Political Crossfire Forums

thebreadloaf2003 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 213 Location: Texas

A few weeks ago in texas, as some might know, the government had votes for a few bills to be passed, one of which was against gay marriage. Now i am aware of the mass republican majority in texas who are conservative and mostly religious, but seriously, is it that big of a deal to have two men or two women to leagaly unit and have papers saying that they united and share a common name or now belong to the same family?

I would like to hear peoples input on this and i would appreciate it if you didnt turn this into an oppininated discusion, so please have some verification for what you say

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8466

There is a forum for gay and lesbian issues. Also, this topic has been discussed many times.

DavidXV · Joined: 01 Oct 2004 Posts: 9828

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: A few weeks ago in texas, as some might know, the government had votes for a few bills to be passed, one of which was against gay marriage. Now i am aware of the mass republican majority in texas who are conservative and mostly religious, but seriously, is it that big of a deal to have two men or two women to leagaly unit and have papers saying that they united and share a common name or now belong to the same family?

I would like to hear peoples input on this and i would appreciate it if you didnt turn this into an oppininated discusion, so please have some verification for what you say That vote was something like I don't remember but real high percent like 76% or something like that. Are you suggesting that 76% of the voters in texas are religious consrvatives? I kinda doubt that! Maybe changing the definition of marriage is something that the majority of citizens are oppoesed to and it doesn't have anything to with party or religious affilliation.

Lowro8d6 · Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 252 Location: Phoenix

Californians voted to ban gay marriage in 2000. California is usually a Blue State and they are liberal

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject:

Wrong forum.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15288 Location: In The Open

Lowro8d6 wrote: Californians voted to ban gay marriage in 2000. California is usually a Blue State and they are liberal

the resistance is slipping..... all social progress is met with resistance..... Oregon is one of the most liberal states in the Union....and we approved a ban on gay marraige.....

It doesn't mean anything..... in two years when people are no longer interested in propping up a wall of religious ignorance......the bans will be repealed.......

Religion has become a very tinny, empty shell of what it was 50 years ago...

People are just acting it out for lack of anything else emotionally provocative in their lives.......

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4224

I don't think it's necessarily a religious issue. People are just put off by the attempt to main stream gays.
Personally I don't care if you want to marry a same sex partner, a piece of lawn furniture or a cornish game hen, but I probably wont attend the parade.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15288 Location: In The Open

Eduffy80911 wrote: I don't think it's necessarily a religious issue. People are just put off by the attempt to main stream gays.
Personally I don't care if you want to marry a same sex partner, a piece of lawn furniture or a cornish game hen, but I probably wont attend the parade.

Without a religious reference,.....there is no cohesiveness to the resistance on the issue.

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4224

I know a lot of anti-gay folk who are not religious. They may reference the Bible to support their opposition for lack of anything else.

Logic and coherence are not requirements for popular opinion.

callous · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 15288 Location: In The Open

Eduffy80911 wrote: I know a lot of anti-gay folk who are not religious. They may reference the Bible to support their opposition for lack of anything else.

Logic and coherence are not requirements for popular opinion.

Which is exactly why popular opinion must always be squeezed and prodded, because its often based on heresay and fear.

JRM4833 · Joined: 06 Sep 2004 Posts: 20464 Location: Red Sox Dugout

Moved to Gay & Lesbian Forum.

Valdimar · Joined: 12 Dec 2004 Posts: 711 Location: San Francisco

Lowro8d6 wrote: Californians voted to ban gay marriage in 2000. California is usually a Blue State and they are liberal
Wrong. There was a Proposition (2000 or 2001) that the people of California voted on that would allow the state to prevent recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. Just recently, the California lawmakers approved a bill to give the marriage laws gender neutral languages, hence allowing gay marriage. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that bill.

Lowro8d6 · Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 252 Location: Phoenix

Valdimar wrote: Lowro8d6 wrote: Californians voted to ban gay marriage in 2000. California is usually a Blue State and they are liberal
Wrong. There was a Proposition (2000 or 2001) that the people of California voted on that would allow the state to prevent recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. Just recently, the California lawmakers approved a bill to give the marriage laws gender neutral languages, hence allowing gay marriage. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that bill.

And what did Arnold say... I must keep the will of the people. Thats why he vetoed it. Because the people VOTED

Valdimar · Joined: 12 Dec 2004 Posts: 711 Location: San Francisco

That's exactly what he said. Times have really changed since that proposition passed and I bet if the vote for gay marriage went up against the people, it would pass.

Think too... the will of the people would have been perfectly upheld considering representatives are elected to make decisions for us. Simply put: it would have been political suicide for Arnold to sign the bill.

Regardless, I am quite content with the domestic partner laws that are in place here. I would have never dreamed to have been able to add my partner to my health insurance when I lived in Virginia. Every other protection though must, however, be expressed in private contract.

F'losrix

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: A few weeks ago in texas, as some might know, the government had votes for a few bills to be passed, one of which was against gay marriage. Now i am aware of the mass republican majority in texas who are conservative and mostly religious, but seriously, is it that big of a deal to have two men or two women to leagaly unit and have papers saying that they united and share a common name or now belong to the same family?

I would like to hear peoples input on this and i would appreciate it if you didnt turn this into an oppininated discusion, so please have some verification for what you say
It is a big deal apparently to many people. Answering the question of why they think it's a big deal is the tricky part. For many (if not most) it's in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. People get very fired up over religious doctrines, and to an outsider it would appear that their priorities have gotten really out of whack and that they've lost perspective. The stock answer in defense of their stance usually has something to do with 'survival of the human species'. They appear to ignore any arguments that point out the faults in that line of reasoning.

There is also the fact that the administration needs an issue they can use to divert the public's attention away from other more pressing problems.

For others it's a matter of having some group they can blame for stuff like HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Or the fact that they think gay sex is icky (though they're probably basing that on misconceptions about just what gay couples actually do together). One wonders if a vote to extend marriage recognition to lesbians only would be supported, given what we know about straight men's fantasies.

Part of it is that letting people vote on something makes them feel empowered. Nevermind that they're using that vote to disenfranchise a minority.

revolution_reversal · Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:47 am Post subject:

bigotry is a form of mental retardation.

ridenrodeo · Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 20 Location: Houston Texas

[quote="Skeptical Mystic"][quote="thebreadloaf2003"]A few weeks ago in texas, as some might know, the government had votes for a few bills to be passed, one of which was against gay marriage. Now i am aware of the mass republican majority in texas who are conservative and mostly religious, but seriously, is it that big of a deal to have two men or two women to leagaly unit and have papers saying that they united and share a common name or now belong to the same family?

I would like to hear peoples input on this and i would appreciate it if you didnt turn this into an oppininated discusion, so please have some verification for what you say[/quote]
It is a big deal apparently to many people. Answering the question of why they think it's a big deal is the tricky part. For many (if not most) it's in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. People get very fired up over religious doctrines, and to an outsider it would appear that their priorities have gotten really out of whack and that they've lost perspective. The stock answer in defense of their stance usually has something to do with 'survival of the human species'. They appear to ignore any arguments that point out the faults in that line of reasoning.

There is also the fact that the administration needs an issue they can use to divert the public's attention away from other more pressing problems.

For others it's a matter of having some group they can blame for stuff like HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Or the fact that they think gay sex is icky (though they're probably basing that on misconceptions about just what gay couples actually do together). One wonders if a vote to extend marriage recognition to lesbians only would be supported, given what we know about straight men's fantasies.

Part of it is that letting people vote on something makes them feel empowered. Nevermind that they're using that vote to disenfranchise a minority.[/quote]

That is the best way i have heard this topic be presented
good job :think:

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Funny how some people want to make this a Republican issue - there is wide bipartisan opposition to same-sex marriage. One would have trouble finding a dozen national Democrats who have come out in support of it. The voting on the state amendments cuts across party lines.

Americans have rejected same-sex marriage overwhelmingly. The issue is pretty much dead at this point no matter how it's supporters try to falsely claim a "coming victory' in the face of defeat after defeat after defeat.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

SavannahMan wrote: Funny how some people want to make this a Republican issue - there is wide bipartisan opposition to same-sex marriage. One would have trouble finding a dozen national Democrats who have come out in support of it. The voting on the state amendments cuts across party lines.

Americans have rejected same-sex marriage overwhelmingly. The issue is pretty much dead at this point no matter how it's supporters try to falsely claim a "coming victory' in the face of defeat after defeat after defeat.

While it has been getting shot down over and over, I truthfully feel we will see progress within a decade or so. It seems that with my generation (I'm 18) it is becoming slowly more and more accepted.

I think the whole issue just needs to vanish. When I say vanish, I mean I hope it just becomes legal everywhere. Nobody likes public displays of affection, whether it be male and female or male and male. The ones who I know who don't seem all in favor of gay marriage are always the ones who are insecure about themselves. "Ugh, I don't want to see two guys kissing each other. That's F**K**' gross." A lot of it just comes from the insecurity of individuals, and the following of stereotypes.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject:

SavannahMan wrote: The issue is pretty much dead at this point no matter how it's supporters try to falsely claim a "coming victory' in the face of defeat after defeat after defeat.
The issue is far from dead. I keep hearing 'the people voted', but there has been no national referendum on the question, nor is there likely to be. Nor has the issue yet been decided by popular vote in a majority of the states.

As for supporters 'falsely claiming a coming victory', that's an overly broad generalization. Allow me to clarify:

1) I am a strong supporter of recognition for gay marriages

2) I believe that eventually the voters in most states will ban not only marriage recognition for same-sex couples, but also civil unions and legally recognized domestic partnerships.

Whether or not this becomes the final word on the issue in the U.S. is somewhat open to question, as the topic has become global in scope. Many other countries are confronting the issues of gay rights and same-sex marriage. On the global level, it isn't so important what a majority of other countries do. What matters is what the U.S.' major trading partners decide, whether they conclude that it's a human rights issue with implications that reach beyond their own borders, whether or not they exert pressure on the U.S. for its negative stance, and whether or not the U.S. remains strong enough to resist that pressure.

If the U.S. retains a position of economic and military superiority allowing it to rebuff and resist outside pressures (as I expect it will), I estimate it take 25 to 50 years (and I lean toward the higher figure) before gay marriages becomes a national reality - if they ever do at all. And it's a mighty big 'if'.