Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

Sturgis wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

JB, what is sad is that political parties use the gay marriage as a hot-button political wedge issue to inflame their conservative political base to help them win elections.

How refreshing it would be to do the right thing to benefit the Common Good in ending discrimination against a class of people.BBB

The use of class in this instance is only in the context of a discriminated class. I for instance am a Viet Nam era veteran which put me in a protected class under federal guidlines. mesquite

Mesquite, you are right. I used the term class to recognize a legal "class of people" toward whom a long history of discrimination and violence exists. "Class" as in "class action suit."

I'm surprised that Sturgis misunderstood and took offence at my choice of words. As some of you know, I lived all but the last three years of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've witnessed discrimination against homosexuals for decades and supported their campaigns until they built up enough political power to put an end to it. One of my heros was Harvey Milk, who was murdered by a heterosexual for political as well as homophobia reasons.

Lash, thanks for understanding my meaning. We are reminded that some people (who shall remain nameless) always turn every posted issue into one about them to get attention.

BBB

Opponents say same-sex marriage is - among other things - a historical contradiction. Marriage, they say, has always been between a man and a woman and the laws are written to reflect that.

That argument echoes reasoning that has been proffered time and again to defend such outmoded laws as those that defined wives as the property of their husbands, or that prohibited divorce, or even prevented epileptics and other disabled people from marrying.

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

...

I'm not sure who you would consider a knee-jerk religious whacko to be, so I can only tell you how I see this issue if I look at it from the perspective of my religious beliefs.

Momma Angel wrote:

I'm not sure who you would consider a knee-jerk religious whacko to be, so I can only tell you how I see this issue if I look at it from the perspective of my religious beliefs.

Thank you for playing. Please explain how same-sex marriage harms an individual, a group, or curtails someone's rights. Then we may have a basis for discussion.

And, smelly.

Good luck, DrewDad. I had this very same conversation with MA and it goes nowhere. Pissing in the wind is right, Dys.

First of all, I am sorry it seems like I took so long to answer this but actually I answered it earlier. I think I hit the wrong button and made it a thread or something but it somehow got erased. The moderators told me it was accidentally erased or something. I'm still confused. But, thought I'd try to reconstruct what I had answered earlier.

J_B, the statement you made to DrewDad starting off this post is one of the reasons I am rather hesistant to have this conversation with anyone else. It seems you have already decided that I am completely in error here and why waste your time or something? Hey, that's ok. We just see things a bit differently.

Momma, let's say you know someone who, for religious reasons, thinks women should be subservient to their husbands. Women are not equal to men because that's what his religious tradition holds. Let's imagine a situation such as what is considered tradition in many parts of the Arab world. Women have always been subservient to men there. If given the opportunity to vote on a law to give women equal standing to their husbands, should an individual abstain from voting because of their traditions or should an individual vote to give women an opportunity to express themselves as equal partners under the law?

I really don't see how you can quite equate these the way you do because in my case, I don't believe slavery was right and I do not believe bashing women because they are women is right either. So, of course, I would be right there in the front lines to try to rectify this. However, I do feel that homosexuality is wrong. Now, that's what I believe. You and others don't agree, I understand that. But, I have to live with my choices in this life. I choose the things I advocate actively for or not or against or not. That's everyone's right.

I have stated many times my view on this had changed to one that I could live with to where I would not be trying to deny someone's rights if I abstain from voting (supposing I got to vote.) Well, it seems that is not good enough for you or some others. Well, I am sorry. That's the way it is. I am not giving you a hard time because you feel the way you do about this issue and that's because it is your right to believe what you believe. I find it so ironic that those that would champion someone's rights will come so very close to not allowing someone else their right to exercise their decision as they see fit, which is exactly what you do when you make your choices.

You asked me how abstaining is an affront. Refusing to undo a wrong does not make it right. Is it right to watch a kid being bullied and not stepping in to do something about it ? Was it right for segregation laws to exist even after slavery was banned. Inaction does not excuse duplicity whether it's a child being bullied, a woman without rights, a race being discriminated against, or a citizen being denied civil liberties based on their sexual preference.

Well, if it is an affront to you or anyone else because I would not physically go down and vote yes for this issue if I had the opportunity to do so but would abstain instead, don't know what to tell you. Now, if I were to walk around carrying signs that say "God hates fags" or I signed up for that God Hates Fags website or anything, yeah, I could see being giving a hard time for it and quite frankly, I would deserve it. However, I don't hate people because they are homosexual. I don't believe God hates them either, J_B.

Now, if you or anybody else doesn't like that, I'm sorry. But that's how I feel. That's the truth about the situation for me. I do not harbor any harsh feelings about anyone disagreeing with me because of it. And quite frankly, I am getting a little tired of being told (either directly or implied) at how wrong I am for my views and in order for me to be right and thereby ok, I must change my view to that of yours and others.

And quite frankly, I am getting a little tired of being told (either directly or implied) at how wrong I am for my views and in order for me to be right and thereby ok, I must change my view to that of yours and others.