convert people to be just as problematic as working for an organization that would be so nosy about my sexuality.
0
Barrasoto zenniewandering in a cloud in beautiful, bucolic Victoria BC, on the wacky left coast of CanadaVeteran
That was a big concern for me too. They work with sex trade survivors. Kids who have been raped and abused to the point where they have no self left. I saw a video interview with the Christian founder of a sister organization. When he got this question he said that they don't initiate discussions of faith, but at some point the kids want to know why these people in the agency are doing all this for them (namely care, feeding and rehabilitation) and they are told that they are inspired by their Christian faith, and then the kids get interested in the faith. From that presentation I decided that for these young people being Christian is way better than the life they had, and I'm OK with it.
I just want people to be happy. If being treated equally, including getting married, a real marriage and not some "second class" civil union type thing is what makes a couple happy, then there's no reason I've ever heard why not. The excuses that are used against it are so ludicrous, it tells me all I need to know about the opposition.
Certainly in they werent happy before they were married they wont be after marriage to think that happiness comes after picking some fruit is wrong.
No, that's intentionally confusing the definition of what it means to be happy in life and trying to say a marriage license is an unimportant part of a couple's relationship and doesn't change anything. This is what I mean by a ludicrous argument. If it didn't really mean anything or change anything, then the defenders of the "purity" of marriage wouldn't be screaming about how terrible it is to allow two gay people into the club. The rights and symbol of marriage are so important to the defenders, that they act like their own marriage somehow hinges on if a couple of women in the next apartment over have the same status. Yet at the same time, this person tries to say "Oh, why are the gays upset that they can't have the same legal marriage, too? It doesn't really change anything! Nobody's saying they can't live together."
A marriage certificate does change things, and not just in a legal sense. No, it isn't a ticket to some "happily ever after" club. It's a powerful sign of respect for who a person is and the loving relationship they feel for each other from the society they live in. If you don't think that makes a difference, then you've never endured a second class life.
I just want people to be happy. If being treated equally, including getting married, a real marriage and not some "second class" civil union type thing is what makes a couple happy, then there's no reason I've ever heard why not. The excuses that are used against it are so ludicrous, it tells me all I need to know about the opposition.
Those of us who believed that the best route to take was civil unions never saw that as something "second class". We saw it as a way to gain some "immediate relief" that in some states would be the most that could be hoped for in this day and time. We also saw it as a stepping stone to the more full status. But, perhaps I'm just being realistic. We wanted to see progress in substance and get hung up on a word.
It's very nice to think that everything could change overnight. But not very realistic. After all, every civil rights journey that I'm familiar with was a step-by-step progress.
Oh Good Lord yes, take what you can while continuing to work toward full equality. After all, segregation was better than slavery. Nobody refused having their chains taken off because the white folk didn't let them eat in the same diner. Just meant there was still work to be done.
As a kid in high school I was accused of being gay by the other school kids (I wasn't, I was just a nerd and hated sports and extremely shy around girls) and received my share of torment. Then in the military a friend I worked with, a woman, trusted me enough to ask me to marry her girlfriend so her secret wife could get a dependent's ID card, while knowing if I made one phone call, her own military career would be over. In parts of the world, being gay but hurting nobody is an automatic death sentence while raping a girl only means you get to marry her against her will. In Africa, it means prison and with the help of American missionaries, they're trying to make it a death sentence. In the US, some redneck AG in Virginia who wants to run for Governor is defending their state laws making sodomy a crime even now, which interesting enough makes oral sex a crime in Virginia too, while pretending it has nothing to do with gays and that they'll certainly arrest anyone engaged in sodomy, gay or straight. Trust him.
Should I go on? It's stupid and nobody should have to live with this sort of bias against them just because they're easy targets. If nothing else, I'd love to see all gays get a federal right to marriage just to watch the televangelist's heads explode.
1/4 of my facebook friends are rednecks from the Bible belt so I didn't jump on a bandwagon. To my surprise a number of the rednecks also put up the equals sign. This makes sense because there are gay people everywhere not just in the liberal groups. My FB friends aren't especially liberal. Those not rednecks are from GR michigan the evangelical church capital of the world, though also with good values on the golden rule and so forth.
Funny, I felt the same way. Growing up around there, I still have a lot of people from high school that I was surprised to find changed their status. I mean a bunch of 'good 'ol country boys' you know? (I didn't grow up in GR, outside in the country, you know) It was kind of awesome and made me realize that I need to stop clinging to my views of certain people. People do grow up and change after high school, lol...
The only advice I can give is for @blu3ree to take a good hard look at why he's clinging to his views. He refuses to give us any reasoning, which is sort of peculiar to me... being on a Buddhist forum. At least Christians will quote the bible or something. My guess is that blu3ree probably just can't get over the sex aspect and thinks it's icky. People often make the mistake of thinking that gay relationships revolve around sex... they do just as much as heterosexual ones do. In the grand scheme of a relationship, I'm pretty sure sex accounts for a pretty small % of time spent together. I really can't see any other reason though... but feel free to correct me blu3ree.
I've pondered why prejudices like this hang around. I come from good-old-boy redneck stock and grew up surrounded by racist, bigoted attitudes. Sure, as a boy I made what I see now are crude comments and used vulgar language in private because that was what the adults did. But, from my teenage years I never saw the sense in either racist or anti-gay beliefs. So it's not a valid excuse that someone was raised that way.
But, the one thing it taught me is that otherwise good people could have a big blind spot when it comes to something like this. We have an infinite capacity to justify our beliefs. I've never known anyone to "evolve" their beliefs in something like this, in spite of what politicians try to claim. You're either tolerent of other people living different lives from an early age, or you're judgemental and believe "those" people are perverts. No amount of evidence seems to make a difference.
Has anyone here actually started anti-gay, and changed their minds?
I don't think that's true. I personally never had an issue with anyone being different, disabled, different color, different sexual identity or whatever. But I know people who started off that way and HAVE changed their minds. Mostly because they met people who forced them to truly look at their views. They had to stop seeing "those people" as a separate group rather than actual human beings with real lives and feelings. My mother was one of them. She took the Catholic approach of " well, it's not a sin to BE gay. It's just a sin to act gay." and it turned out, my sister is gay. So, my mom had the choice to hold onto her beliefs and see my sister disappear form her life, or change her beliefs. And over the period of a couple years, she did. Likewise with the immediate and extended families of my gay best friend. One person they really love turns out to be gay, and it affects dozens of people in their family, who then change their ways. Then they have kids, who learn it's ok, rather than learn it's not ok, and that's how the world starts to change. Even Dick Cheney changed his mind. For most people, knowing someone personally is what makes the difference. And thanks to all the people with the courage to come out and be themselves (or their notselves, lol) more and more people are realizing that shockingly, gay people are just people! It's a different ball game when you are considering denying rights to "those people" as opposed to someone you love.
I think the truth is somewhere between what karasti and cinorjer are saying. Certainly, there are some who can never grow. I'm not sure I see many who completely grow.
But there are many who -- either knowing gay people or even just by seeing them portrayed differently in movies and television -- have come to tolerate gay people more. The principal two before me clearly realized I was gay, and little hints were dropped that she accepted me as I was...though it was never directly spoken about. And, she was an evangelical Christian.
Comments
If you were an elected official who voted what your constituents wanted, there are long periods of American life during which you would have voted for slavery, for the Japanese relocation centers during WWII, against the legality of interracial marriage, against most civil rights legislation, in favor of producing chemical and biological warfare agents, against segregated military units, against women in the military...I could go on.
The state which is closest to being run by doing what the people want is California. Oy vey, what a mess that state is in!
It's been odd this week listening to the various sides all basically predicting what the Supreme Court will do, while actually simply stating what "their side" wants. Ironically, there's only one guy who I've heard that has it exactly right -- and it's a person I loathe -- Rush Limbaugh. He told it like it is -- now -- that "his side" lost and that gay marriage is inevitable. For once, I wish the conservatives would listen to Rush.
Eventually society starts to realize that what they thought was right, is no longer right. I gave a lot respect to all the LGBTQ community for coming out and having the courage to be themselves in the face of a society that rejected them. Because they were willing to do so, more and more people find that "oh, so and so is gay (or whatever) and hey they are OK! they aren't demons who are teaching gay sex to my children! Society hasn't fallen apart because they are in our midst, raising families and buying houses and holding jobs!" That was the biggest reason for this shift, I think. A lot of people of course recognize that people are just people. But others have had to have examples shown to them because they can't just understand something without it being right in front of them. Look at the turn around Dick Cheney has done! I don't know that I would have the courage to just say "here I am, world! This is me, love me for who I am even though you think it's against your beliefs!" and that is what so many of them have done. I have high respect for them for that.
I changed my profile pic to red on FB because I have a gay teenager whom I love and support and do not want to live in a world where my child is bullied and condemned by society simply because of who she chooses to love. Not because I was just jumping on a bandwagon. As far as I can tell, those friends of mine who changed their pics are also really for equal rights.
@Karasti- I love what you said about people having the guts to come out publicly and stand up for what is right. You are right-- what has happened is that the majority of people have had to face their fears about what they believed to be true about the GLBT people. It isn't until we face our fears that we see them to be based on false assumptions. I think this is one of the big reasons I have welcomed Buddhism into my life-- because I sit with my fears EVERY day (or nearly every day), and I'm able to transform them. (Not saying I don't have a long, long, long way to go, but progress is good.)
My daughter is the youngest member of a local chapter of a GLBT youth group and I am amazed at what these kids are doing-- AMAZED at their bravery and the work they are doing to try to get our very conservative (very Christian, very Catholic) community to see the light. Just recently, coordinators for our city's St. Patrick's Day parade (in Cincinnati) refused to let them march. They petitioned to everyone they could to try to get the decision reversed. Many prominent members in our city's government-- the mayor, vice mayor, ex-vice mayors, city council members, local unions for firefighters, plumbers, electricians-- all these people refused to march in the parade and stood in solidarity with this youth group. It brings tears to my eyes that people do care. It also brings tears to my eyes that there are such haters out there that will refuse to let kids who are fighting for equal rights to march in a parade. I know that we are on the cusp of a fundamental change in this country regarding equal rights. All of these people fighting for this change are not fighting in vane, even if it takes 10 more years.
I have marked it with an ' insightful ' because I refuse to use the word awesome ...but I am an old fart.
But i do not believe they should be able to marry.
Thats really all i wish to address.
Noun
A legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to those of marriage.
Person A works for a large, "respectable" corporation, and part of Person A's salary package includes home, health and life Insurance coverage, for themselves and any spouse and family they have.
Person A lives in a committed relationship with Person B - who happens to be the same gender as Person A. Person B gets hurt in an accident and needs hospital care and follow up - maybe for weeks or months. Person B isn't allowed/ won't be covered as a 'spouse' on Person A's health insurance because they are not the 'traditional' man/woman marriage - with legal recognition.
Same thing could happen if Person A wants to cover Person B on their life insurance, or homeowner's insurance. Yet, one is free to insure one's pet (against injury to or for damages done by pet) but one has a damn high row of hurdles to jump if one wants to insure a "partner or spouse" with no LEGAL paperwork to back up that "marriage". Not so easy.
Then there's issues when it comes time for next of kin 'rights' /medical decisions... without LEGAL authorization, Person A's family can (and most often do) contest allowing a legally unrecognized marriage partner from making medical decisions and/or handling wills, etc. Thousands of same sex partners are contested out of wills and barred from hospital ICU's by disapproving family members around the country every year. Why? Because the government won't recognize them as a 'married' couple and give them the same LEGAL PROTECTIONS and RIGHTS as hetero marriages.
Civil rights and protections under the law, are not supposed to be handed out according to your/mine/government/religious approval.
Civil rights and protections under the law are supposed to be for EVERY citizen.
It's very nice to think that everything could change overnight. But not very realistic. After all, every civil rights journey that I'm familiar with was a step-by-step progress.
I can't even figure out what that's supposed to MEAN.....
:scratch:
Though I should add, I think if we are going to give gay people legal unions, then they all need to be changed to legal unions. Because even though they might gain the rights, it still seems wrong to me to say "ok, even though you don't fit the bill for religious marriage, you can still have one, but we're going to deny gay people the right to use the word marriage because their lifestyle is against the majority religion's beliefs." That makes no sense to me. Are we then going to change all marriages between people who are infertile to unions because they aren't really marriage? What about non-religious marriages?
@vinlyn I should have phrased that differently, I guess. Obviously the government is involved in our lives in many ways. But I don't think they should be able to dole it out the way they do. "Marriage for you, no marriage for them" etc. I still don't understand how DOMA isn't against the constitution, and I hope that SCOTUS finds that it is.
"Marriage" in the US once meant a certain relationship between two people of the opposite sex who were of the same race. It got redefined. Marriage used to be (and in some places still is) a political arrangement, a contract between two families arranged by the parents. Certainly in the US we don't think of marriage like that anymore either. Marriage was redefined from a polygamous arrangement (or with concubines) in the Bible. Somewhere along the line it also got redefined. Social relationships are not set in stone. They evolve and develop over time for myriad reasons. They sky isn't falling now anymore than when blacks & whites were allowed to marry.
But the real point is not what it is called but what this legal contract is called, but what benefits in does or does not confer upon those people. This is a secular, not a religious issue, and people keep trying to muddy the waters with that (by that logic atheists should not be allowed to marry either). That is the heart of the inequality issue. Call it whatever you want, but as things currently stand, the difference between a marriage and a civil union is not a semantic difference. So one way or the other, either the word "marriage" need to be "redefined" or the term "civil union" needs to be redefined in such a way that it is truly identical to marriage in all but name.
I'd venture to say that the most vocal opponents would be just as opposed to any publicly acknowledged relationship, no matter what label was given it. Its just "icky"-- and same sex couples shouldn't have to suffer because some people can't get over their own sexual hangups.
There is no reason not to vote for Gay marriage
I had to laugh, because a guy I grew up with told me a while back that he didn't want marriage legalized because he didn't want his kids growing up to see gay people "shove their tongues down each others throats." As if it makes gay people go away if they can't get married. The best part is, he lives in Minneapolis, which one of the gayest cities out there. I hope his kids educate him, because no doubt they will have gay classmates, and friends with gay parents. He also said that if one of his kids was gay, he'd disown them because "I won't sacrifice my morals for anyone, not even my kids." He shortly after ceased to be a friend.
If you don't see the utility of marriage or think some other label can be just as effective as marriage, you've simply been fortunate enough to not learn otherwise the hard way.
There are many reasons one could come up with for people not to be allowed to marry...not smart enough, ugly, gay, bald, uneducated, drug addicted, alcoholic, etc. And the question really comes to where does a society decide the line is. And right now we're really beginning to see a big shift.
Disappointing, though.
A marriage certificate does change things, and not just in a legal sense. No, it isn't a ticket to some "happily ever after" club. It's a powerful sign of respect for who a person is and the loving relationship they feel for each other from the society they live in. If you don't think that makes a difference, then you've never endured a second class life.
As a kid in high school I was accused of being gay by the other school kids (I wasn't, I was just a nerd and hated sports and extremely shy around girls) and received my share of torment. Then in the military a friend I worked with, a woman, trusted me enough to ask me to marry her girlfriend so her secret wife could get a dependent's ID card, while knowing if I made one phone call, her own military career would be over. In parts of the world, being gay but hurting nobody is an automatic death sentence while raping a girl only means you get to marry her against her will. In Africa, it means prison and with the help of American missionaries, they're trying to make it a death sentence. In the US, some redneck AG in Virginia who wants to run for Governor is defending their state laws making sodomy a crime even now, which interesting enough makes oral sex a crime in Virginia too, while pretending it has nothing to do with gays and that they'll certainly arrest anyone engaged in sodomy, gay or straight. Trust him.
Should I go on? It's stupid and nobody should have to live with this sort of bias against them just because they're easy targets. If nothing else, I'd love to see all gays get a federal right to marriage just to watch the televangelist's heads explode.
The only advice I can give is for @blu3ree to take a good hard look at why he's clinging to his views. He refuses to give us any reasoning, which is sort of peculiar to me... being on a Buddhist forum. At least Christians will quote the bible or something. My guess is that blu3ree probably just can't get over the sex aspect and thinks it's icky. People often make the mistake of thinking that gay relationships revolve around sex... they do just as much as heterosexual ones do. In the grand scheme of a relationship, I'm pretty sure sex accounts for a pretty small % of time spent together.
I really can't see any other reason though... but feel free to correct me blu3ree.
But, the one thing it taught me is that otherwise good people could have a big blind spot when it comes to something like this. We have an infinite capacity to justify our beliefs. I've never known anyone to "evolve" their beliefs in something like this, in spite of what politicians try to claim. You're either tolerent of other people living different lives from an early age, or you're judgemental and believe "those" people are perverts. No amount of evidence seems to make a difference.
Has anyone here actually started anti-gay, and changed their minds?
But there are many who -- either knowing gay people or even just by seeing them portrayed differently in movies and television -- have come to tolerate gay people more. The principal two before me clearly realized I was gay, and little hints were dropped that she accepted me as I was...though it was never directly spoken about. And, she was an evangelical Christian.