Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:35 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Gay marriage...yay or nay? 
Author Message
Post Roger Ebert weighs in
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/08 ... heard.html

A good read as always
Rob


Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:37 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
I honestly don't mind the prospect. I am somewhat of a GLBT activist with some of my closest family members being homosexuals, but I don't know why the marriage debate has always left me hanging somewhere inbetween. It doesn't bother me but I find it... strange. Hard to really explain why but it's an awkward topic but I suppose I support it since I do try and help fight the prejudice.


Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:31 am
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 972
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Chie1989 wrote:
I honestly don't mind the prospect. I am somewhat of a GLBT activist with some of my closest family members being homosexuals, but I don't know why the marriage debate has always left me hanging somewhere inbetween. It doesn't bother me but I find it... strange. Hard to really explain why but it's an awkward topic but I suppose I support it since I do try and help fight the prejudice.


I completely understand. It is a little strange sounding at first. We've been raised with one conception of marriage, and now they're suddenly arguing for an alternative. But the bottom line is that we have to remember why gays and lesibans want to get married: they want to affirm their love for one another and have the same exact rights as straight people.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:27 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
moviemkr7 wrote:
I completely understand. It is a little strange sounding at first. We've been raised with one conception of marriage, and now they're suddenly arguing for an alternative. But the bottom line is that we have to remember why gays and lesibans want to get married: they want to affirm their love for one another and have the same exact rights as straight people.


I think I'll call them lesibans from now on, its cuter and much funner ;)


Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:00 am
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Isn't that who we're fighting in Afghanistan? The Lesibans?


Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:36 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
I would assume that it has something to do with Lebanon.


Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:12 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a"marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

That being said there is nothing wrong with any two people becoming life long "partners" with a certificate signed by a judge.


Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:26 am
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a"marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

That being said there is nothing wrong with any two people becoming life long "partners" with a certificate signed by a judge.


Hmmm, but a man and a woman can get married by a judge, so why can't a judge marry two people of the same sex? I'd understand your point more if you objected solely to a church marriage for homosexuals (which a church has every right to do).


Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:57 am
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
These things are so strange.

In 25 years my kids will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Hell, it was less than 100 years ago that women were 2nd class citizens and could not vote in my home country. Shame on us :-(

Rob


Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:24 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
ed_metal_head wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a"marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

That being said there is nothing wrong with any two people becoming life long "partners" with a certificate signed by a judge.


Hmmm, but a man and a woman can get married by a judge, so why can't a judge marry two people of the same sex? I'd understand your point more if you objected solely to a church marriage for homosexuals (which a church has every right to do).


I guess I just didn't explain my reasoning well. I believe that a judge should be able to pronounce any two persons (gay, straight, or otherwise) who love one another (and are both of age of course) as "legal partners."

I believe that a "marriage" is the "union of a man and woman under god" that must be enacted by a minister, priest, Rabbi, or other religious entity of that man and woman's prospective religious beliefs and obviously, they must obtain a certificate as well for legal state purposes. Basically, yes, I believe that homosexuals shouldn't be "married" in a church.

What I'm saying is that if homosexuals would stop calling it gay marriage and instead call it a " legal life partnership", I think it would go a long way for their cause. I know it is the same thing legally, but it is not the same thing religiously; and since the religious aspect is what is holding most naysayers back, just look at it like I do. I just fixed this whole thing with semantics.


Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:40 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 972
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a"marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

That being said there is nothing wrong with any two people becoming life long "partners" with a certificate signed by a judge.


Hmmm, but a man and a woman can get married by a judge, so why can't a judge marry two people of the same sex? I'd understand your point more if you objected solely to a church marriage for homosexuals (which a church has every right to do).


I guess I just didn't explain my reasoning well. I believe that a judge should be able to pronounce any two persons (gay, straight, or otherwise) who love one another (and are both of age of course) as "legal partners."

I believe that a "marriage" is the "union of a man and woman under god" that must be enacted by a minister, priest, Rabbi, or other religious entity of that man and woman's prospective religious beliefs and obviously, they must obtain a certificate as well for legal state purposes. Basically, yes, I believe that homosexuals shouldn't be "married" in a church.

What I'm saying is that if homosexuals would stop calling it gay marriage and instead call it a " legal life partnership", I think it would go a long way for their cause. I know it is the same thing legally, but it is not the same thing religiously; and since the religious aspect is what is holding most naysayers back, just look at it like I do. I just fixed this whole thing with semantics.


Ah, but therein lies the rub. You're calling what is essentially the same thing by two different labels. The potential for unequal treatment is impossible to deny. In fact, it's been happening the whole time.

The thing is that unless people are treated equally by law, there are some people who will not view them as equals. That's what this is about. Gay people want to have the exact same rights, semantics and all, of straight people. There are people who are going to think that "different" means "unequal," and the politically active Christian Right like James Dobson and Donald Wildmon are going to take full advantage of that.

Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they don't want to. That's not only unfair, but unconstitutional. But the Christian Right is eliminating that distinction.

The bottom line is that this is about equality, and unless gays and lesbians are granted equality word for word with straight people, there will always be discrimination.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:37 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a” marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

I don’t understand this argument at all. You object to the legalization of gay marriage out of fear that the institution will change the English language semantically? Let me assure you, there is no correlation whatsoever between the language we use and some kind of absolute reality. The definition of words is nearly as variable as their pronunciation. The fact that definitions change is just something we all have to deal with.

However, I think you bring up a legitimate concern about one of the possible consequences of gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage potentially could open up institutions such as the Catholic Church to lawsuits should they refuse to officiate marriages between members of the same sex. Any law legalizing marriage between people of the same sex should also ensure that it doesn’t force religious institutions to perform acts that are against their beliefs. That said, I suspect the first and fourteenth amendments are sufficient to prevent this from actually occurring. In any case, they’ll certainly prevent anyone from actually winning such a foolish lawsuit.

Quote:
I believe that a "marriage" is the "union of a man and woman under god" that must be enacted by a minister, priest, Rabbi, or other religious entity of that man and woman's prospective religious beliefs and obviously, they must obtain a certificate as well for legal state purposes. Basically, yes, I believe that homosexuals shouldn't be "married" in a church.

By this same token, what about religions that embrace the idea of gay marriage? Following your logic, it shouldn’t bother you in the slightest if a Reformed Rabbi, Unitarian minister, or Episcopalian priest is willing to officiate a marriage ceremony between people of the same sex. Believe it or not, there are many men of God who believe they have a religious and moral obligation to help same-sexed couples in love get married. I respect the fact that you don’t want any interference with your religion, and I think you should likewise respect the religious beliefs of people who do not share the same attitudes as yourself.

Quote:
What I'm saying is that if homosexuals would stop calling it gay marriage and instead call it a " legal life partnership", I think it would go a long way for their cause. I know it is the same thing legally, but it is not the same thing religiously; and since the religious aspect is what is holding most naysayers back, just look at it like I do. I just fixed this whole thing with semantics.


You do realize that there’s a contradiction in your argument here, right? Before you were arguing about the importance of semantics, but now you are arguing that queers shouldn’t care if they can’t call their relationship a “marriage.” They should be just as happy calling their relationship a “legal life partnership.” “Hi, this is my wife, Julie; we were married last spring” is in no way equivalent to “Hi, this is my legal partner, Julie, our relationship was legalized last spring.” Gay people want to get married for more than just the fact that marriage enables them to visit their partner should he or she be hospitalized. They want their relationship to be accepted as freely and unequivocally as any other relationship in our culture. They are a heavily discriminated against minority that sees marriage as an institution that can help to normalize their place within society.

Edit: Also, what Moviemkr 7 said. I missed his post while typing mine.


Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:41 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Well I hope no one took offense in any way. I was just trying to introduce a scenario in which everyone could be happy (well maybe not everyone being happy, but accepting).


Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:22 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a"marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

That being said there is nothing wrong with any two people becoming life long "partners" with a certificate signed by a judge.

I believe that a judge should be able to pronounce any two persons (gay, straight, or otherwise) who love one another (and are both of age of course) as "legal partners."

I believe that a "marriage" is the "union of a man and woman under god" that must be enacted by a minister, priest, Rabbi, or other religious entity of that man and woman's prospective religious beliefs and obviously, they must obtain a certificate as well for legal state purposes. Basically, yes, I believe that homosexuals shouldn't be "married" in a church.

What I'm saying is that if homosexuals would stop calling it gay marriage and instead call it a " legal life partnership", I think it would go a long way for their cause. I know it is the same thing legally, but it is not the same thing religiously; and since the religious aspect is what is holding most naysayers back, just look at it like I do. I just fixed this whole thing with semantics.


I'm sorry but does it make any sense that the church should have any involvement in politics? Because if they were then we might be living in a society where those of another religion are all persecuted (more then they already are), women would still be second rate citizens, you probably wouldn't be eating bacon and sausage with your breakfast (or shellfish with dinner) and if you decided to get a divorce then by all means you could kill your wife so as to help retain her sanctity. Did I leave anything out? The fact of the matter is that France did it good when they separated church and state: when you get married in France you can by all means have your wedding in a church if you want but you then have to head down to the court house to actually be married, the church has no real say in the matter. Viewing your marriage as a sacred union sanctified by God has nothing to do with politics as much as your personal beliefs. Politics in America don't dictate your religion so why should your religion dictate politics in America? It's illogical.

The fact of the matter is gay people don't want "legal life partnerships", they want marriage. As has been stated before, legal life partnerships and marriage are not the same and the prior is in no way an acceptable substitute for the latter. If we are to live in a country where the founding principle behind our current social legislation is that all men are created equal (social legislation that goes back to the allowance of African Americans and women the same legal status and rights as those of Christian white men) then we cannot make exceptions, whether they be based on religion or not.

Ratel wrote:
However, I think you bring up a legitimate concern about one of the possible consequences of gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage potentially could open up institutions such as the Catholic Church to lawsuits should they refuse to officiate marriages between members of the same sex. Any law legalizing marriage between people of the same sex should also ensure that it doesn’t force religious institutions to perform acts that are against their beliefs. That said, I suspect the first and fourteenth amendments are sufficient to prevent this from actually occurring. In any case, they’ll certainly prevent anyone from actually winning such a foolish lawsuit.


I'm sorry, but is this really a legitimate "concern" on as to whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry?


Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:09 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
JJoshay wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been said but how about I solve this problem with simple semantics:

Many Christians, such as myself, have nothing against gays or lesbians and think that they should have equal rights, just as everyone who salutes the flag of the United States of America should. They also believe, however, that a"marriage" is the union of a Man and Woman under God.

That being said there is nothing wrong with any two people becoming life long "partners" with a certificate signed by a judge.

I believe that a judge should be able to pronounce any two persons (gay, straight, or otherwise) who love one another (and are both of age of course) as "legal partners."

I believe that a "marriage" is the "union of a man and woman under god" that must be enacted by a minister, priest, Rabbi, or other religious entity of that man and woman's prospective religious beliefs and obviously, they must obtain a certificate as well for legal state purposes. Basically, yes, I believe that homosexuals shouldn't be "married" in a church.

What I'm saying is that if homosexuals would stop calling it gay marriage and instead call it a " legal life partnership", I think it would go a long way for their cause. I know it is the same thing legally, but it is not the same thing religiously; and since the religious aspect is what is holding most naysayers back, just look at it like I do. I just fixed this whole thing with semantics.


I'm sorry but does it make any sense that the church should have any involvement in politics? Because if they were then we might be living in a society where those of another religion are all persecuted (more then they already are), women would still be second rate citizens, you probably wouldn't be eating bacon and sausage with your breakfast (or shellfish with dinner) and if you decided to get a divorce then by all means you could kill your wife so as to help retain her sanctity. Did I leave anything out? The fact of the matter is that France did it good when they separated church and state: when you get married in France you can by all means have your wedding in a church if you want but you then have to head down to the court house to actually be married, the church has no real say in the matter. Viewing your marriage as a sacred union sanctified by God has nothing to do with politics as much as your personal beliefs. Politics in America don't dictate your religion so why should your religion dictate politics in America? It's illogical.

The fact of the matter is gay people don't want "legal life partnerships", they want marriage. As has been stated before, legal life partnerships and marriage are not the same and the prior is in no way an acceptable substitute for the latter. If we are to live in a country where the founding principle behind our current social legislation is that all men are created equal (social legislation that goes back to the allowance of African Americans and women the same legal status and rights as those of Christian white men) then we cannot make exceptions, whether they be based on religion or not.

Ratel wrote:
However, I think you bring up a legitimate concern about one of the possible consequences of gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage potentially could open up institutions such as the Catholic Church to lawsuits should they refuse to officiate marriages between members of the same sex. Any law legalizing marriage between people of the same sex should also ensure that it doesn’t force religious institutions to perform acts that are against their beliefs. That said, I suspect the first and fourteenth amendments are sufficient to prevent this from actually occurring. In any case, they’ll certainly prevent anyone from actually winning such a foolish lawsuit.


I'm sorry, but is this really a legitimate "concern" on as to whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry?

See the bolded part of my text for clarification.

It’s a legitimate concern in the sense that, of all the arguments against gay marriage, it’s the only one that has some substantiality, doesn’t overtly or implicitly rely on religion, and isn’t colored by homophobia. However, as I certainly implied in my original post, while it’s a legitimate concern it isn’t a valid reason for denying gay marriage.


Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:54 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Ratel wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
Ratel wrote:
However, I think you bring up a legitimate concern about one of the possible consequences of gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage potentially could open up institutions such as the Catholic Church to lawsuits should they refuse to officiate marriages between members of the same sex. Any law legalizing marriage between people of the same sex should also ensure that it doesn’t force religious institutions to perform acts that are against their beliefs. That said, I suspect the first and fourteenth amendments are sufficient to prevent this from actually occurring. In any case, they’ll certainly prevent anyone from actually winning such a foolish lawsuit.


I'm sorry, but is this really a legitimate "concern" on as to whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry?

See the bolded part of my text for clarification.

It’s a legitimate concern in the sense that, of all the arguments against gay marriage, it’s the only one that has some substantiality, doesn’t overtly or implicitly rely on religion, and isn’t colored by homophobia. However, as I certainly implied in my original post, while it’s a legitimate concern it isn’t a valid reason for denying gay marriage.


Sorry, different definitions of legitimate concern.


Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:08 am
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Well I hope no one took offense in any way. I was just trying to introduce a scenario in which everyone could be happy (well maybe not everyone being happy, but accepting).


I know you meant well and are objecting solely over the naming. It's nice of you to support full rights otherwise. I guess we jumped on your post because some of your reasoning. Even now I can't fully comprehend this line:

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
I believe that a "marriage" is the "union of a man and woman under god" that must be enacted by a minister, priest, Rabbi, or other religious entity of that man and woman's prospective religious beliefs and obviously, they must obtain a certificate as well for legal state purposes. Basically, yes, I believe that homosexuals shouldn't be "married" in a church.


If I understand your logic right you consider "marriage" solely as a religious thing. However, with that reasoning, how would an couple atheist be "married"? They only way is through a judge and you don't seem to support a judge "marrying" people.


Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:06 pm
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Nay


Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:09 am
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
Frogster wrote:
Nay


Yay

See how this works? Now how about some evaluation, reasoning and explaining like in your post on the "Rules You Would Make If You Were King of the Movie World" thread?


Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:34 am
Post Re: Gay marriage...yay or nay?
JJoshay wrote:
Frogster wrote:
Nay


Yay

See how this works? Now how about some evaluation, reasoning and explaining like in your post on the "Rules You Would Make If You Were King of the Movie World" thread?


I just say Nay right now.


Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:30 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr