Spin Off - Tolerance - Page 5
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Spin Off - Tolerance

  1. #41
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    It's not different. Instead of being content to not get married (which is a union between a man and a woman) Gay activists have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of marriage to make it legal. (It was already illegal they are the one's trying to change things). I would guess that marriage means a lot more to religious people than the gay activists who may be religious in some cases but not on a large scale. But instead of actually making it about rights and going for a civil union for everyone or something similar which they could have MORE easily have done because less people would object, they are trying to take away the meaning of marriage from those who it means the most to.
    No, they have taken it upon themselves to challenge government to change the legislation to make it legal. A definition does not make something legal. And heaven forbid a group that faces such discrimination should challenge legislation. I mean, at one time women weren't legally allowed to vote, and it was legal to own slaves, but those changes to the laws you're okay with, presumably. That's kind of picking and choosing which groups you favour to challenge archaic legislation. Even playing field, for all groups

  2. #42
    Posting Addict smsturner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    5,863

    Default

    I am not religious in any way whatsoever. So much that we wrote our own wedding ceremony to avoid any religion. After leaving one abusive marriage, i waited years before i could even think about it. Now that i have someone who will cherish and love me, and i want to keep forever, being married meant a hundred times more to me, a non-religious person, than to many religious people I know. I find it terribly insulting that anyone would presume it matters more to them than to me.

    And for that matter, my sister, finally finding the WOMAN she loves and deciding to spend her life with her, married in a church. Her marriage and wedding meant more to her than anyone straight that I have ever seen get married. How dare you say she, a woman you have never known, takes anything away from you by getting to be legally and spiritually joined with her life partner!
    Susan, dh Tom, dd Megan, ds Marcus, ds #2 coming Feb, 2014

    Lilypie Maternity tickers

    I never knew until that moment how badly it could hurt to lose something you never really had. - Missed Miscarriage at 10 weeks - 3/26

  3. #43
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,342

    Default

    I use this example a lot, but I think that tv shows where you "win" a bride or a groom (like The Bachelor) is much more threatening to the state of marriage and how people view it than gay marriage. Celebrity marriage is more threatening! It certainly gives teenagers, who are exposed to those things, a warped view of what marriage should be.

    Anyway, the religious people don't own marriage. Lots of us who aren't religious at all feel very passionate about our own marriages and why it is important to us. I'm somebody's wife, I have a husband. That is intensely meaningful. I made vows that I take very seriously.
    Jessica80 and smsturner like this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )



    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #44
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    I use this example a lot, but I think that tv shows where you "win" a bride or a groom (like The Bachelor) is much more threatening to the state of marriage and how people view it than gay marriage. Celebrity marriage is more threatening! It certainly gives teenagers, who are exposed to those things, a warped view of what marriage should be.

    Anyway, the religious people don't own marriage. Lots of us who aren't religious at all feel very passionate about our own marriages and why it is important to us. I'm somebody's wife, I have a husband. That is intensely meaningful. I made vows that I take very seriously.
    Your point however true to you, isn't a valid argument. Just because something may be more threatening, doesn't mean something else isn't.
    I do see both as a threat to a traditional view of marriage, one reason we don't have TV in our house is because of all the nonsense.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  5. #45
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    Your point however true to you, isn't a valid argument. Just because something may be more threatening, doesn't mean something else isn't.
    I do see both as a threat to a traditional view of marriage, one reason we don't have TV in our house is because of all the nonsense.
    While I disagree with the stance that a long term loving gay relationship is threatening, I support that this is your stance. However, it is just another example of why gay marriage should be legal. If we allow any bozo heterosexual "couple" to get engage and marry why not gay people?

  6. #46
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,744

    Default

    Of course it is threatening to the traditional view of marriage.. It is not the same as it. It will be changing the definition of what marriage is. And thus threatens the traditional view/definition of marriage.
    It is not a good example, as it is a different definition.
    heterosexual couple (2 people of consenting age) is the current societal definition.
    changing any of those attributes, changes the definition of what a marriage is.

    You may be ok with changing the definition, but you can not say it isn't changing the definition. And thus can not state that changing one of the attributes doesn't "threaten tradition marriage" OF course it does. You are just OK with it.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  7. #47
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,192

    Default

    Changing the definition does not, to me, pose any threat. You can still have YOUR hetero marriage and they can now enjoy the same perks you do.

  8. #48
    Posting Addict smsturner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    5,863

    Default

    IMO it still doesn't change the definition. I've always considered it defined as two life partners joining together, legally and/or religiously. Maybe it's just how you choose to define it in the first place...
    Spacers likes this.
    Susan, dh Tom, dd Megan, ds Marcus, ds #2 coming Feb, 2014

    Lilypie Maternity tickers

    I never knew until that moment how badly it could hurt to lose something you never really had. - Missed Miscarriage at 10 weeks - 3/26

  9. #49
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post

    You may be ok with changing the definition, but you can not say it isn't changing the definition. And thus can not state that changing one of the attributes doesn't "threaten tradition marriage" OF course it does. You are just OK with it.
    How does it threaten it? Beyond actually requiring a change in the actual definition so that the people getting married can be of the same gender, which is a matter of words, what does it threaten? Does it make heterosexual marriage less important or less stable? In what way? Does it teach children that marriage doesn't matter? I have trouble understanding the threat here, beyond having to change some words in a definition.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )



    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions