Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pearl

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
5,736
Location
NYC
[** first 2 posts split from this thread ~y. **]





Sorry if I am hijacking this thread, but I don't know where else to put this. I figure the thread would be like the previous one, an ongoing discussion on same sex marriage. If so, then I guess its OK to post this. Think of it as a continuation of the Bert & Ernie debate:

This isn’t really about television programming at all, though. That’s just where it manifests and boils over. We don’t need Bert and Ernie to get married to show tolerance. We need Mommy and Daddy to have more tolerance. We don’t need SpongeBob and Mr. Krabs to show both sides of the global warming issue. We need Mommy and Daddy to get educated about what is happening in our world.


Read more: The Bert & Ernie Debate and What it Says About Grown-Up Agendas - FoxBusiness.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, provided the threadstarter doesn't object, I think it's fine to treat this as the new general SSM discussion thread. If not, we can always split it.



Re: the Bert & Ernie thing--this seems to be largely a media-manufactured story (the campaign was quite obscure before the 'MSM' picked it up). Personally, I don't care how exactly these characters' relationship is presented; that said, introducing the notion of same-sex romantic love to children at the younger end of SS' target demographic seems like kind of a lost cause to me. Kids that young do have some limited conceptual use for categories like "mommies and daddies" (so there's always the "two mommies/daddies" possibility), but ultimately, adults only mean something to them as fixtures of their own social worlds; they don't actually think or care about what adults as individuals need, want or love. (At that age, simply getting across that other children don't like to be hit by them, and what it means to say that, is often effort enough.) For the older end of the show's demographic, that's a different story; their grasp of mutuality in social relations is much stronger and by that age they do appreciate basic discussions about the particular kind of love adults have for each other. Whatever, I think a same-sex puppet couple would be fine and can appreciate an exposure-for-familiarity's-sake argument; I just think any resulting enhancements in actual understanding would probably be very small.
 
A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.
Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”
Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.
Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”
But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.
Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.
The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.
The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.
“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

Read more: Florida Teacher Suspended For Anti-Gay Marriage Posts On Personal Facebook Page | FoxNews.com

Even though it is freedom of speech, this teacher needs to realize that he likely has a gay student or two, and him ranting against homosexuality can really hurt them. With freedom of speech comes responsibility.
 
^ I was thinking this sounded like an overstep on the school administration's part, until I read the content of his Facebook posts. Yeah, I don't know the details of this school's ethics code or how they'd stand up in a court, but as a teacher I've got no sympathy for any teacher who thinks it should be A-OK for him to say in a public space (he had more than 700 Facebook friends, per the article) that certain groups of people--which just happen to include some of his students--make him want to vomit in disgust, that their love relationships are cesspools, and that he'll miss their good regard like he'll miss his kidney stone should such sentiments change their feelings towards him. And I don't buy for a minute that he was merely expressing his doctrinally informed views as a Christian. Anyone who talks like that clearly has personal emotional issues with gay people, and is not just seeking to lovingly share God's Plan with others.
 
You know what it means. Don't play games here.
 
Uhm, yeah.

Would you support a racist teacher voicing his beliefs towards African-Americans in class? Or an anti-Semite doing the same thing and denying the Holocaust to his students?

It's the same thing.
 
**sigh**

How does this guy not understand that Facebook is a PUBLIC forum and what he says there is bound to have PUBLIC consequences, since he teaches in a PUBLIC school! Has he just not been paying attention?

I never cease to be amazed by how stupid people continue to be about the internet.

As for what he said, yes, I think he should be held accountable given the impact it might have on his students.
 
How can you?

You've said in the past we got to put away our crayons, or something like that. Yet, you support people saying hateful things, ripping away another person's humanity and sense of self?

Why do you say you support hate speech?
 
You didn't answer my question. I'm not responding to yours unless you respond to mine.

Which you should because you're coming across like someone who is callous to minorities.
 
Why are you against free speech?

Surely you would agree that a teacher has some responsibility to the students he or she teaches to use discretion in the views he or she chooses to air publically.

What about the gay student who has this person as his teacher?

I know how I felt hearing my 8th grade math teacher proclaim that he "didn't like niggers."
 
Are you saying free speech should be retrictecd if it offends?

I'll answer you specifically. You're obfuscating the issue.
Stop picking 'liberty' fights that aren't worth fighting. There are plenty of other real fights/arguments for liberty that need to be made.

Nobody is placing a muzzle on anybody. They're just saying "if you want to be a public employee, paid by the taxpayer...then you can't espouse hate". He can be a non-teacher and rail against gays all the wants.

I can say "Wop" all I want within the confines of my home or anywhere else for that matter. But if I say that, while working at an Italian restaurant and the boss fires me because of customer complaints, then he has that right.

You aren't literally restricted in your speech. You just aren't entitled to public employment regardless of what you say. As diemen said, there are consequences. Simple enough?
 
Stop picking 'liberty' fights that aren't worth fighting.

But honestly this isn't a "liberty" fight at all.

Freedom of speech is the concept that government will not censor speech, nowhere does it say that the speech will not have consequences.

People have disorted this concept into 'I should be able to say anything I want anywhere and have no consequences', but that's not how it works, nor how it was designed.
 
Well, I put it in quotes for that reason. Thought that would be obvious.
That's why I used "real fights/arguments for liberty" in the very next sentence.
You know...right there in the post.

Iron horse is always making inconsistent 'Libertarian' arguments.

But hey, nothing surprises me about the lack of reading comprehension in this place. Especially if it's the resident Hall Monitor checking in.
 
Well, I put it in quotes for that reason. Thought that would be obvious.
That's why I used "real fights/arguments for liberty" in the very next sentence.
You know...right there in the post.

Iron horse is always making inconsistent 'Libertarian' arguments.

But hey, nothing surprises me about the lack of reading comprehension in this place. Especially if it's the resident Hall Monitor checking in.

Calm down, that post wasn't really for you. It was more for iron horse in case he came back with a "all liberty arguments are worth fighting for" defense.
 
I'll answer you specifically. You're obfuscating the issue.
Stop picking 'liberty' fights that aren't worth fighting. There are plenty of other real fights/arguments for liberty that need to be made.

Nobody is placing a muzzle on anybody. They're just saying "if you want to be a public employee, paid by the taxpayer...then you can't espouse hate". He can be a non-teacher and rail against gays all the wants.

I can say "Wop" all I want within the confines of my home or anywhere else for that matter. But if I say that, while working at an Italian restaurant and the boss fires me because of customer complaints, then he has that right.

You aren't literally restricted in your speech. You just aren't entitled to public employment regardless of what you say. As diemen said, there are consequences. Simple enough?



Yes, that does clarify the issue,

Thanks
 
I think a same-sex puppet couple would be fine and can appreciate an exposure-for-familiarity's-sake argument; I just think any resulting enhancements in actual understanding would probably be very small.

:up: Exactly. Burt and Ernie are puppets, for fuck's sake. What is it about the US, where celebrities (and now puppets) are called upon to inform national public policy? We've had six years of gay marriage here in Canada and we've yet to implode as a country because of it. And remarkably, our puppets and national icons weren't involved in the process.

Anyone who talks like that clearly has personal emotional issues with gay people, and is not just seeking to lovingly share God's Plan with others.

:up: Some of my very best friends are gay. People who lack the wherewithal (and frighteningly, educators are included) to realize that homosexuality is not a choice -- but is instead a part of one's individual genetic makeup -- are missing something else besides "God's Plan." They are severely lacking in intelligence.
 
But honestly this isn't a "liberty" fight at all.

Freedom of speech is the concept that government will not censor speech, nowhere does it say that the speech will not have consequences.

People have disorted this concept into 'I should be able to say anything I want anywhere and have no consequences', but that's not how it works, nor how it was designed.

This may be the first time I've totally agreed with you, BVS. Well said :up:
 
But honestly this isn't a "liberty" fight at all.

Freedom of speech is the concept that government will not censor speech, nowhere does it say that the speech will not have consequences.

People have disorted this concept into 'I should be able to say anything I want anywhere and have no consequences', but that's not how it works, nor how it was designed.


THIS. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. It's so simple and easy to understand if you actually read the document.

:heart:,
17
 
you hear lots of times about people switching positions on issues, liberals become conservative, conservative becomes liberals. people switch from pro- to anti-choice all the time. what's the saying ... "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been to jail."

what's so interesting about same-sex marriage is that while many people remain opposed to it (as well as to same-sex adoption), it's virtually impossible to find anyone who once supported same-sex marriage but who is now against it.

i think this is a good example of why:

The Littlest Lobbyist

How an 8-year-old boy helped pass the same-sex marriage bill

By Laura Nahmias



Josh Zwerin is 8 years old. He is entering the third grade, reading Harry Potter and climbing trees in the gaslit glow outside his Tudor home in suburban Rockville Centre, Long Island. He also has two dads—Jeff Friedman and Andy Zwerin, the gay couple who adopted him the day he was born—the only family he’s ever known.

But in the last six months of the same-sex marriage debate in Albany, as politicians and lobbyists jockeyed for position, Josh turned out to be improbably powerful in a way he seems barely to comprehend.

Josh, a handsome little fellow in a dark suit and tie, could often be seen in the Senate gallery and Capitol hallways in the last few weeks of the session. Long before the rest of the world knew the legislation would even come to a vote, he had private meetings with senators that proved fruitful for the bill’s chances.

Sandwiched between his two 43-year-old dads on the couch in their home in late July, barefoot and clad in a Mark Sanchez football jersey, Josh tallied up the senators he had met: “Senator Kennedy, Senator Skelos, Senator Huntley, oh, that really stupid guy…”

“Josh!” shushed Friedman.

“I don’t like him! I’m not going to say his name,” Josh said.

Friedman and Zwerin coaxed Josh to talk about the marriage vote. “Why did we go to Albany?” Friedman asked.

Jeff Friedman, Josh and Andy Zwerin made trips to Albany to lobby senators, like Dean Skelos, on same-sex marriage

“For the vote,” Josh replied.

Friedman: “What were we doing?”

Josh: “We were working.”

Friedman: “What kind of work, Josh?”

Josh: “We were lobbying.”

Friedman first became active in the same-sex marriage movement five years ago, after he suffered a heart attack on the day of Zwerin’s mother’s funeral. His partner and their son rushed to the hospital to fill out paperwork for cardiac surgery, only to find that Zwerin had no legal right to make decisions on Friedman’s behalf.

“A nurse asks me, ‘What’s your relationship to him?’” Zwerin said. “We weren’t legally married by the state, so she said, ‘I’m sorry, but you can’t sign those.’ ”

The danger passed, but the lesson lingered.

“The person that you know your whole life may not survive, and then they’re saying, in front of Josh, that we’re not family,” Friedman said. “The following week I was still in cardiac intensive care, and having Josh run in and ask, ‘Are we still a family?’—that’s not something that is appropriate for any child to feel.”


When their family started lobbying senators, they brought Josh along. One of the senators they spoke with was Shirley Huntley, a Queens Democrat who voted against same-sex marriage in 2009 and told The New York Times, “If they gave me a million dollars, tax free, I just wouldn’t vote for it.”

Last winter, though, she decided she was undecided. And when Friedman and Zwerin brought Josh to Albany one day, the 73-year-old grandmother met with them with an open mind.

“There was this cute little boy with a whole flock of curly hair,” Huntley said. “He’s a happy child… I guess it just got to my heart, because I could see this child was well-reared. Then they brought him up for me to meet the child, and I was just so happy to meet him.”

Josh, who is biracial, reminded Huntley of one of her own relatives, Friedman said. He recalls telling Huntley how he met Zwerin in high school chemistry class in Merrick, Long Island, 26 years ago. He showed her the photo album from their 2008 marriage in California, a marriage that would be recognized in New York if the law passed.

Advocates had focused for years on the abstract notion of rights, afraid to talk about their families, Friedman said. But most of the conversations he had with the senators he tried to convince were about parenting.

“I first talked to Shirley about the fact that me and Andy, we met in high school. I told her we’d been together for 26 years and that we live lives no different than anybody else,” Friedman said. “I am an active member of the PTA, you know. I am part of the social-action committee of my temple here.”

The meeting with Huntley was impromptu. She didn’t say why she didn’t vote for it in 2009, and Friedman didn’t ask. He recalled that her main concern was whether voting “No” would hurt Josh.

“At the end of the conversation, after we were both crying for a while, that’s when she told me not to worry, to trust her,” Friedman said. “She was going to be voting for marriage.”

Josh was the tipping point, Huntley said later. Though she kept her new position a secret for weeks, she made up her mind that spring day.

“You say, ‘What the hell,’ ” Huntley said, throwing up her hands. “It’s wonderful.”

She expects to be invited to some weddings. She does not expect a primary challenge because of the vote and has received no angry phone calls from pastors in her district. She thinks she did the right thing.

“If people are going to judge me by that vote, after all the other things I have done in my community…” She shook her head. “If they’re going to judge me for that one vote, then so be it.”

Josh remembers Albany mostly for the thrills of playing with Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos’ iPad and sitting in Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell’s chair on the chamber floor. But he has some sense of the import of his lobbying at the Capitol.

His parents prodded him to say why marriage equality was needed. He leaned against Zwerin and said, “I just wanted you to be treated good.”

BABY.jpg


How 8-year-old Josh Zwerin helped pass the same-sex marriage bill
 
That's awesome. I become more and more bitter and cynical by the day, but occasionally something like that still inspires me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom