What's a liberal?

[Gem]

If we are going with the way the majority of Americans feel about abortion the law would look drastically different than it does today.

The nation is about equally split Pro-Choice, Pro-Life...with the Pro-Choice holding a small majority.

However, as Anna Quinlen wrote in a very interesting editorial in Newsweek a few months ago...the Pro-Choice majority is, in itself DRASTICALLY split with people who support abortion only with major restrictions taking the HUGE majority over people who support abortion on demand.

Most people support abortion in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother, in cases of extreme deformity or medical disability, and often...only during the first trimester. They do not support abortion as a method of birth control and they do not support having to pay for the abortions of women who use abortions as birth control.

If the law reflected the TRUE opinions of Americans...it would be a drastically different issue.


A question for ProudDem: What is wrong with calling the act of any 3 adults who get married a "marriage"? Why should it be limited to 2 consenting adults?

 

[Avatar4321]

2 Questions Av,

Do you really think there is a possibility of abortion becoming illegal in the US? If they answer is yes do you think that situation will become permanent.

Yes. I am sure there were some skeptics who never thought slavery would become illegal either. I rather hope it wont take a civil war to end abortion though.

I don't think so. It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of abortion. It is based on what I think the majority wishes. Look, there is a Republican President, Senate, House, even the Supreme Court looks pretty Republican. If they can't do anything about abortion now, they never will. And they are not trying. That's why I said what I said about the Republicans.

Not with an activist court. Wait till Bush gets another conservative on the courts and we can see. The Court almost overturned Roe v. Wade in 92. With more conservative support they probably could now. Which would mean states get to decide and there is alot less support for abortion than liberals would like you to realize.

I couldn't care less about gay marriage. I just think they should have the same legal rights as everyone else. If they can have those rights without marriage it's alright with me. But if nothing changes either way it's not important to me and won't change my vote or my party affiliation. So to me it's not a very important issue.

The problem is they have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry anyone who 1)Is the opposite sex 2)Over the age of minority (varies depending on state) 3)Is not a blood relative 4)who is not currently married just like anyone else. In fact, a couple of gays married a couple of lesbians in Oregon or Washington a few months back. They did so to try to prove that they were oppressed. Ironically, they demonstrated that they had the same rights as anyone. They were free to marry. They were just under the same restrictions as anyone else.

What rights do gays somehow not have now? Yeah they keep yelling that we are denying their rights, but what rights can they get? The only right in marriage I can think of is the ability to have children. And I don't care how powerful the government is, it will always be impossible for a male and a male or a female and female to procreate. So why should we change 7000 years of customs to accomadate them?

As you say defense is important. Personally I think the insane upward spiral in the cost of living is much more important than whether a handful of gays want legal protection of their assets.

That's just it. What assets of homosexuals aren't protected now? If you want to pass your money to someone. You dont have to be married to do so. Just write a will saying you want to give so and so this or that. It takes like a couple hours. If you want them to have power to decide what happens to you in a hospital if you go unconscious or have to pull the plug, them give them power of attorney. There are already legal solutions to the so called rights they claim to be missing. So why force the issue on the people when they arent being discriminated against?

 

[Avatar4321]

If we are going with the way the majority of Americans feel about abortion the law would look drastically different than it does today.

The nation is about equally split Pro-Choice, Pro-Life...with the Pro-Choice holding a small majority.

This might have been true like 30 years ago, but its not true today. Politics has changed. Do you know why? Because those who support abortion kill the replacement population. They are culling themselves out of power politically.

 

[musicman]

Amendment X (the Tenth Amendndment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Roe v. Wade is bad law, and - as such - will be repealed - and soon.

This does not mean that abortion will be outlawed out of hand - liberal hysteria notwithstanding. It means that decisions on matters of behavior such as these will be determined by the people, rather than by self-styled social engineers in the judiciary...

...which, of course, goes a long way toward explaining liberal hysteria.

 

[ProudDem]

If we are going with the way the majority of Americans feel about abortion the law would look drastically different than it does today.

The nation is about equally split Pro-Choice, Pro-Life...with the Pro-Choice holding a small majority.

However, as Anna Quinlen wrote in a very interesting editorial in Newsweek a few months ago...the Pro-Choice majority is, in itself DRASTICALLY split with people who support abortion only with major restrictions taking the HUGE majority over people who support abortion on demand.

Most people support abortion in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother, in cases of extreme deformity or medical disability, and often...only during the first trimester. They do not support abortion as a method of birth control and they do not support having to pay for the abortions of women who use abortions as birth control.

If the law reflected the TRUE opinions of Americans...it would be a drastically different issue.

Those are excellent points, Gem. The circumstances you mention of when most people support abortion are the ones I support. Women who have used it because they failed to take precautions prior to having sex--despicable!

A question for ProudDem: What is wrong with calling the act of any 3 adults who get married a "marriage"? Why should it be limited to 2 consenting adults?

You know, Gem, I really hate it when people compare 2 members of the same sex to some sort of deviant behavior, such as marriage between 3 adults. Do you know how many republicans and/or homophobes have asked me the same question? Some have asked me what I think about people marrying their pets? Geez. A marriage should be about 2 people, regardless of their sex, making a permanent commitment. I just don't see how people can say that a human being, who just so happens to be gay, doesn't have the same rights as heterosexual people.

Someone mentioned marriage as a religious term. If a religion wants to prevent 2 men/women getting married, that is their preogative. However, if a state wants to define marriage, it should include gay marriage.

Why limit it to 2 people? Because that is the way it has always been. I know, I know--marriage has always been between a man and a woman--sorry, poor argument. A human being is a human being. Do you agree that desegregation should have occurred? African Americans are human beings, and they deserve to be treated like everyone else. Same with gay people.

 

[Nuc]

As far as abortion goes, we'll see what happens. It's my opinion only not an undeniable fact that it will remain legal, and that if not, it will become legal again in a short period of time.

Gay couples don't have the right to share their health benefits with their partners. That is something granted to married couples by the state and by employers, not the church. So I don't think gay couples should be discriminated against by state and employer in this regard. If this right would be granted by anyone I'd be satisfied. I certainly don't think churches should be forced to provide religious marriages to gays.

However your vehemence is proving my point. Republicans create hysteria on these matters to get the votes of any stray single issue voters (or double issue voters in this case) they can.

 

[Nuc]

Why limit it to 2 people? Because that is the way it has always been. I know, I know--marriage has always been between a man and a woman--sorry, poor argument. A human being is a human being. Do you agree that desegregation should have occurred? African Americans are human beings, and they deserve to be treated like everyone else. Same with gay people.

Marriage has not always been limited to 2 people. In this country Mormons practiced (and some still do) polygamy. In Islam, which like it or not is a huge population men are allowed 4 wives. And in some Himalayan areas polyandry is practiced. One wife with 2 husbands, usually brothers.

 

[Avatar4321]

Gay couples don't have the right to share their health benefits with their partners. That is something granted to married couples by the state and by employers, not the church. So I don't think gay couples should be discriminated against by state and employer in this regard. If this right would be granted by anyone I'd be satisfied. I certainly don't think churches should be forced to provide religious marriages to gays.

However your vehemence is proving my point. Republicans create hysteria on these matters to get the votes of any stray single issue voters (or double issue voters in this case) they can.

The health benefits isnt something the government should be involved with. Health benefits are private business not the state. And they have a very good reason not to provide health benefits to homosexuals. There is a higher rate of disease among homosexuals and lower life expectancy. If you were a health insurer would you want to take that problem on?

And if this is the only so called right that they are being denied why force the gay marriage issue? For one health care isnt a right. Second, if that is what they wanted then why not create one law, fix the problem instead of creating "gay marriage" and necessitating a whole new subset of laws? It would be more efficient just to create one law instead of forcing the issue on the public.

I still am dumbfounded how the destruction of the family can be such an unimportant issue for you. It's certainly not the most important but it certainly ranks up there because if you destroy the family you destroy our civilization.

 

[Nuc]

I still am dumbfounded how the destruction of the family can be such an unimportant issue for you. It's certainly not the most important but it certainly ranks up there because if you destroy the family you destroy our civilization.

I know several gay couples who have each been together for over 25 years. They look like stable families to me. My experience is that they are good people. They are my friends. I'm speaking from experience.

 

[Said1]

Gay couples don't have the right to share their health benefits with their partners. That is something granted to married couples by the state and by employers, not the church. So I don't think gay couples should be discriminated against by state and employer in this regard. If this right would be granted by anyone I'd be satisfied. I certainly don't think churches should be forced to provide religious marriages to gays.

The deviants (sarcasm) are able to get same sex benefits here, not something I disapprove of and the same benefits are granted to common law couples.

 

[Gem]

ProudDem Wrote:

You know, Gem, I really hate it when people compare 2 members of the same sex to some sort of deviant behavior, such as marriage between 3 adults. Do you know how many republicans and/or homophobes have asked me the same question? Some have asked me what I think about people marrying their pets? Geez. A marriage should be about 2 people, regardless of their sex, making a permanent commitment. I just don't see how people can say that a human being, who just so happens to be gay, doesn't have the same rights as heterosexual people.

You know, ProudDem, I really hate it when people push for changing something that has been operating in our society since its inception without bothering to consider how their decision could effect society down the line for the positive or the negative...

I am not comparing polygamy to homosexuality. Nor am I comparing homosexuality to bestiality. You have done what most who support gay marriage do when reasons why it might not be a good idea are mentioned...they scream that you can not compare homosexuality to having sex with animals and then move on to say homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Calm down for half a second, and read what I am asking again...perhaps it would help if you could start by understanding that, unlike many here, I truly have nothing against people who are homosexual. I have friends and family members who are gay, and I wish nothing but the best from them in this life. I have good friends who have been in a committed gay relationship for over 15 years...I would love to attend their wedding. It would make me very happy...

But to be an adult...and an active participant in this experiment of our government and society means occassionally stepping away from the kid's table of, "it would make me happy so lets do it," and stepping up to the adult table of, "before we do it...lets make damn sure that we aren't going to negatively impact our society down the road. Lets talk, like adults, about ALL the positives and negatives of this decision without labeling eachother as homophobes or heathens...lets discuss the NON-religious reasons to oppose this decision...and yes...lets prepare ourselves for a decision that might not be warm and fuzzy...but might be better for our society as a whole."

We legalized abortion, made it a Constitutional right....all because we loved the notion of a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. They sound so nice...who wouldn't support a woman's right to have those things...it was the height of the feminist movement...to oppose those things would have been, in many cases, social suicide...hence why you saw pro-choice people in the 70%-80% range at the time...(now it has dropped significantly).

But we never really stopped to think about how abortion-on-demand would effect our society...aside from "a woman should be able to control her body." And there HAVE been negative consequences...MANY of them...to this decision...that have effected our society ever since. Now what those consequences are too big for this thread...but it is a perfect example of how what we wanted to do at one particular moment effected and will continue to effect generations to come...in many ways, for the worst.

So before we rush into legalizing gay marriage (and yes, it is rushing...considering that 10 years ago this conversation would have been absolutely ridiculous, infathomable), lets make damn sure that we have considered what COULD happen...as a result of the legalization of gay marriage.

One of the possible difficulties I forsee...is how to STOP redefining marriage once we have started. Since the inception of this nation marriage has been between one woman and one man. Now, you can interject the difficulties of inter-racial marriage into the discussion...but it is a false analogy...since the definition: one man and one woman, never changed.

When we change the definition of marriage to: any two people. We have told our society that the definition of marriage in this country if fluid, flexible. That we can change it any time we want based upon the views and whims of groups that provide enough political pressure to do so.

That means...that in 20 years, or more, or less...other groups that have nothing to do with gay people (note that I am not comparing gay people to these groups) can come forward with the same argument that the gay people used to redefine marriage the first time....except that when the new group tries to redefine marriage...this society will not be able to say, "But wait, the definition of marriage in this country has always been this."

Legally, if we redefine marriage from one man and one woman to two people, then we have allowed the definition of marriage to be constantly questions...constantly redefined. We should, in good conscience, put aside what our hearts may want to do...for what it could me in the long run.

So...back to my original point...How, once you have redefined marriage to be between two people....will you tell three people that they do not have the right to be legally married?

 

[Nuc]

ProudDem Wrote:


You know, ProudDem, I really hate it when people push for changing something that has been operating in our society since its inception without bothering to consider how their decision could effect society down the line for the positive or the negative...

But to be an adult...and an active participant in this experiment of our government and society means occassionally stepping away from the kid's table of, "it would make me happy so lets do it," and stepping up to the adult table of, "before we do it...lets make damn sure that we aren't going to negatively impact our society down the road. Lets talk, like adults, about ALL the positives and negatives of this decision without labeling eachother as homophobes or heathens...lets discuss the NON-religious reasons to oppose this decision...and yes...lets prepare ourselves for a decision that might not be warm and fuzzy...but might be better for our society as a whole."

We legalized abortion, made it a Constitutional right....all because we loved the notion of a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. They sound so nice...who wouldn't support a woman's right to have those things...it was the height of the feminist movement...to oppose those things would have been, in many cases, social suicide...hence why you saw pro-choice people in the 70%-80% range at the time...(now it has dropped significantly).

But we never really stopped to think about how abortion-on-demand would effect our society...aside from "a woman should be able to control her body." And there HAVE been negative consequences...MANY of them...to this decision...that have effected our society ever since. Now what those consequences are too big for this thread...but it is a perfect example of how what we wanted to do at one particular moment effected and will continue to effect generations to come...in many ways, for the worst.

Excellent point here. Many people refuse to look into the future and see the harmful results of present actions. Anti-environmentalists are perhaps the best example of this.

Some everyday things that we take for granted have wreaked havoc either on society or on the planet.

The automobile. Has caused more damage to this planet than any other invention. But only the Amish are willing to go without.

The Pill. Seemed like a good idea at the time but has caused the top of the genetic pyramid to shrink even more. Because intelligent people tend to use the pill and unintelligent people-not.

The food industry is another group of people who refuse to look forward and see the eventual results of their bad practices. Mad cow disease is proof.

 

[dilloduck]

Excellent point here. Many people refuse to look into the future and see the harmful results of present actions. Anti-environmentalists are perhaps the best example of this.

Some everyday things that we take for granted have wreaked havoc either on society or on the planet.

The automobile. Has caused more damage to this planet than any other invention. But only the Amish are willing to go without.

The Pill. Seemed like a good idea at the time but has caused the top of the genetic pyramid to shrink even more. Because intelligent people tend to use the pill and unintelligent people-not.

The food industry is another group of people who refuse to look forward and see the eventual results of their bad practices. Mad cow disease is proof.

No doubt immediate gratification, laziness and making a quick buck have been disastrous for civilization in general. Self-sacrifice is nearly unheard of. I have absolutely no idea how to reverse this toxic philosophy other than through parenting, education and spirituality but truthfully it often looks like it's simply too late.

 

[Gunny]

ProudDem Wrote:


You know, ProudDem, I really hate it when people push for changing something that has been operating in our society since its inception without bothering to consider how their decision could effect society down the line for the positive or the negative...

I am not comparing polygamy to homosexuality. Nor am I comparing homosexuality to bestiality. You have done what most who support gay marriage do when reasons why it might not be a good idea are mentioned...they scream that you can not compare homosexuality to having sex with animals and then move on to say homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Calm down for half a second, and read what I am asking again...perhaps it would help if you could start by understanding that, unlike many here, I truly have nothing against people who are homosexual. I have friends and family members who are gay, and I wish nothing but the best from them in this life. I have good friends who have been in a committed gay relationship for over 15 years...I would love to attend their wedding. It would make me very happy...

But to be an adult...and an active participant in this experiment of our government and society means occassionally stepping away from the kid's table of, "it would make me happy so lets do it," and stepping up to the adult table of, "before we do it...lets make damn sure that we aren't going to negatively impact our society down the road. Lets talk, like adults, about ALL the positives and negatives of this decision without labeling eachother as homophobes or heathens...lets discuss the NON-religious reasons to oppose this decision...and yes...lets prepare ourselves for a decision that might not be warm and fuzzy...but might be better for our society as a whole."

We legalized abortion, made it a Constitutional right....all because we loved the notion of a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. They sound so nice...who wouldn't support a woman's right to have those things...it was the height of the feminist movement...to oppose those things would have been, in many cases, social suicide...hence why you saw pro-choice people in the 70%-80% range at the time...(now it has dropped significantly).

But we never really stopped to think about how abortion-on-demand would effect our society...aside from "a woman should be able to control her body." And there HAVE been negative consequences...MANY of them...to this decision...that have effected our society ever since. Now what those consequences are too big for this thread...but it is a perfect example of how what we wanted to do at one particular moment effected and will continue to effect generations to come...in many ways, for the worst.

So before we rush into legalizing gay marriage (and yes, it is rushing...considering that 10 years ago this conversation would have been absolutely ridiculous, infathomable), lets make damn sure that we have considered what COULD happen...as a result of the legalization of gay marriage.

One of the possible difficulties I forsee...is how to STOP redefining marriage once we have started. Since the inception of this nation marriage has been between one woman and one man. Now, you can interject the difficulties of inter-racial marriage into the discussion...but it is a false analogy...since the definition: one man and one woman, never changed.

When we change the definition of marriage to: any two people. We have told our society that the definition of marriage in this country if fluid, flexible. That we can change it any time we want based upon the views and whims of groups that provide enough political pressure to do so.

That means...that in 20 years, or more, or less...other groups that have nothing to do with gay people (note that I am not comparing gay people to these groups) can come forward with the same argument that the gay people used to redefine marriage the first time....except that when the new group tries to redefine marriage...this society will not be able to say, "But wait, the definition of marriage in this country has always been this."

Legally, if we redefine marriage from one man and one woman to two people, then we have allowed the definition of marriage to be constantly questions...constantly redefined. We should, in good conscience, put aside what our hearts may want to do...for what it could me in the long run.

So...back to my original point...How, once you have redefined marriage to be between two people....will you tell three people that they do not have the right to be legally married?

This is probably one of the best posts I've ever read. But WHERE's the drama?

 

[Avatar4321]

Excellent point here. Many people refuse to look into the future and see the harmful results of present actions. Anti-environmentalists are perhaps the best example of this.

Some everyday things that we take for granted have wreaked havoc either on society or on the planet.

The automobile. Has caused more damage to this planet than any other invention. But only the Amish are willing to go without.

The Pill. Seemed like a good idea at the time but has caused the top of the genetic pyramid to shrink even more. Because intelligent people tend to use the pill and unintelligent people-not.

The food industry is another group of people who refuse to look forward and see the eventual results of their bad practices. Mad cow disease is proof.

I have quite the opposite opinion. Its the so called environmentalists that dont look into the future and see the harmful results of their actions. They take some junk science experiment make some illogical conclusion about whats happening to the environment and jump up and down how we need to change things without looking at the big picture. Take global warming for example. Twenty years ago the theory was global cooling. now with more data its global warming. They have yet to provide any evidence that any warming and cooling is manmade rather than the natural climate cycle that we have no control over, yet somehow we are supposed to shut down industry for them. It's one of the reasons communists have jumped on the environmental band wagon. They can use the issue to get an emotional response for people to support their anti capitalist propaganda, cause hey who wants to live in a crappy environment? No one really. So people buy it hook line and sinker. Such as your nonesense about the automobile. You realize that cows farting gives off more Green house gas then an SUV dont you?

The pill as you say is another issue altogether. If people don't have the intelligence to reproduce. Then, honestly, I don't think they were that smart to begin with. So it's probably better that they dont reproduce more.

 

[ProudDem]

ProudDem Wrote:


You know, ProudDem, I really hate it when people push for changing something that has been operating in our society since its inception without bothering to consider how their decision could effect society down the line for the positive or the negative...

I am not comparing polygamy to homosexuality. Nor am I comparing homosexuality to bestiality. You have done what most who support gay marriage do when reasons why it might not be a good idea are mentioned...they scream that you can not compare homosexuality to having sex with animals and then move on to say homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Calm down for half a second, and read what I am asking again...perhaps it would help if you could start by understanding that, unlike many here, I truly have nothing against people who are homosexual. I have friends and family members who are gay, and I wish nothing but the best from them in this life. I have good friends who have been in a committed gay relationship for over 15 years...I would love to attend their wedding. It would make me very happy...

But to be an adult...and an active participant in this experiment of our government and society means occassionally stepping away from the kid's table of, "it would make me happy so lets do it," and stepping up to the adult table of, "before we do it...lets make damn sure that we aren't going to negatively impact our society down the road. Lets talk, like adults, about ALL the positives and negatives of this decision without labeling eachother as homophobes or heathens...lets discuss the NON-religious reasons to oppose this decision...and yes...lets prepare ourselves for a decision that might not be warm and fuzzy...but might be better for our society as a whole."

We legalized abortion, made it a Constitutional right....all because we loved the notion of a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. They sound so nice...who wouldn't support a woman's right to have those things...it was the height of the feminist movement...to oppose those things would have been, in many cases, social suicide...hence why you saw pro-choice people in the 70%-80% range at the time...(now it has dropped significantly).

But we never really stopped to think about how abortion-on-demand would effect our society...aside from "a woman should be able to control her body." And there HAVE been negative consequences...MANY of them...to this decision...that have effected our society ever since. Now what those consequences are too big for this thread...but it is a perfect example of how what we wanted to do at one particular moment effected and will continue to effect generations to come...in many ways, for the worst.

So before we rush into legalizing gay marriage (and yes, it is rushing...considering that 10 years ago this conversation would have been absolutely ridiculous, infathomable), lets make damn sure that we have considered what COULD happen...as a result of the legalization of gay marriage.

One of the possible difficulties I forsee...is how to STOP redefining marriage once we have started. Since the inception of this nation marriage has been between one woman and one man. Now, you can interject the difficulties of inter-racial marriage into the discussion...but it is a false analogy...since the definition: one man and one woman, never changed.

When we change the definition of marriage to: any two people. We have told our society that the definition of marriage in this country if fluid, flexible. That we can change it any time we want based upon the views and whims of groups that provide enough political pressure to do so.

That means...that in 20 years, or more, or less...other groups that have nothing to do with gay people (note that I am not comparing gay people to these groups) can come forward with the same argument that the gay people used to redefine marriage the first time....except that when the new group tries to redefine marriage...this society will not be able to say, "But wait, the definition of marriage in this country has always been this."

Legally, if we redefine marriage from one man and one woman to two people, then we have allowed the definition of marriage to be constantly questions...constantly redefined. We should, in good conscience, put aside what our hearts may want to do...for what it could me in the long run.

So...back to my original point...How, once you have redefined marriage to be between two people....will you tell three people that they do not have the right to be legally married?

Sorry, Gem, but your arguments are hollow to me. Marriage should be allowed for any 2 human beings. For you to project that it could then cause people to want to change it to allowing three people is just ridiculous. TWO HUMAN BEINGS. Sure marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but let's not forget that we once had segregation laws as well. Things change.

NO ONE can tell me that allowing two members of the same sex to marry is going to negatively affect our culture. In fact, I think it would show tolerance, something that many of you on this message board clearly lack as to this issue. End of argument. I won't discuss this anymore because I don't care to hear about anyone's arguments about how we should not allow gay marriage. If that gives you all a negative impression on me, that's fine with me. This is an area about which I feel strongly. I just hope that none of you ever have a gay child during your lifetime and watch them struggle due to all the prejudices associated with being gay.

 

[Bonnie]

ProudDem Wrote:


You know, ProudDem, I really hate it when people push for changing something that has been operating in our society since its inception without bothering to consider how their decision could effect society down the line for the positive or the negative...

I am not comparing polygamy to homosexuality. Nor am I comparing homosexuality to bestiality. You have done what most who support gay marriage do when reasons why it might not be a good idea are mentioned...they scream that you can not compare homosexuality to having sex with animals and then move on to say homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Calm down for half a second, and read what I am asking again...perhaps it would help if you could start by understanding that, unlike many here, I truly have nothing against people who are homosexual. I have friends and family members who are gay, and I wish nothing but the best from them in this life. I have good friends who have been in a committed gay relationship for over 15 years...I would love to attend their wedding. It would make me very happy...

But to be an adult...and an active participant in this experiment of our government and society means occassionally stepping away from the kid's table of, "it would make me happy so lets do it," and stepping up to the adult table of, "before we do it...lets make damn sure that we aren't going to negatively impact our society down the road. Lets talk, like adults, about ALL the positives and negatives of this decision without labeling eachother as homophobes or heathens...lets discuss the NON-religious reasons to oppose this decision...and yes...lets prepare ourselves for a decision that might not be warm and fuzzy...but might be better for our society as a whole."

We legalized abortion, made it a Constitutional right....all because we loved the notion of a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. They sound so nice...who wouldn't support a woman's right to have those things...it was the height of the feminist movement...to oppose those things would have been, in many cases, social suicide...hence why you saw pro-choice people in the 70%-80% range at the time...(now it has dropped significantly).

But we never really stopped to think about how abortion-on-demand would effect our society...aside from "a woman should be able to control her body." And there HAVE been negative consequences...MANY of them...to this decision...that have effected our society ever since. Now what those consequences are too big for this thread...but it is a perfect example of how what we wanted to do at one particular moment effected and will continue to effect generations to come...in many ways, for the worst.

So before we rush into legalizing gay marriage (and yes, it is rushing...considering that 10 years ago this conversation would have been absolutely ridiculous, infathomable), lets make damn sure that we have considered what COULD happen...as a result of the legalization of gay marriage.

One of the possible difficulties I forsee...is how to STOP redefining marriage once we have started. Since the inception of this nation marriage has been between one woman and one man. Now, you can interject the difficulties of inter-racial marriage into the discussion...but it is a false analogy...since the definition: one man and one woman, never changed.

When we change the definition of marriage to: any two people. We have told our society that the definition of marriage in this country if fluid, flexible. That we can change it any time we want based upon the views and whims of groups that provide enough political pressure to do so.

That means...that in 20 years, or more, or less...other groups that have nothing to do with gay people (note that I am not comparing gay people to these groups) can come forward with the same argument that the gay people used to redefine marriage the first time....except that when the new group tries to redefine marriage...this society will not be able to say, "But wait, the definition of marriage in this country has always been this."

Legally, if we redefine marriage from one man and one woman to two people, then we have allowed the definition of marriage to be constantly questions...constantly redefined. We should, in good conscience, put aside what our hearts may want to do...for what it could me in the long run.

So...back to my original point...How, once you have redefined marriage to be between two people....will you tell three people that they do not have the right to be legally married?

All excellent points Gem. I would add one more and that is before we make drastic decisions about homosexual marriage based on this notion that we must go along with it otherwise we are closed minded and homophobic is a ridiculous reason in and of itself. Same holds true for abortion. If someone wants to call me closed minded for believeing that abortion in most cases is murder then let them, it's not a strong enough argument for me to change my mind in any way. People need to be more secure with their own core beliefs and not be swayed to changing those beliefs because they have been shamed into it by the left elites.

 

[ProudDem]

All excellent points Gem. I would add one more and that is before we make drastic decisions about homosexual marriage based on this notion that we must go along with it otherwise we are closed minded and homophobic is a ridiculous reason in and of itself. Same holds true for abortion. If someone wants to call me closed minded for believeing that abortion in most cases is murder then let them, it's not a strong enough argument for me to change my mind in any way. People need to be more secure with their own core beliefs and not be swayed to changing those beliefs because they have been shamed into it by the left elites.

What I think is closed-minded is your inability to see the difference between opposing gay marriage (which does not kill anyone) and opposing abortion (which does involve killing something). I would be very surprised if someone called you closed-minded for opposing abortion, unless you argued that if the woman's life was in danger that an abortion should still not be done.

I believe that the more secure someone is with themselves and their own sexuality, the less likely they would oppose gay marriage.

 

[Nuc]

I believe that the more secure someone is with themselves and their own sexuality, the less likely they would oppose gay marriage.

Some of the most virulent anti-gay rhetoric I've heard has come out of the mouths of closet queers. I've known several people who didn't even realize they were gay. But everybody else did.

 

[Avatar4321]

What I think is closed-minded is your inability to see the difference between opposing gay marriage (which does not kill anyone) and opposing abortion (which does involve killing something). I would be very surprised if someone called you closed-minded for opposing abortion, unless you argued that if the woman's life was in danger that an abortion should still not be done.

I believe that the more secure someone is with themselves and their own sexuality, the less likely they would oppose gay marriage.

I am amazed at how some people seem to think that matters of life and death and important matters regardless of whether we are talking about abortion or gay marriage.

Don't you just love PD's attack plan? Rather than make any substantial arguments you just label anyone who opposes you as "Homophobe" or "insecure with their sexuality"

Tell me who is more insecure with their sexuality? The people who are defending traditional marriage, or the ones who are trying to change marriage to justify their sexual behavior? If homosexuals are so secure in their sexuality, why do they have to get people to tolerate their behavior? It wouldn't matter. Heck most people wouldnt even know about it if they kept it private like most respectable people keep their sex lives private.