The sacred institution of marriage...

[AliEnvy]

We're going to hell in a handbasket up here, people.

After all, our leader came *this* close to being beheaded...if the Pat Robertsons of the world knew his name they'd surely tell us why.

 

[Irvine511]

The gay relative, or the man-beast issue? If all else fails, blame it on Harper. He eats babies, you know.

Was there really a serious question in there? I had next to no sleep last night due to a dental appointment/phobia this morning, so I'm not at my most cognizant.

i mean was there some sort of a backlash to the gay marriage thing that might have caused more socially conservative voters to turn out in higher numbers or caused some to vote conservative when they might not have in the past.

it was a serious question.

Harper eats babies? really? baby seals, i could imagine, but babies themselves?

wow.

 

[VintagePunk]

After all, our leader came *this* close to being beheaded...if the Pat Robertsons of the world knew his name they'd surely tell us why.

If he were anything like Chretien and his wife, he could have fended off the potential attackers with an Inuit carving.

I love my country.

 

[VintagePunk]

i mean was there some sort of a backlash to the gay marriage thing that might have caused more socially conservative voters to turn out in higher numbers or caused some to vote conservative when they might not have in the past.

it was a serious question.

Harper eats babies? really? baby seals, i could imagine, but babies themselves?

wow.

No, I honestly don't think his election (to a minority government) had anything to do with social issues. It had more to do with dissatisfaction with the ruling Liberal party, and financial scandals they had been involved with. I really can't see Canada going the way of the US, and becoming socially conservative, thank goodness.


And the "Harper eats babies" thing came about because someone hacked into the Toronto transit system's signs that appear on their trains, and programmed that phrase into it. It stayed up for the better part of a day before it was fixed.

 

[anitram]

No, the election definitely had nothing to do with gay marriage and you have a good proportion of high profile conservative MPs publicly stating they believe the issue has been settled. This vote in the fall is just pandering so they can say they fulfilled an election promise.

The Liberals lost because of the corruption scandal and because politics is cyclical, especially here. They were in power almost 15 years and so people tossed them out. Now the Conservatives will rule for a few years until they pull some sort of clusterfuck and then we'll be back to the default Liberal rule as always. Nothing wild and exciting up here in the land of man-giraffe marriages.

 

[AliEnvy]

i mean was there some sort of a backlash to the gay marriage thing that might have caused more socially conservative voters to turn out in higher numbers or caused some to vote conservative when they might not have in the past.

it was a serious question.

I think that sort of backlash did exist but got easily diluted into the corruption scandals of the Liberal party.

Some church leaders and social conservatives here fear a Supreme Court challenge that would deam a church declining to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony as a legal human rights violation. However, that's why the notwithstanding clause exists.

 

[AliEnvy]

If he were anything like Chretien and his wife, he could have fended off the potential attackers with an Inuit carving.

 

[martha]

And the "Harper eats babies" thing came about because someone hacked into the Toronto transit system's signs that appear on their trains, and programmed that phrase into it. It stayed up for the better part of a day before it was fixed.

geeks

 

[martha]

So to those of you who say there are no sound arguments against same-sex marriage. Why the debate? Why the sudden rush by so many states, including Oregon and California to pass statues against same-sex marriage. All bigory and fear? Some, to be sure, but all?

I'll wager it's 50/50. Although fear usually is the trigger for bigotry.

The inability to see the world through the eyes of another is very narcissistic isn't it?

Tell us about it.

 

[BVS]

we should jump headlong into the social experiment of redefining marriage.

Social experiment? And I guess segregation was just a social experiment gone wrong...

You seriously don't get it, do you?

The inability to see the world through the eyes of another is very narcissistic isn't it?

I'm a fan of irony and all, but this line takes the cake.

 

[nbcrusader]

i mean was there some sort of a backlash to the gay marriage thing that might have caused more socially conservative voters to turn out in higher numbers or caused some to vote conservative when they might not have in the past.

it was a serious question.

Gavin Newsom's actions outside CA law did more to harm the issue than anything else. As discussed here elsewhere, the visual images from SF likely struck the "ick factor" that drives a good part of this debate.

Without Newsom's actions, I hoestly believe we could have a domestic partnership bill pass in CA by now.

 

[Irvine511]

Gavin Newsom's actions outside CA law did more to harm the issue than anything else. As discussed here elsewhere, the visual images from SF likely struck the "ick factor" that drives a good part of this debate.

Without Newsom's actions, I hoestly believe we could have a domestic partnership bill pass in CA by now.

i agree. it was no accident that Rove got gay marriage amendments on the ballots in several battleground states during the 2004 election, and it probably provided enough motivation for certain elements of the Republican base to get out and vote for Bush.

i might disagree with the "ick factor." firstly, that phrase saddens me, so perhaps i don't want to believe it's true, but i think what happened in SF was more about "those crazy liberals" and added to a sense of "the sky is falling" particularly when combined with the Massachusetts ruling of 2004.

 

[melon]

As discussed here elsewhere, the visual images from SF likely struck the "ick factor" that drives a good part of this debate.

It generally doesn't help that the media usually chooses the ugliest and freakiest gay couples they can find when broadcasting on this issue.

This is in contrast to straight couples who are always portrayed as pretty and cute, while the ugly ones are left at the curb.

Melon

 

[INDY500]

Please don't consider me rude, but I had to go to work and am just now able to respond.

Most of you understood, or at least suffered my point, because nobody labeled me a bigot. My only point being that 2/3rds of Americans are not bigoted solely because they feel marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. It's kinda worked for a few thousand years and some of us have just sorta got used to the idea. Anyway, I respect your opinions, thank you for respecting mine.

Enough talk, cue Joan Jett.

Sometimes Im right then I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my songs
A butcher, a banker, a drummer and then
Makes no difference what group Im in
I am everyday people

Then its the blue ones who cant accept
The green ones for living with
The black ones tryin to be a skinny one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby

Ooh sha sha
We gotta live together

I am no better and neither are you
Were all the same whatever we do
You love me you hate me
You know me and then
Still cant figure out the scene Im in
I am everyday people

Then its the new man
That doesnt like the short man
For being such a rich one
That will not help the poor one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on scooby dooby dooby

Ooh sha sha
We got to live together

There is a yellow one that wont
Accept the black one
That wont accept the red one
That wont accept the white one

Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and
Scooby dooby dooby
Ooh sha sha
I am everyday people

 

[4U2Play]

Joan Jett???

Sacrilege.

That song was written in 1968 by Sly Stone, he of the massive hairdo.

The Blackhearts' version is probably better, though.

 

[BVS]

It's kinda worked for a few thousand years and some of us have just sorta got used to the idea. Anyway, I respect your opinions, thank you for respecting mine.

Actually it really doesn't work that much since 50% of them end.

But for arguments sake yes it works for those that CAN.

But for you to say " The inability to see the world through the eyes of another is very narcissistic isn't it?" is insane. You're the one that wants to deny a privelage that won't effect your life one iota, just because it's status quo. You're the one that's having a hard time seeing the world through the eyes of the one that is denied equality. It's easy to deny equality when one has never faced inequality isn't it? Maybe that 2/3 you're talking about should look through those eyes.

And quoting that song just shows you don't understand the purpose of the song.

 

[INDY500]

Joan Jett???

Sacrilege.

That song was written in 1968 by Sly Stone, he of the massive hairdo.

The Blackhearts' version is probably better, though.

You want sacrilege. I think her covers of I Wanna Be Your Dog and Real Wild Child simply blow Iggy Pop away.

 

[INDY500]

And quoting that song just shows you don't understand the purpose of the song.

Ummm, are you familiar with the phrase...
"Sonny boy, you don't know what the f@ck you're talkin' about."

 

[BVS]

Ummm, are you familiar with the phrase...
"Sonny boy, you don't know what the f@ck you're talkin' about."

And are you familiar with what Sly was trying to say?

The song is about trying to achieve equality. It surely isn't supporting any idea that it's OK to maintain inequality.

 

[Irvine511]

My only point being that 2/3rds of Americans are not bigoted solely because they feel marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.

your numbers are incorrect (and i'll leave the thousand year thing alone, since a thousand years ago, or two thousand years ago, women were property and were married off to older men, who may have had many wives, when they were 13 years old or so, and as recently as the 1960s you could get married at 13 in many states -- think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn).

anyway:

[q]Gay Pride and Prejudice
Sunday, June 11, 2006; Page B02


Anyone keeping track of public opinion surveys of American attitudes was probably not surprised last week when the Senate voted down a constitutional amendment, supported by President Bush, that would have banned same-sex marriage. Although a majority of Americans still oppose such unions, there has been a dramatic shift over the past three decades toward greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians, and their rights in society. Driving the change may be that more people now say they know someone -- or are willing to say they know someone -- who is gay.

-- Karlyn Bowman American Enterprise Institute



Oppose allowing gays to marry legally

1996 65%

2006 51%

Source: Pew Research Center

The proportion of Americans describing same-sex relations as "always wrong" has declined since the 1970s. In contrast, the proportion describing extramarital relations as "always wrong" increased from 70 percent to 80 percent over the same period.

Same-sex relations are always wrong:

1973 73%

2004 58%

Source: National Opinion Research Center

Views about hiring homosexuals for different occupations have liberalized over the years. For example, most Americans now say they should be hired as elementary school teachers, a previously more controversial position.

Homosexuals should be hired as elementary

school teachers

1977 27%

2005 54%

Source: The Gallup Organization

Have a friend or close acquaintance who is gay

1985 22%

2000 56%

Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates/Newsweek

Favor gay adoption

1977 14%

2006 49%

Source: (1977) The Gallup

Organization; (2006) ABC News/Time


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901894.html

[/q]



clearly, the numbers are not in favor of marriage discimination, nor is the simplistic understanding of homosexuality as "wrong" going to hold up much longer. Americans under 40, and especially under 30, are vastly more welcoming to sexual diversity than their parents and especially their grandparents, hence the push for an amendment now before those most in favor of the amendment, the 70+'s, all start to die.

 

[INDY500]

your numbers are incorrect

[/q]
Americans under 40, and especially under 30, are vastly more welcoming to sexual diversity than their parents and especially their grandparents

I was looking at polls taken during the 2004 election. So maybe they're as outdated as some of my views.

 

[Irvine511]

here's a thought by Hannah Arendt:



[q]The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which "the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardles of one's skin or color or race," are minor indeed. Even political rioghts, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionable belongs.

http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/quotes/a/hannah_arendt.htm

[/q]

 

[BVS]

To those who do oppose gay marriage I pose a question;

If any of your children grow up to be gay, would you still be adament about keeping their love less important in the eyes of the government and society?

 

[BVS]

^ I think the fact that this question has gone unanswered speaks volumes.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2006/06/most_massachuse.html#more

 

[nbcrusader]

^ I think the fact that this question has gone unanswered speaks volumes.

I think it says no one answered your question. Plenty of questions posted here go unanswered.

 

[Irvine511]

I think it says no one answered your question. Plenty of questions posted here go unanswered.

true, but it does post a great question:

to the parents in here, would you want your theoretical gay son or daughter to be able to get married?

 

[BAW]

true, but it does post a great question:

to the parents in here, would you want your theoretical gay son or daughter to be able to get married?

Gay or straight, if marriage was something they felt ready for, I would absolutley want them to have the option.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

true, but it does post a great question:

to the parents in here, would you want your theoretical gay son or daughter to be able to get married?

Yes, absolutely-but then I'd tell them to run for their lives and not do it before it's too late