Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Slippery Slope
But it already is a legality issue, whether you want it to be or not. It's like saying you don't want to make surgery into a medical issue. If you truly believe that a person should be able to live his or her life the way he or she sees fit, then you should be an unapologetic supporter of equal marriage rights for all.
Well, civil unions don't confer all of the same rights that marriages do, and even if they did, the Supreme Court settled the whole "separate but equal" debate a long time ago. Regarding the rest of this paragraph about the purpose of marriage and gender roles, I couldn't disagree with you more. The purpose of my marriage isn't procreation, and my marriage certainly doesn't operate on your rigid ideas about the differences between men and women- however, I doubt you would say that I, as a heterosexual woman, shouldn't have the right to get married because of that, and same-sex couples should be no different.
Ah, yes. Because strangers disagreeing with you on a message board is the same as physically assaulting you.
Your position is essentially that gay people should be treated differently from straight people simply because they're gay. It's certainly not a new argument and it is, in fact, homophobic.
We have hipsters at the Whole Foods, too.
Yeah, they checkers are nice there, but I still find it weird and offputting.
It also seems like more people judge carts there.
I don't like cart judgers.
Cincy, have you ever watched this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
Do you think this kid suffered from not having a father? I'd say having two loving mothers or two loving fathers is a helluva lot better than some of the straight parents kids get stuck with.
Do you also believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
Cincy, I'm really not trying to back you into a corner. I ask these questions because there's a big difference between saying "I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but if others do then they should have that option." and "I don't believe in same-sex marriage, so it shouldn't be an option for others."
The first is a difference of opinions. The second is an imposition of your beliefs. That's why I'm trying to seek clarification.
It sounds like you fall in the latter category, but you don't want to say so because you either fear others will disagree or you know that there's something wrong about doing that.
ETA: I'm sorry to hear about your husband. I hope things work out.
Cincy - I'm sorry about your husband's layoff. That's terrible and I feel for you.
Lim very sorry to hear that, truly. I hope everything works out for the best.
I'm very sorry to hear that, truly. I hope everything works out for the best.
Well I am trying very hard to reconcile my personal beliefs with real life, that is why I would not be opposed to civil unions vs same sex marriage. I am sorry you think I am homophobic, nothing could be farther from the truth. I would like people (no matter the gender) to live their life in happiness. I certainly am not going to advocate for same sex marriage but I certainly would not start a riot in the street if it were legalized, I truly believe people should live their life in their own way....I just don't understand why I am try to respect the beliefs of others when I am not extended the same courtesy.
OK, off to call my DH.
This iPad! As soon as I get a new laptop I'm throwing this thing in the lake.
But my post count going up is a nice little present.
Because your beliefs actually result in limited freedom for others, in real life.
And I wouldn't say people showed a lack of respect for your beliefs, at least not until the end, because for most of the thread you wouldn't even say what your beliefs were. We were just trying to ascertain what you believed before forming an opinion of it.
And once again, disagreement is not the same as a lack of respect.
I think it's really unfair to say that we don't respect your beliefs. I have gone out of my way to say that if you don't like gay marriage - that is fine. I only have a problem when it starts infringing on others. And quite frankly, civil unions =/= same-sex marriage. Separate but equal hurts people.
I'm open to hearing your ideas about why same-sex marriages should not be allowed for same-sex couples. But I don't accept that children need a man vs. a woman in their lives - there is no evidence for that, quite the contrary in fact. And I don't accept that the point of marriage is procreation - if that there the case then we should also have a separate designation for couples that don't/don't intend to have children. I'll hear you out, but I won't agree to falsehoods just because it's more accepting of your beliefs
I've tried to have very civil discourse with you. I'm sorry that you feel I didn't respect your beliefs. I hope that you'll feel open to discussing this in the future.
And again, I'm very sorry to hear about your DH. I know what a stressful situation that can be and I wish nothing but the best for you and your DH.
As PP said, disagreement is not the same as disrespect. I don't see where anyone was was rude to you, cincy - just curious.
I will be 100% honest though - your desire to deny someone the very same rights you hold dear does not deserve respect. Why would I respect that? Separate but equal is not okay. Do you think racists who want to outlaw interracial marriage should be respected because they have another opinion? Um, no. So why should discrimination against gay people be respected?
So, the consensus is support for marriage equality? So, does that apply to everyone who wants to be married? Where do you draw the line? Should a brother marry his sister? A cousin marry a cousin? A father marry his daughter? A brother marry his brother?
My concern is that if you redefine marriage it will open a can of worms.
I was raised with conservative christian values and I will not apologize for my beliefs.
That's because there is no other reason, except maybe "I find it icky", which also isn't a good reason but at least it's honest.
Why not just define it as a union between two consenting adults who don't have a sibling or parent blood relationship? Is that so hard?
I would vote no on immediate family because of the higher risks of passing on genetic disorders. Cousins, meh. It's already legal to marry your first cousin here in Connecticut. I don't know of any myself but that just shows that cousins being married has no impact whatsoever on my own marriage.
Just for funsies, first cousins can be legally married in: AL, AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN, VT, VA, and under certain circumstances in AZ, IL, IN, ME, UT, and WI.
But, then aren't you discriminating against those who have a sibling or parent blood relationship? I mean, shouldn't they be afforded the right to marry if they so choose?
No, it won't open a can of worms.
That's just a scare tactic that's used by the opponents.
Incest is a whole other story, Cincy. I can see real medical reasons for not allowing those marriages. But to be honest, I personally would not be against ANY two consenting adults marrying. I can see where there might be a compelling case against siblings/parents...but there is absolutely no compelling reason homosexuals should not marry.
If incestuous relationships are your concern then why not draw the line at incestuous relationships? You'll always have to draw some line, why draw the one that makes gay people suffer just to prevent incest?
Or conversely why not make a stricter line? Why allow marriage at all if it just leads to the gays and the incests asking for marriage?
ETA: clarity - babies don't respect computer time.
As I mentioned before, I am very pro adoption. There are so many children out there in need of good homes so I would not have any problem with gays adopting.
Well in a perfect world, a child ought to have their father and their mother involved their life. But we don't live in a perfect world. I would much rather a child have one loving parent than have no one.