We get a group of Americans who oppose gay marriage and gay adoption and vote accordingly and a bunch of left wing folks try to make them sound like intolerant fringe people out of step with the more enlightened rest of humanity. Same with people who recognize the right of a woman to choose abortion but wish the number of abortions would be curtailed. It looks like these Americans are not out of step with the rest of the world after all.
“only 32 percent of the [Italian] population is favorable to gay marriage, according to a survey carried out for la Repubblica newspaper. Only 21 percent of Italians thought a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt a child.”
Only 3 countries in the world (Spain, Netherlands and Belgium) have legalized gay marriage.
Abortion in Australia:
"The issue arose recently when the federal health minister, deputy prime minister and other senior coalition members of parliament called for a reduction in the number of abortions, particularly late terminations.
The Australian Broadcasting Corp., said even the governor general made a rare political statement during the weekend, saying too many abortions are carried out in Australia and he would like to see the number reduced to zero.
myvoice, intolerance goes on throughout the world, nothing really groundbreaking here. Yes fewer abortions would be great, let's reduce the number to zero, brilliant statement, and let’s stop all the wars while you’re at it as well governor. Point of this thread?
Coming back to US... there were, I think, 11 states who had ballot measures this time calling for outlawing gay marriages. All these measures passed. I find it amusing that while some people call these 11 states as some kind of backward hickys who are out of step with liberal and progressive values, what they fail to realize is that California passed a similar measure four years ago. The people of California voted to outlaw gay marriages in 2000, and still California is considered the bastion of progressive thought and liberal values.
On the issue of gay marriages, I feel most Americans, and I, are very closely aligned to the position of conservatives. Its a clear position. Its not a civil rights issue. The institution of "Marriage" is between a man and woman. Gays are welcome to call their unions, anything but marriage. They want spousal rights? Fine. But don't call it marriage.
Re: No Gay Marriage. No Gay Adoption. Less Abortions. Fundos on the loose or .....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Same with people who recognize the right of a woman to choose abortion but wish the number of abortions would be curtailed.
[/QUOTE]
What group opposes this policy?
And the whole problem with gay 'marriage' is that both sides are tackling the wrong issue. The issue should be equal rights for same sex couples - call it domestic partnership, civil union or whatever. This is favored by a majority of Americans, including Bush. But instead we use the emotionally charged wording of 'marriage' and rather than extending rights to people, many are putting their energy into writing discrimination into the Constitution. It was used as a wedge issue to elect Republicans and it worked. Shameful.
And as far as adoption by gay couples, that is obviously outside of the powers of the government to prohibit.
Adding the gay marriage bans to the ballets was a brilliant move by the Repubs. The fact turned out to be that the gay marriage issue was to fast of a move for the country and that's a lesson learned by the Dems. I do think with time they will be allowed.
The ironic thing is that gay marriage became an issue because of what happened in Massachusetts a year prior to the elections when they allowed state sanction gay marriages to occur. If that hadn’t occurred the issue might have never gotten the limelight or onto the ballets which mobilized a lot of religious folks and brought the issue of morality to the forefront to many when they decided on how to vote. In the end the happenings in Kerry’s home state might be what cost him the election.
UTD writes: "myvoice, intolerance goes on throughout the world, nothing really groundbreaking here."
Is there any issue that people can disagree with you or the liberal, left wing democrats without you and the left wing democrats believing those people are "intolerant" or "uneducated" or "extremist?" I guess on the issues of gay marriage, gay adoption and abortion, the majority of the people around the world are all intolerant and you are not.
Seminole: There is a whole group of left wingers who oppose every single attempt by the government to reduce the number of abortions. Their mantra is that such a regulation will be the first step in overturning Roe v. Wade so it must be opposed. Partial birth abortion is the prime example. IMO, anyone who supports partial birth abortion either doesn't know what this gruesome practice is or is like a Kool Aid kid in their support of abortions.
I'm tired of hearing from liberal demagogues how extremist the supporters of Bush and the GOP are by citing issues like gay marriage, abortion and the like. These positions taken by the social conservatives are closer to the mainstream of America than the enlightened, progressive liberal policy and more in the mainstream of most of the people around the world.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by underthedome: *
Adding the gay marriage bans to the **ballets* was a brilliant move by the Repubs.
[/QUOTE]
Unless Repubs have now gone into ballet-production and we didn't notice, I believe the word is "ballot". Had it just been limited to a choice selection of "ballets" we would all be very happy :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Unless Repubs have now gone into ballet-production and we didn't notice, I believe the word is "ballot". Had it just been limited to a choice selection of "ballets" we would all be very happy :)
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think the gay marriage ban ought to extend to ballets too. Especially ballets. You can't let those guys prancing around on their toes in women's tights get married to each other.
myvoice, left wingers who oppose encouraging less abortions (while not directly restricting a woman's choice) are as extremist as the right wingers they despise. There are many ways to do this, like giving incentives to mothers who put their child up for adoption. But your language used above - "such a regulation" implies restrictions and laws. BTW, the first step in overturning Roe v. Wade was taken when we re-elected Bush.
I don't think it is necessarily their views on these issues that gets Bush and his supporters labelled extremist, it is everything else that goes with it. Like writing discrimination into the Constitution instead of offering alternatives that allow for equal rights. It's strange that Republicans are for less government interference until it involves taking rights away from the people who don't think like them.
Seminole: Since gays don't now have and never have had a right to a state recognized marriage in those states, a state Constitutional Amendment doesn't take away rights from them does it? You think a NEW right ought to be created and given to them. Others disagree. Believe it or not, an awful lot of people think YOUR position is the extreme one.
As to abortion, I think there are many ways to reduce the number of abortions. Encouraging adoption is a good one if coupled with educational programs informing the pregnant woman that this option is real and viable. Too often, organizations like Planned Parenthood simply educate and counsel for abortion. I also believe in better sex education, teaching abstinence, and making condoms more freely available to those who won't practice abstinence. And yes, I think there is a place for regulations including bans on certain procedures like partial birth abortions.
myvoice, do you support Bush's constitutional amendment on gay marriage?
And I believe all states should have a referendum on it (I wouldn’t mind a national referendum either) where they can vote to say if they endorse gray marriage or not. If they do not than the gay community should work towards getting the majority vote first and all amendments will get further amended automatically. I do not want the president or the congress to vote on it nor the judiciary to decide, because I don’t vote based on this one particular issue.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Since gays don't now have and never have had a right to a state recognized marriage in those states, a state Constitutional Amendment doesn't take away rights from them does it? You think a NEW right ought to be created and given to them. Others disagree. Believe it or not, an awful lot of people think YOUR position is the extreme one.
[/quote]
There you go with the marriage thing again, I'm not making that argument. I'm not advocating marriage, I am advocating equal rights. The right of inheritence, extention of health benefits, pension and social security benefits, the dignity to be able to mark something other than 'single' on a government form after being with a spouse for 20 years. While I advocate civil unions and not marriage, I am against using the US Constitution (most state constitutions are jokes) for any purpose that prevents equal rights. If it is extreme to ask that we apply rights equally then call me extremist.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
myvoice, do you support Bush's constitutional amendment on gay marriage?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think an amendment to the US Constitution is appropriate. Regulation and recognition of marriage has always been a state function. That's where it belongs. I think it's appropriate for states to consider Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Even that would not be necessary if not for some activist state court judges sticking their two cents inappropriately into the debate. It should have been left up to state legislatures to adopt laws. Because the Court's wouldn't stay out of it, now state Consittuional Amendments are required to control the judges.
What this country needs is a high-profile interracial gay marriage with the groom and groom adorned in full-bodied - decorative, red white & blue spandex.
Maybe the unforgiving liberals you are talking about take the unforgiving conservatives and consider it an attitude of the whole party. Some that I know do not consider this issue any different than the slavery issue or even inter racial marriage issue. And so they claim that if such issues were left to popular vote, we would still have slavery & ban on inter racial marriage. Even though I can understand where they are coming from, I don’t think it would have been an issue as long as there was freedom of speech & no fear to exercise that right.
Personally, I don't agree with gay marriage or abortion but I wouldn't want to live in a society where the majority (openly or otherwise) practices these but the laws prohibit it or vise versa.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
There you go with the marriage thing again, I'm not making that argument. I'm not advocating marriage, I am advocating equal rights. The right of inheritence, extention of health benefits, pension and social security benefits, the dignity to be able to mark something other than 'single' on a government form after being with a spouse for 20 years. While I advocate civil unions and not marriage, I am against using the US Constitution (most state constitutions are jokes) for any purpose that prevents equal rights. If it is extreme to ask that we apply rights equally then call me extremist.
[/QUOTE]
I am in total disagreement with extension of privileges and benefits to gay couples. Rights of inheritance, health benefits, pension and social security are not offered to a man and a woman living together outside of wedlock either. There is nothing wrong with a society offering certain benefits to people who pursue a lifestyle our society wants to promote. We should promote marriage and family. The things you talk about are not rights that are extended to people because they happen to live together. They are perks given to people who live a traditional family lifestyle that we think is ultimately beneficial to the health and well-being of our society.
As far as I'm concerned, two guys ( or two gals) can live together and have a loving relationship and they'll get no static from me. But I don't think the government ought to promote it or recognize it as simply one normal and acceptable alternative lifestyle among many equally acceptable options.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
As far as I'm concerned, two guys ( or two gals) can live together and have a loving relationship and they'll get no static from me. But I don't think the government ought to promote it or recognize it as simply one normal and acceptable alternative lifestyle among many equally acceptable options.
[/QUOTE]
No static from you, well aren't you magnanimous. The things I am talking about aren't 'perks' given as rewards. They are rights. Equal rights. Women and blacks were denied the right to vote because self righteous people wanted laws that 'we think is ultimately beneficial to the health and well-being of our society'. The government is not promoting a lifestyle - the lifestyle exists whether the government extends benefits or not. What the government would be promoting are stable, monogamous, commited relationships.
You really ought to get out more and meet some gay couples. They work, pay taxes, have traditional values and have commited themselves to a life together. They aren't asking you to change your lifestyle, values or bigotry one bit. It won't affect you. Anyway, who are you to judge them as detrimental to society when God made them the way they are? And look around, whatever the government is doing to protect the sanctimony of marriage isn't working. Children out of wedlock (where the mother gets all kinds of government goodies) and divorce rates are skyrocketing. Britney Spears gets more rights in a 3 day marriage then commited homosexual couples get after living their lives together.
BTW, what are the other lifestyles that you count among many equally acceptable options? No one is advocating pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy. We are talking about a commited, monogamous couple (that's 2 human beings, just like traditional marriages) that have decided to spend their lives together.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Seminole: *
What the government would be promoting are stable, **monogamous*, commited relationships.
They work, pay taxes, have traditional values and have commited themselves to a life together.
[/QUOTE]
Before I comment on the first sentence, I'd like to point out that you must have a very interesting definition of "traditional values". :)
Secondly, when you reduce the whole thing to a matter of civil rights... then, you lose the position to argue that 'government should be promoting stable, monogamous relationships'. People who are in polygamous relationships, group-sex, pre-marital sex etc etc, are as much a citizen of US and 'work, pay taxes, have traditional values' etc. I am sure, using the same logic of equal civil rights... all those people can lay claim to spousal benefits as well. You game?
You are going on a slipperly slope of civil rights for all, to push for gay rights... but you want to stop right there and disallow same rights to some other groups. The difference is just that now YOU ALSO disagree with their life-style. Tsk tsk. You can't really have it both ways, you know.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Before I comment on the first sentence, I'd like to point out that you must have a very interesting definition of "traditional values". :)
Secondly, when you reduce the whole thing to a matter of civil rights... then, you lose the position to argue that 'government should be promoting stable, monogamous relationships'. People who are in polygamous relationships, group-sex, pre-marital sex etc etc, are as much a citizen of US and 'work, pay taxes, have traditional values' etc. I am sure, using the same logic of equal civil rights... all those people can lay claim to spousal benefits as well. You game?
You are going on a slipperly slope of civil rights for all, to push for gay rights... but you want to stop right there and disallow same rights to some other groups. The difference is just that now YOU ALSO disagree with their life-style. Tsk tsk. You can't really have it both ways, you know.
[/QUOTE]
Traditoinal values as in love of family and country. Community involvement. Caring for each other and neighbors. Fidelity. Religion. Morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't confuse orientation with values.
I'm only asking we afford the same rights to all couples, 2 people who have commited themselves to a life together as we already do. The only difference is that it recognizes people of the same sex who are in similar relationships. It has nothing to do with polygamy, animals, children, statues or group sex. It does not change the whole definition of what a commited, monogamous relationship is.