• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Same-Sex Marriage

You have to see it through their eyes to understand. I'm not black, but most of my friends are. From what I gather, they indeed are offended by the comparisons. Those are the reasons they give.

Likewise, you have to see it from our eyes.

If you subscribe to Netflix, I invite you (and anyone else) to check out the documentaries Before Stonewall and After Stonewall. They are available to view instantly. Even though these are VERY dated documentaries (done in the mid 80s) I think they are very representative of the gay rights movement.
 
Likewise, you have to see it from our eyes.

If you subscribe to Netflix, I invite you (and anyone else) to check out the documentaries Before Stonewall and After Stonewall. They are available to view instantly. Even though these are VERY dated documentaries (done in the mid 80s) I think they are very representative of the gay rights movement.

Oh, I know firsthand, being a bisexual that leans towards the same gender myself and an elected official that reprsents an LGBT constinuency at my university. I saw Before Stonewall in class. I consider myself a libertarian-leaning Republican who advocates for less government. That ranges from keeping the government out of people's personal relationships to keeping it out of the sociopolitical values that we instill in our children.
 
Oh, I know firsthand, being a bisexual that leans towards the same gender myself and an elected official that reprsents an LGBT constinuency at my university. I saw Before Stonewall in class. I consider myself a libertarian-leaning Republican who advocates for less government. That ranges from keeping the government out of people's personal relationships to keeping it out of the sociopolitical values that we instill in our children.

I think your views on government might be hindering you from seeing the big picture here. I believe we're on the verge of a change in the way the LGBT community is viewed. It's already happening to an extent. I believe a lot of it is a generational thing, & the same can be said for how people view other groups that have been oppressed in the past.

For example, in 1992 my BFF Audrey was "going out" with a boy in our class, Sirron. I was telling my mom about them. Mom said "That's an interesting name, is he black?" I said he was. Mom freaked out saying that society will shun them and if they have kids they'll be outcasts. I said "Mom, they're 11. The most they do is hold hands at recess."

In 1998 my grandmother had a heart attack, & was hopsitalized for 3 weeks until she died. When my family would visit her, she would marvel to us about "her colored nurse" & was amazed that she was so nice and warm to her.

In 2001 my parents were visiting me in college. They told me that a family friend just got married. My mom incredulously added "And, his wife is black!" I asked my mom if she had 3 legs too, because I didn't see the big deal.

Obviously my family (at least my mom's side) was a tad racist. This was never passed down to me. It just wasn't something that we talked about very much. I can't remember who said this, but someone in this thread mentioned that kids learn a heck of a lot more from their friends and (nowadays) the internet than they do from their parents.

There are still so many stereotypes and assumptions that plague the LGBT community. IMHO the sooner these are put to rest the better. I'm all for dialog that helps people understand, if they care enough to. After that it's up to them on how they feel about it. But continuing to spread prejudice and misinformation isn't really helping anyone, you know?

In the grand scheme of things, a children's story about two princes getting married is really just a drop in the bucket.
 
I think your views on government might be hindering you from seeing the big picture here. I believe we're on the verge of a change in the way the LGBT community is viewed. It's already happening to an extent. I believe a lot of it is a generational thing, & the same can be said for how people view other groups that have been oppressed in the past.

For example, in 1992 my BFF Audrey was "going out" with a boy in our class, Sirron. I was telling my mom about them. Mom said "That's an interesting name, is he black?" I said he was. Mom freaked out saying that society will shun them and if they have kids they'll be outcasts. I said "Mom, they're 11. The most they do is hold hands at recess."

In 1998 my grandmother had a heart attack, & was hopsitalized for 3 weeks until she died. When my family would visit her, she would marvel to us about "her colored nurse" & was amazed that she was so nice and warm to her.

In 2001 my parents were visiting me in college. They told me that a family friend just got married. My mom incredulously added "And, his wife is black!" I asked my mom if she had 3 legs too, because I didn't see the big deal.

Obviously my family (at least my mom's side) was a tad racist. This was never passed down to me. It just wasn't something that we talked about very much. I can't remember who said this, but someone in this thread mentioned that kids learn a heck of a lot more from their friends and (nowadays) the internet than they do from their parents.

There are still so many stereotypes and assumptions that plague the LGBT community. IMHO the sooner these are put to rest the better. I'm all for dialog that helps people understand, if they care enough to. After that it's up to them on how they feel about it. But continuing to spread prejudice and misinformation isn't really helping anyone, you know?

In the grand scheme of things, a children's story about two princes getting married is really just a drop in the bucket.

No dounbt. The bill SB 11 I introduced and passed on my campus established such programs like discussions about crimes against LGBT youth with our students. There is an opt-out provisions, but the large majority of students don't use it. We had a Pride march in May. We do it early so to have it while school is in session. It was great to see that there were just as many heterosexual people there as there were LGBT.

Racism was rampant in the past, as history can tell you. We've largely moved beyond that evidenced by the who the U.S. President is. The same will happen with LGBT people.
 
If Adam & Steve want to go to the county clerk's office and call themselves married who cares? Don't try to make churches sanction or perform the ceremonies, don't let it affect insurance premiums, don't try to creep it into school curriculums. Our states and nation have many important and pressing issues to deal with and shouldn't be concerned with something as trivial as this.
 
Our states and nation have many important and pressing issues to deal with and shouldn't be concerned with something as trivial as this.

Respectfully, they should be concerned with the issues their people are concerned with, no matter how trivial they seem to you are me. That is what the government is there for. Frankly, if everyone considered the issue trivial, there would be nothing to talk about.
 
In my kids school, the school administration is trying to teach my children that Elvis impersonators should have the same legal rights as Elvis had and be accepted by society. I think this is wrong and it send the message that Elvis impersonators are somehow equal to the real Elvis.

There is talk of an Elvis Pride Parade which will reinforce age old Elvis stereotypes.
 
If Adam & Steve want to go to the county clerk's office and call themselves married who cares? Don't try to make churches sanction or perform the ceremonies, don't let it affect insurance premiums, don't try to creep it into school curriculums. Our states and nation have many important and pressing issues to deal with and shouldn't be concerned with something as trivial as this.

This is exactly my view. LGBT people should have same liberty as everybody else, but they don't have the right to infringe on the liberty of others by pressing their view on churches and schools.
 
If Adam & Steve want to go to the county clerk's office and call themselves married who cares? Don't try to make churches sanction or perform the ceremonies, don't let it affect insurance premiums, don't try to creep it into school curriculums. Our states and nation have many important and pressing issues to deal with and shouldn't be concerned with something as trivial as this.

I do not think Adam and Steve have any legal rights. At least not the same rights a legal arrangement would provide. This is why gay people need some legal arrangement that protects their rights just like a legitimate marriage gives the woman the right to take your stuff and make you pay forever and ever lasting.
 
I have a huge issue with this as well. But that's for another thread.

Isn't it part of the discussion? If two guys are married, they same problems await them and a divorce is likely when the lavender scented crap hits the Martha Stewart coordinated wallpaper and silk sheets.

So who gets what becomes a problem and a question for gay folks as much as it is for the straights.
 
The Feds keep out and let the states decide. Let the people decide and if gay people do not like it, move to a more liberal place.
 
The Feds keep out and let the states decide. Let the people decide and if gay people do not like it, move to a more liberal place.

But I *like* Kansas City. All my friends are here. I have family here. I have a good job. I live in a great place with easy access to all my stomping grounds. I don't want to have to leave here just to be able to settle down & enjoy the benefits and recognition of "marriage" with my girl. Why should I have to sacrifice one for the other?
 
But I *like* Kansas City. All my friends are here. I have family here. I have a good job. I live in a great place with easy access to all my stomping grounds. I don't want to have to leave here just to be able to settle down & enjoy the benefits and recognition of "marriage" with my girl. Why should I have to sacrifice one for the other?

Life is simply not fair. Sorry to say it but that is just how it is. Should one small group be allowed to do something the public abhors?

Perhaps Civil Unions are required to give certain "rights" to gay people. That would satisfy most people, quite likely; it would protect you, too. Just do not call it marriage.
 
Life is simply not fair. Sorry to say it but that is just how it is. Should one small group be allowed to do something the public abhors?

Perhaps Civil Unions are required to give certain "rights" to gay people. That would satisfy most people, quite likely; it would protect you, too. Just do not call it marriage.

And like I've mentioned in this thread, I'd be totally ok with calling it a civil union, just as long as the same rights are granted. I think people just talk about "gay marriage" during debates because everyone understands what that means. If you call it anything else, the definitions start getting fuzzy. If there could just be a shift of knowledge where the term "civil unions" replaced "marriage" in those debates, that would be ideal. But I completely agree that civil unions would satisfy most people.

And if this "small group" was granted those rights, I know some people would freak out at first. But, when essentially NOTHING in opponents lives changes during day-to-day life, I'm sure people will forget all about it & go on to condemn & judge the next group de jour.
 
But I *like* Kansas City. All my friends are here. I have family here. I have a good job. I live in a great place with easy access to all my stomping grounds. I don't want to have to leave here just to be able to settle down & enjoy the benefits and recognition of "marriage" with my girl. Why should I have to sacrifice one for the other?

If you are well aware of the political situation for LGBT people there, you are content with civil unions there by choosing to stay, imo. No same-sex union, be it a civil union, domestic partnership, or marriage, can possibly afford same-sex couples all of the benefits of marriage. It is prohibited by federal law.
 
Why should I have to uproot my life if I meet and fall in love with a great woman & we want to share the same benefits everyone else has (and some take for granted, like Brittany Spears who was married for 50-odd hours just to "see what it's like")? I don't understand what opponents of same-sex "marriage" (or civil unions, or what have you) are so afraid of happening if we were allowed to have those rights. NOTHING WOULD CHANGE for those people, but it would mean the world to millions who have been fighting for this for years.

If I grew up preferring dudes I could pick up some random guy @ a bar, we could fly to Vegas, & be married within a few hours. But if I meet a girl, date her, propose a couple years later, marry her a year later, live with her, support her, love her, & protect her for years, we still wouldn't be seen as having a legit relationship in the eyes of the law because people who don't even know me decided I shouldn't have the right to a private & quiet life of happiness with my girl. I just don't understand.
 
Why should I have to uproot my life if I meet and fall in love with a great woman & we want to share the same benefits everyone else has (and some take for granted, like Brittany Spears who was married for 50-odd hours just to "see what it's like")? I don't understand what opponents of same-sex "marriage" (or civil unions, or what have you) are so afraid of happening if we were allowed to have those rights. NOTHING WOULD CHANGE for those people, but it would mean the world to millions who have been fighting for this for years.

If I grew up preferring dudes I could pick up some random guy @ a bar, we could fly to Vegas, & be married within a few hours. But if I meet a girl, date her, propose a couple years later, marry her a year later, live with her, support her, love her, & protect her for years, we still wouldn't be seen as having a legit relationship in the eyes of the law because people who don't even know me decided I shouldn't have the right to a private & quiet life of happiness with my girl. I just don't understand.

You are fighting centuries of tradition and people tend to hold on to their traditions. Some people fight it on religious grounds or a mis-interpretation of their own beliefs. Some people simply believe it is wrong and should not be allowed. Some say it spells the end of the world and others do not give a rat's hind end either way.

I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. But I do not object to some other legal arrangement like civil unions. It is how I feel and that will never change.

All I know for sure is I find it difficult to argue with someone called PantlessPenguin. Love that name.
 
You are fighting centuries of tradition and people tend to hold on to their traditions. Some people fight it on religious grounds or a mis-interpretation of their own beliefs. Some people simply believe it is wrong and should not be allowed. Some say it spells the end of the world and others do not give a rat's hind end either way.

I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. But I do not object to some other legal arrangement like civil unions. It is how I feel and that will never change.

All I know for sure is I find it difficult to argue with someone called PantlessPenguin. Love that name.

Hee, thanks :). Again, I completely agree w/ you about the civil union thing. The majority of gay people I know don't care what people call it as long as the rights are there. Others see it as "separate but equal." And others are hardcore about wanting it to be called marriage. Me? I'm so tired of being angry at being denied things that my straight counterparts get to enjoy just because people don't "get it." I want the rights, no matter if people see it as "separate but equal." At this point it's better than nothing, & I think it'll eventuall lead to more tolerant views. Baby steps, you know?
 
To me the solution is not granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians but doing away with marriage licences, tax breaks for married couples, etc, altogether. There's really no compelling reason for government to be involved with marriage gay or straight. Marriage licences were introduced to allow the government to place prohibitions on marriage such as making interracial marriage illegal at one time.
 
Back
Top Bottom