Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Minneapolis also doesn't have California's high cost of living, either, and you can't live on sunshine alone. Don't get me wrong -- I think this is a terrible, terrible idea. I don't think it's going to cause any major exodus, either. People don't usually pull up their families and move just because they can't legally get married. Especially when the city as a whole is still VERY gay-friendly, even if many of the state's politicians are bigots. And, unfortunately, when so many of the other states out there are also racing to enact discriminatory laws while there's still time. They know time is ticking on this one; the reality is that the younger generations, even most culturally conservative young people, don't see this as a pressing issue. I think it's a matter of when, not if, gay people have the right to a civil marriage at both state and federal level. In the meantime, I hope that Minnesota voters will vote to keep a separation of state and church. And I do think that having what will inevitably be a loud and well-funded battle on this topic will not be good for Minnesota's reputation and could hurt Minneapolis's ability to catch the attention of the "creative class" types. If I was considering a move to a new state and saw that they were seriously debating such a law I might have second thoughts, especially if I didn't already know much about the place to begin with. I don't think people are going to move out as a result, though, although there could be more difficulty convincing some newcomers to move in.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, of course, but the level of liberal arrogance in this thread is nauseating.
Since when is it liberal arrogance to believe in civil rights?
What about separation of church and state? Isn't that something people of both parties can believe in, whether or not they think gay people should be allowed to marry? If a church doesn't believe in gay marriage they do not have to perform them. The government doesn't mandate how churches (or temples, mosques, etc.) choose to offer or withhold their sacraments.
And it's not just liberals who support the equal rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Lots of Republicans out there do, too, not to mention those of other parties (Libertarians, anyone?)
Since when is it liberal arrogance to believe in civil rights?
What about separation of church and state? Isn't that something people of both parties can believe in, whether or not they think gay people should be allowed to marry? If a church doesn't believe in gay marriage they do not have to perform them. The government doesn't mandate how churches (or temples, mosques, etc.) choose to offer or withhold their sacraments.
And it's not just liberals who support the equal rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Lots of Republicans out there do, too, not to mention those of other parties (Libertarians, anyone?)
First, it's flavor-of-the-day, liberal arrogance to refer to this issue as "civil rights."
Second, gay organizations (akin to "churches") can recognize whatever the heck kind of relationships they want to. I'm not trying to stop people from having consensual sex (in private) with anybody.
Third, "gays" are not gay because of who they are in the sense that men are men because of who they are, or Hispanics are Hispanics because of who they are. Gays are gays because of what they do. This is the fundamental threshold issue. You might say, "but they are born that way." To which I say, I am sure that people are born with all different combinations of preclivities (including sexual), and that people's environments shape their psyche in all kinds of ways as well. Just as one person may be more inclined to desire sexual experimentation, another may well be inclined toward cleptomania. But if you say that homosexuality is an immutable trait, then I ask you whether you say that pedophilia is also an immutable trait. Are pedophiles, by definition, incorrigible child abusers? Are rapists incorrigible by nature? Are thieves incorrigible by nature? What about bigamy? Surely at least some people have thought it nice to have multiple sexual partners at the same time--does that mean polygamous marriage is a fundamental civil right?
First, it's flavor-of-the-day, liberal arrogance to refer to this issue as "civil rights."
Second, gay organizations (akin to "churches") can recognize whatever the heck kind of relationships they want to. I'm not trying to stop people from having consensual sex (in private) with anybody.
Third, "gays" are not gay because of who they are in the sense that men are men because of who they are, or Hispanics are Hispanics because of who they are. Gays are gays because of what they do. This is the fundamental threshold issue. You might say, "but they are born that way." To which I say, I am sure that people are born with all different combinations of preclivities (including sexual), and that people's environments shape their psyche in all kinds of ways as well. Just as one person may be more inclined to desire sexual experimentation, another may well be inclined toward cleptomania. But if you say that homosexuality is an immutable trait, then I ask you whether you say that pedophilia is also an immutable trait. Are pedophiles, by definition, incorrigible child abusers? Are rapists incorrigible by nature? Are thieves incorrigible by nature? What about bigamy? Surely at least some people have thought it nice to have multiple sexual partners at the same time--does that mean polygamous marriage is a fundamental civil right?
To call out liberal arrogance and then post this is...well, disgusting.
Unlike the thieves, pedophiles, and child abusers you listed above, two men or two women in a monogamous relationship are hurting absolutely nobody and should be allowed to make a legal agreement that is bound by the government to ensure that they receive the full rights that all heterosexual couples are guaranteed.
To pretend that homosexuality is just some lifestyle choice is ridiculous. About half of my close male friends are gay. If they could "fix" their gay, they probably would. Heck, one told me he's ashamed that he likes men because he feels like he lets his family down. Another has a conservative, Christian upbringing. His mother told him that he'll eventually find the right girl and that she "just wished you weren't gay!"
To even compare these people to criminals is astonishing.
And to pretend that "gay organizations" can be like churches is ludicrous. Last time I checked, you can't have a gay organization "gay marry" you and have it recognized by the government. A church, on the other hand, can ordain a marriage (after the correct filings, of course) and *poof* - you're straight married!
Don't call it marriage for all I care. In fact, throw that stupid term out the window. The government should recognize civil unions for everyone. Then whatever church or "gay organization" (that can apparently marry?) can ordain a marriage or whatever they want to call it.
But please, don't act like this is liberal arrogance to want to ensure that gay don't remain people on the fringe. Being gay is just as much a part of them as being white or black or Hispanic is. To claim otherwise is just as bold as attacking mental illness as somehow less than a physical problem (after all, it's their actions and what's in their brain, right?)
To call out liberal arrogance and then post this is...well, disgusting.
Unlike the thieves, pedophiles, and child abusers you listed above, two men or two women in a monogamous relationship are hurting absolutely nobody and should be allowed to make a legal agreement that is bound by the government to ensure that they receive the full rights that all heterosexual couples are guaranteed.
To pretend that homosexuality is just some lifestyle choice is ridiculous. About half of my close male friends are gay. If they could "fix" their gay, they probably would. Heck, one told me he's ashamed that he likes men because he feels like he lets his family down. Another has a conservative, Christian upbringing. His mother told him that he'll eventually find the right girl and that she "just wished you weren't gay!"
To even compare these people to criminals is astonishing.
And to pretend that "gay organizations" can be like churches is ludicrous. Last time I checked, you can't have a gay organization "gay marry" you and have it recognized by the government. A church, on the other hand, can ordain a marriage (after the correct filings, of course) and *poof* - you're straight married!
Don't call it marriage for all I care. In fact, throw that stupid term out the window. The government should recognize civil unions for everyone. Then whatever church or "gay organization" (that can apparently marry?) can ordain a marriage or whatever they want to call it.
But please, don't act like this is liberal arrogance to want to ensure that gay don't remain people on the fringe. Being gay is just as much a part of them as being white or black or Hispanic is. To claim otherwise is just as bold as attacking mental illness as somehow less than a physical problem (after all, it's their actions and what's in their brain, right?)
For all your heavy-handed self-righteousness, you never answered any of my questions. (I was, after all, comparing the psychology of homosexuality and pedophilia/etc., not calling gays criminals... although you just may have labeled homosexuality a mental illness...?)
The question remains: do you believe that anybody who initiates a sexual encounter with a child was "born that way" and "can't change"? (Also feel free to address any of the other questions posed in my previous post.)
The answer was plainly implied. But since you want to play that game, I'll spell it out for you. Yes, I believe that pedophiles are born with that predisposition, just as I believe that someone can be born with sociopathic/psychopathic predispositions that lead them to be violent murderers. That's why I'm okay with life sentences without the possibility of parole. Again, as stated by the previous poster, these people do great harm to others. Who exactly is harmed by the LGBT couple seeking to marry?
For all your heavy-handed self-righteousness, you never answered any of my questions. (I was, after all, comparing the psychology of homosexuality and pedophilia/etc., not calling gays criminals... although you just may have labeled homosexuality a mental illness...?)
The question remains: do you believe that anybody who initiates a sexual encounter with a child was "born that way" and "can't change"? (Also feel free to address any of the other questions posed in my previous post.)
If you'd prefer it spelled out to you, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Quote:
gay organizations (akin to "churches") can recognize whatever the heck kind of relationships they want to. I'm not trying to stop people from having consensual sex (in private) with anybody.
I'm glad you aren't opposed to people having consensual sex. Do you get points for that? "Gay organizations" can't legally recognize any relationship any more than the Boys and Girls Club can.
Quote:
Third, "gays" are not gay because of who they are in the sense that men are men because of who they are, or Hispanics are Hispanics because of who they are. Gays are gays because of what they do. This is the fundamental threshold issue. You might say, "but they are born that way." To which I say, I am sure that people are born with all different combinations of preclivities (including sexual), and that people's environments shape their psyche in all kinds of ways as well.
Quote:
(I was, after all, comparing the psychology of homosexuality and pedophilia/etc., not calling gays criminals... although you just may have labeled homosexuality a mental illness...?)
Physical traits are no more part of us than those of our mind. Naturally you are making the suggestion that I think homosexuality is akin to mental illness. Fortunately, I'm here to correct you. No. I don't think homosexuality is a mental illness. That said, being gay isn't a "physical" trait. It's part of the makeup of the mind. My previous point was that the physical isn't any more real than the structure of our minds.
I was diagnosed with epilepsy early in my teenage years. It's not a physical thing in the slightest. The seizure I had sure was. Just as epilepsy is no less part of me than my nose is, being gay is no less part of a person than their skin color, sex, etc.
Quote:
But if you say that homosexuality is an immutable trait, then I ask you whether you say that pedophilia is also an immutable trait. Are pedophiles, by definition, incorrigible child abusers?
I won't pretend to be an expert on pedophiles. But from what I've heard, they tend to strike over and over. So, it's probably fairly immutable. I'm sure some have "been cured", but they have also committed a crime - stealing the innocence of a child and as I would totally support locking them up forever.
Quote:
Are rapists incorrigible by nature?
Rape is a broad term. It can be everything from non-consensual sex to illegal sex (an adult having sex with a minor, for instance). That said, I once again won't pretend to be an expert on rape. But what I've learned in the few psychology and sociology classes is that it's typically for power. And some men (or women) will rape once. Some will rape over and over.
Quote:
Are thieves incorrigible by nature?
A kleptomaniac? Yes. But plenty of people steal just because they want to and don't have the burning desire to steal every day.
Quote:
What about bigamy? Surely at least some people have thought it nice to have multiple sexual partners at the same time--does that mean polygamous marriage is a fundamental civil right?
I'm sure some people do - the fundamental Mormons certainly do. Unfortunately, this relates very little. This is among the many ludicrous questions asked. I've also heard, "What if someone wants to marry a dog? If we allow gay marriage, why not allow bestiality too?" People who ask those questions are delusion. Animal marriage/sex is stupid because they can never consent. As for multiple marriages, I don't particularly care. Do I support it? No, but for the reason that it has limited added value. We're talking about a contract between two people that guarantees them certain rights because they agree to be faithful to each other. That sort of flies out the door when you're with three women at once.
People fighting gay issues make the mistake of making homosexuality into an action. Two men or women having consensual sex is an outcome of homosexuality, but it is not what homosexuality is. Even if they couldn't be physical with another person, they're still going to be just as gay on the inside. There is no magical "straight" switch. They can't change and just like the opposite sex. So why not let them be as happy (or miserable) as straight people are in their straight marriages?
Does that answer better?
Now that I've rolled over and handed you the answers, perhaps you can answer a question?
You never actually said why you were opposed to gays being able to get married. Instead you ask why we can't marry multiple people and bring up pedophilia (which is completely unrelated to the topic of gay marriage). So why are you so opposed?
Talk about self-righteous. Of course, SS comes from that part of the country where it remains fashionable to marry your cousin, or your horse (the latter's still legal in Florida? Oh, my...)
BTW, the link was to a joke newscast. Comedy Central is just a humor site, and we're not about to get real news from them - unlike all the official news channels out there. Right?
It matters to me because I do believe in separation of church and state, and because I feel that my gay and lesbian friends and family members should have access to the full legal rights as I do. I don't understand how someone could care strongly the other way, however; whether or not one's religion or church recognizes a marriage is entirely their business.
Yeah I get it. I was more referencing those who are not gay and strongly oppose it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
