Gay marriage soapbox

At the risk... http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150516610928756

I usually stay away from political or hot button discussions/threads but I must say I agree. If two people have a connection and want to take the next step and get married how is it ANYONE's right to tell them they can't get hitched.

The next GRMer who visits Washington DC needs to print and laminate three copies of this. Nail one to the front doors of the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court Building.

chaparral wrote: The next GRMer who visits Washington DC needs to print and laminate three copies of this. Nail one to the front doors of the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court Building.

funny, I am leaving for DC tomorrow. (my son's school trip.)

Also, my oldest brother is a car guy. He taught t me how to drive in his Vega when I was a teen. He loaned me his brand new Fiero so I had a car to take to prom. He is the one who got me into racing. He also just happens to be gay.

Curtis: You and I may be on opposite ends of the political spectrum, or we may be (I suspect) very close to the middle. There are folks, both democrat and republican (you don't think democrats fear/HATE homosexuals et. al, visit WV,) so don't make it a party thing. There are LOTS of 'hardcore' dems who say "yeah, but 'they' shouldn't be MARRIED'"

We who really believe that all or some of those guys you quoted were really smart also believe that this idea of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, rowe v. wade reversal, etc., are ridiculous.

All that said, I do reserve the right to call you a berkeleying fag, if you're acting like one. My gay friends know this. ;)

poopshovel wrote: Curtis: You and I may be on opposite ends of the political spectrum, or we may be (I suspect) very close to the middle. There are folks, both democrat and republican (you don't think democrats fear/HATE homosexuals et. al, visit WV,) so don't make it a party thing.

Agreed. I made generalizations that apply to the majority without recognizing the vocal minority... and I consider myself a Libertarian, so sorta middle.

All that said, I do reserve the right to call you a berkeleying fag, if you're acting like one. My gay friends know this. ;)

Thanks for the compliment

I also tend to stay away from threads regarding sex, politics and religion....but I will say....well done.

I like pie...and redheaded pinups who eat pie. I even like some cars (....mostly old stuff that is cheap enough to beat on.)

I don't like unnecessary conflict. When the people who disagree with the above start posting here, lets all try to keep this thread as civil as it has been so far.

JoeyM wrote: I like pie...and redheaded pinups who eat pie. I even like some cars (....mostly old stuff that is cheap enough to beat on.) I don't like unnecessary conflict. When the people who disagree with the above start posting here, lets all try to keep this thread as civil as it has been so far.

Totally agree - both about the conflict AND the redheaded pie.

Please keep in mind that I did not post this to incite conflict (although I feared it might), I honestly posted because its a massively important issue to me and the more eyes that read it, the better.

Now... off to eat some redheaded pie.

I support personal Freedom. If two people want to get married I don't see it being any right of mine unless they invite me to the ceremony, and I certainly don't see how it is any business of our Government. If same sex marriage offends a person, so be it, I cannot change that person's beliefs anymore than I can deny the attraction two people might have, and it certainly isn't the job of Government to do so either. I can only close by saying in my rather ecclectic life I have learned, Love will find a way.

curtis73 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Curtis: You and I may be on opposite ends of the political spectrum, or we may be (I suspect) very close to the middle. There are folks, both democrat and republican (you don't think democrats fear/HATE homosexuals et. al, visit WV,) so don't make it a party thing.

Agreed. I made generalizations that apply to the majority without recognizing the vocal minority... and I consider myself a Libertarian, so sorta middle.

All that said, I do reserve the right to call you a berkeleying fag, if you're acting like one. My gay friends know this. ;)

Thanks for the compliment

Get a room, queers.

I applaud. Once again, I claim the side of neither democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, nor any you could likely think of. Also, funny you should brink up the Salem Witch Hunt. I am one.

Osterkraut wrote: Get a room, queers.

I've been planning a trip to GA.... hmmmm....

N Sperlo wrote: I applaud. Once again, I claim the side of neither democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, nor any you could likely think of. Also, funny you should brink up the Salem Witch Hunt. I am one.

A witch? Awesome.

(unless you're from Salem and you hunt witches - in which case: Awesome)

In reply to curtis73:

The prior.

It pisses me off when religion is used as the primary argument for a particular political position. We do not live in a theocracy. Anyone is welcome to use their faith to guide their own personal decisions, but legislation should not be dictated by religion. Legislation should be dictated by common reason.

If 60% of our country were Jewish and Muslim, we wouldn't outlaw eating pork.

Salanis wrote: We do not live in a theocracy.

There are those who would change that.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Salanis wrote: We do not live in a theocracy.

There are those who would change that.

Leave the Muslims out of this............

A friend of mine once used the argument: "...but then people are going to be getting married to their dogs and..."

I was(/am still) a bit shocked. I couldn't believe that was actually an argument. I don't see the connection in two people wanting to get married and people wanting to get married to their pets...

Anyhoo, I think "equal rights" means sexual preference should not be taken into consideration.

Hungary Bill wrote: A friend of mine once used the argument: "...but then people are going to be getting married to their dogs and..." I was(/am still) a bit shocked. I couldn't believe that was actually an argument. I don't see the connection in two people wanting to get married and people wanting to get married to their pets...

It should be a social contract between two consenting adults. Only slippery slope I could see it legitimately opening the door for is a social contract between two or more consenting adults. I don't think even that would be a problem.

For other absurd LGBT marriage inequality issues, two of my best friends are a lesbian couple who fairly recently got civil-unioned. This is BS. They have been together for over 12 years and love each other as much as any couple I've seen. What makes this even more absurd is that, until about 6 years ago, they COULD have gotten married. See, one of them is transgender and was a man when they first started dating. The fact that her girlfriend loves her enough to have stayed with her the entire time I think is a great testament to their love. But because my friend has changed her legal gender to be female, they now can't get married legally. That is BS. I kind of wish they'd gotten married before her transition just to give the big middle finger to these stupid laws. Although I understand why they wouldn't since they just want to be together, not be part of what would be a national headline public legal battle.

Shared on my FB feed.

Very well written, and I agree. I think part of the problem is not enough people (knowingly) have gay friends. I know that it changed my perspective of the entire discussion. I grew up pretty much like the author; homosexuality is one of those things we heard about, but never knew anyone who was. Yeah, right. As I blindly entered my 20's I found out one of my good car geek friends was gay. Then another. Then a guy who ran in my high school posse, got married, and had several kids came out. With the exception of the last guy (who I dislike for living a double life and ruining several lives in the process), the gay folks I've known have been decent, intelligent, good citizens. And this notion that they 'choose' to be gay is laughable. As one gay friend told me, "Do you really think any of us would willingly go through all the hate, discrimination, and disgrace just because we have some sort of kink?"

I love all people, including gay's, but sorry can't support the act. You guy's are defending it, so I have the right to represent the truth. It's also not natural. If everyone turned gay, the world would end in around 100 years.

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

I will not join the bandwagon on this issue. I guess I'll just live in the "stoneage" and be a "simpleton". I think that's what some people call my kind.

Why exactly is the government able tell people who they can and can't marry?

It should be none of their business.

Take away the power and this conversation becomes a moot point.

That's why I don't understand all the people on the left that want to give the government more power to regulate our lives.