1. Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?
A. Yes
B. No
2. Do you think the legalization of same-sex marriage is
A. Very Important
B. Somewhat important
C. Not Important
3. Would you be in favor of or oppose an amendment banning same-sex marriage in ALL states?
A. In favor of
B. Oppose
4. If NH were to hold a vote to legalize same-sex marriage what would you vote?
A. For
B. Against
5. If opposed to same-sex marriage, for what reason?
A. Religious beliefs
B. Personal beliefs
C. Both
D. Other
Andy Lee
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Carolyn Rohdenburg
1)A
2)A
3)B
4)A
Brenden McLeod
1.a
2.a
3.b
4.a
i'm for having the option, not nessecarily pro gay though
Cole Bowden
ABBA
Andy Towne
ACBA
Benny Nicolas
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Karen Robinson
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
5. N/A
I fundamentally believe that it's no one's business other than the people involved
Kevin Large
a,a,a,a
Courtney Jewett
ABBA. I think there are more important things that the government should focus on than us being able to marry. it sucks we can't - it's unfair, but whatever. the economy could probably use more attention."
Caroline Gaudet
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Maggie Smith
ABBA
Natalie Bean
AABA
Jess Waitt
A,B,B,A- I think same sex marriage is important, but right now the government needs to focus on the economy, but when or if the economy gets better I think it would be an important thing to focus on
Chris Robinson
A A B A
Becca Hey
a,a,b,a
Lan Gu
I want to qualify what Courtney said by adding that, perhaps, currently the government should focus on other economic issues. But in the long-run, we must keep in mind, social issues should not be ignored. I fundamentally believe that the gay marriage "issue" is a debate in which both sides have not enough information to assess the other side appropriately. This is to say that we as a community should inform one another about such issues; in short, we should spread awareness.
1. Should gays be allowed to marry?
All men are created equal. Since when did this statement preclude LGBTQIAs?
2. The legalization of same-sex marriage is very important.
Ignorance breeds hate, so we should not ignore what inevitably needs to be addressed.
3. First, tell me what business you, as a voter, have in others' private lives. Then, tell me what gives the state a "right" to enforce your wishes against others.
4. I would vote in favor of same-sex marriage.
George Robinson
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Lan Gu
Also, keep in mind that "gay" is not synonymous with "stupid."
What if I were to say, "That's so straight"?
Joe Bradford
1.Ultimately, this depends on the definition of marriage. By definition, it is a religious institution. I do believe that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, and being that I'm not religious, my answer is: A. Yes
B. Somewhat important
B. Oppose
A. For
Becca Jacobson
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Joe Bradford
Lan, as far as the "That's so gay/that's so stupid" argument, I think the same goes for "that's retarded" -- words evolve. If people can say "That's queer" and not mean "homosexual", I think people can say "That's gay" and not mean "homosexual".
Lan Gu
Furthermore, I believe that just by guaranteeing "equality" (whatever that is) doesn't solve the problem that certain segments of society will still look down upon the LGBTQIA community. Just by labeling something/someone as "equal" to something/someone else, doesn't actually ensure that what results is fair. This is to say that equality is not fairness, and that what's fair most often requires additional measures.
Lan Gu
Words do evolve; this is inevitable. However, I am concerned with how loosely and without sentiment these words are thrown around. People should think before they speak, and they should act and apologize if they've offended someone--not just brush things aside."
Joe Bradford
Lan, fairness is an idealist term. Nothing is truly "fair". If one strays from social norms, there is always going to be someone that looks down on that person. Always. You can change laws, but you can't change opinions. That comes with upbringing and the environment and influences in which you live in.
Lan Gu
Joe, this is exactly my point. To this day, the question still holds: what is fairness? Philosophers, economists, you and I... we engage this question perhaps more often than we think.
Lan Gu
This is also a worry... So can society ever be satisfied as a whole? No, meaning some groups' wishes are ignored. Who, then?
Lan Gu
And as follows, society answers...
Marilyn Wade
Hi EJ - My responses are B C B B A. Let me say that if you used another term besides "marriage" in your questiosn I would be fine - I have no objection to civil unions and a civil partner having all the rights and priveleges of a married person. It is just that the word "marriage" has a specific religious connotation to me that involves a lifelong commitment made before God between a man and a woman. I guess that makes me pretty old fashiioned, but it does not make me prejudice.
Lisa Villani
A A B A
Alison Brinton
A A B A
Max Johnson
you can dance, you can jive, having the time of you... oh, um, sorry, ABBA
Nikki Runci
AABA
Jordan Meehan
A, A, B, A
Pat Sinnott
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Micah Abruzese
BAABC
Yib McNamara
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Nathan Jellis
AABA
Derek McLeod
I'm gonna go against the grain here. But let me clarify my answers before I get eaten alive!
B
C
B
B
D
First, I am in no way against the concept of gays receiving all of the benefits of a married man and a married woman. I firmly believe that if two people love each other they should, by law, be able to become unionized and be able to share insurance, file taxes together, etc. So I am not against gays becoming “married”, per say. I am, however, against calling it marriage.
Derek McLeod
Like Joe said, "marriage", by definition, is a Christian term stating that a Christian man and a Christian woman are unified under God. Theoretically Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc, should not be able to be “married” as the term stems from Christian teachings. In Society, this is not the case because, as with “Christmas”, “Marriage” has become a secular term with no religious meaning, where two people become unionized under law. So legalizing gay marriage, to me, is a really stretched violation of the first amendment. Do I agree with this and ALL of the Christian teachings? No. I do, however, agree with the First Amendment and the right for churches to teach what they want.
Jordan Meehan
Eat Derek alive!
Derek McLeod
(THESE LIMITS ARE KILLING ME!)
If a Gay marriage vote were to come my way I would simply obstain.
Basically what it boils down to is who is Derek McLeod to vote on how people live their lives? Who am I to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion? Who am I to tell a gay couple that they cannot live together? Either way, whether I vote yes or no, I'm telling people what they can and cannot do. To say that we need a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is just stupid. We have two wars, an economy that's in the shitter, and an unemployment rate that's at it's highest level in a long, long time. There are more important things at hand.
When push comes to shove, Gays deserve the same rights as Heterosexuals, but not in violation of any other amendment.
The End.
Derek McLeod
not the end.
As with using "gay" to mean stupid, I wholly disagree with Lan (which means I agree with Joe!) I think that this whole Politically Correct bulls**t that our society promotes is just that, bulls**t. It's a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, it's the Easter bunny, not the holiday bunny, Santa says ho ho ho, not ha ha ha. (Idaho? No, Udaho!)
Gay has come to mean stupid. Two of my best friends are gay, and they use gay to mean stupid. Does it offend someone? Probably, but I think society as a whole needs to lighten the hell up!
Jordan Meehan
Umm....I use gay as a synonym for stupid. And I'm pretty sure I use fag more than any homophobe I've ever met. So I totally agree with Derek, this whole politically correct bullshit has to stop cause all it does is further divide minorities and society as a whole. Quite frankly, I don't care who I offend.
Derek McLeod
also, I don't know who max johnson is, but he's witty
Derek McLeod
Damn Jordan, good point. It's the same thing with like Affirmative Action. All AA does is just promote the idea that people are minorities and they need assistance. To me, gay can mean stupid, and I will not cease to use it as such.
Sam Dargie
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Jordan Meehan
Yeah exactly. I dont know why the liberals seem to think that affirmative action and political correctness helps, cause it honestly doesn't. It absolutely promotes that point that they need assistance and that they're different and need to be treated different and to be honest...I don't wanna be treated different.
Ryan O’Connor
AABA
Robert DiGangi
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Rebecca Rudolf
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Jordan Meehan
I'm not a big fan of the income tax. Or raising taxes on the rich. Discuss. Hahaha
Derek McLeod
AMEN Jordan! That's what makes this country great. I am of the firm belief that anyone (more specifically anyone in the US) has the same opportunity as everyone else. I mean yea, luck plays into it, Paris Hilton is a hell of a lot luckier than someone that was born into a family on Welfare, but it is VERY possible for someone on Welfare to make it in this world, ESPECIALLY this country and ESPECIALLY today. I tend to be more liberal than conservative, but a lot of the people on welfare are just lazy, but a lot of people need it, there's no denying that. (Totally getting off topic now, i love "debates")
Derek McLeod
When push comes to shove, 5% of a $30,000 salary is going to effect someone a HELL of a lot more than 5% of a $30,000,000 salary. Progressive taxes are "fair" Rich people have far more to give. And they "use" the government a hell of a lot more than a poor person does. Do you think that someone on welfare uses the same amount of "public services" as someone who isn't? How many bullshit frivilous lawsuits come from the lower class. "OOHHH MY MCDONALDS COFFEE BURNT ME, I'M SUING!!!" All from the upper class, someone's gotta pay the judge!
I wouldn't feel this way if I was the only one, but Buffet says the same thing! ...He's the richest man in the world bee tee dubs.
Derek McLeod
SOMEONE RESPOND! I'M AT WORK TILL 11 AND I'M BORED OUT OF MY MIND!!
Nathan Jellis
*eats derek alive*
Derek McLeod
Thanks Nate
Nathan Jellis
Omnomnomnomnom
Jordan Meehan
And alot of people on welfare like to mooch off the system and wonder why they should have to work if the government just pays their ways. We need some welfare reform.
...and lower taxes.
Nathan Jellis
i always try to bring something to the table, intellectually speaking. you can probably tell.
Tammy Tenney
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Kayla West
A
A
B
A
Mariah O’Rourke
ABBA
I agree with Courtney and Lan: Gay marriage is an important issue that needs to be resolved, but it's not the most important item on the agenda at the moment.
And Derek, I see what you're saying about it not being called marriage, but isn't that technically being politically correct calling it civil union instead of marriage?
Rachel Mincarelli
A-if you find someone who makes you happy and you can support each other as a couple should then you should not be denied the rights that straight couples have just because of who you find happiness with B-it is a matter that should be addressed but is not a pressing issue to me personally B-i would vote to oppose this, there should be (at least) some states where homosexual couples can obtain the rights that heterosexual couples can obtain anywhere.
A-being a hopeless romantic i believe that you can not help you love. obviously if you love someone and want to spend your life with them you are going to make that choice regardless of what law says who can get married where. gay marriage is becoming more common and even if you yourself are not gay/lesbian/etc., you should still be tolerant and accepting of those around you who are whatever they choose to be.
Kevin Hayes
a
a
b
a
Derek McLeod
"And Derek, I see what you're saying about it not being called marriage, but isn't that technically being politically correct calling it civil union instead of marriage?"
Damn you're good! There's a reason why we're married (how ironic!) :-P
Well, technically yes kinda sorta. It depends what side you're looking for. To the government, it's politically correct to call it a Civil Union. To the homosexual community, it's politically correct to call it a Marriage. Kinda? I'll admit you bring up an incredible point, but I'm looking at the strict definition of what Marriage is in it's simplest definition. Gay originally meant happy and not homosexual. Gay EVOLVED into meaning homosexual. Just as Marriage EVOLVED into its non-religious definition. Will it EVOLVE to mean Gay Unions? Probably... I'm just stating what I think.
Laura Chicarello
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Lan Gu
You should care about who you offend. In general, people should change ignorant habits, and find more reasons to love life.
"Gay does not mean stupid": What I pointed to was one such example of ignorance; not in all cases, but in most. People are more sensitive than you'd think. While it is true that everyone should lighten up, to what extent? To the point where we're joking about serious issues that appear as superficial?
Remember high school? It's kind of like the echo of racist jokes, about which I never spoke to you.
Jim McCann
A C B A
Derek McLeod
While I respect your opinion Lan I have to disagree.
Where does the true ignorance lie? With the one making the joke in an attempt to be funny, or the one who takes the jokes as serious and is offended by it? A joke is a joke for a reason, and it's not meant to be taken seriously. When I call something "gay" I don't see in any way how someone can take that offensively. If I said, "All the Gays are stupid" Yea, that's offensive. Calling something gay is not.
The real reason that we have so much terrorism in the world is people cannot lighten up and just look at the good in life. The reason that people are, for the most part, miserable in the Middle East is because they can't make jokes, or way what they want. The thing is, is that there IS so much love, people are just to blind do see it. It takes too much effort to see the good. People LOVE misery, look at the nightly news, it's NEVER about good things.
Lan Gu
But isn't it these little "issues," if even issues at all, that make us blind to love? The little things in life matter just as much as the big things. Perhaps we as a society are too focused on details, but without details, what is the big picture? an empty vacuum?
Lan Gu
If we define things as from our own perspectives, aren't we but a nation with the label of "united," but as a matter of perspective, in actuality, divided?
Mariah O’Rourke
I see what you're saying, Derek. I agree, religiously, gay marriage is not marriage. But politically, marriage is marriage.
And it is ironic =) you know I love you
Derek McLeod
For reference, here are a few offensive words you probably use:
Hip-Hip-Horray- It's a variation of "Hep Hep", a German rally cry while out looking to kill Jewish people.
Hooligan- Literally means a "drunk Irish Bastard"
Barbarian- "stupid jabbering foreigner"
Seminar- Look at the root, you can figure this one out....
Words have evolved to mean different things, and when said as an aside, they should not be taken seriously.
Mariah O’Rourke
Haha that made me chuckle. I definitely agree with that, but I see where Lan's coming from.
Lan Gu
There is no such thing as enacting change alone. We must work together.
What you're saying is, "This is my intention," without stating possible consequences.
Example, you didn't mean to harass someone, but you did. Is it harassment? From your perspective, it is not. From the victim's perspective it is, and harassment is defined from the victim's perspective. Likewise, if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound? It may be ridiculous to hear things from a tree's perspective... but hey, who knows, maybe trees have ears, too. (Eerily, this is reminding me of Big Brother.)
Conclusion: We must anticipate disagreements in order to agree. So, what I am advocating is AWARENESS (to combat ignorance).
Zoe Long
1)A
2)A
3)B
4)A
Samantha Eagan
1.) A
2.) A
3.) B
4.) A
Kevin Sheehan
1. A.
2. A.
3. B.
4. A.
Kelsey Briggs
AABA
Megan Doveno
1.A
2.A
3.B
4.A
Kevin Sheehan
@ Derek (and a wholeeee lot of Christians):
Marriage is not a Christian invention. It existed before Christianity, and the Christians merely took it and used it in their own system, which is the biggest problem I have with the US government trying to define it by the Christian definition.
Also, more lightheartedly:
Hooligan- Literally means a "drunk Irish Bastard"
I see nothing offensive about that in the slightest.
Kevin Sheehan
In fact, I think it's quite the complement.
Derek McLeod
Don't you think disagreements are what bring change Lan? It's called groupthink. If everyone just agrees, we do not reach our full potential. Disagreements are what bring greatness. (You know like, not wanting taxation without representation, monarchs and whatnot)
I'm not seeing the ignorance in calling something "gay" EVERYTHING said is going to offend someone else if they want it to. I think that as a whole, people need to lighten up and realize that things aren't said with the intend to hurt. I understand that if you punch someone and broke their nose, but didn't mean to break their nose you're at fault. But this is a bit different don't you think? People make too much of things and shouldn't be offended. It's not ignorance as much as it is people not being able to see things lightly.
Tim Hart
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Rachael Cina
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Derek McLeod
@Kevin (what is this, Twitter?)
You're half correct. The concept of marriage is not inherently Christian, like two people joining together, but the mainstream unification of people is, in fact, Christian. Technically it's Jewish, but for all intents and purposes, it was brought to this country by Christians. Read: Mayflower.
Kevin Sheehan
Derek, I think the ignorance in equating 'gay' to 'stupid' is that you're taking a defining characteristic of a group of people, and making a rash generalization that THEY in fact, are stupid by a sort of transitive property. I understand your thoughts on people lightening up, and I agree, however there is a difference between people taking offense to everything, and saying things that are downright offensive. If you started substituting 'nigger' for 'dumb', it would be the same exact thing, yet somehow, to you (I'm kind of assuming), and to the general populace of our country, that phrase would carry a WHOLE lot more weight, and be seen as far more offensive, which is just wrong, and ignorant.
Lan Gu
I'm saying we must anticipate disagreements to agree. I am acknowledging that there is disagreement, and certainly, I recognize that disagreement fuels change. However, we fundamentally differ on the HOW not the WHAT. I am advocating that we should achieve change through the least offensive means possible; that is how.
Kathleen Bourque
1. a
2. b
3. b
4. a
Sarah McGarry
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Lan Gu
Something I forgot to address: I believe that people are in fact not polarized to misery, but instead to controversy. What's controversial is not necessarily miserable, though usually any one side of a controversy involves a disagreeing opposition. However, the consequences of controversy are miserable, and it's sad that we've internalized these negative externalities and moved on with our lives. Let us reexamine them.
Lan Gu
This is actually distracting me from a problem set I have to do... I'm done.
Kevin Sheehan
Oddly enough, I think we just managed to tie the "gay=stupid" and "marriage=Christian" things together...
Would you consider the mainstreaming of Christian beliefs in America the biggest reason for claiming marriage as a religious thing in a sense? If you go back, (to the extent of my knowledge) marriage was not originally intended to have such religious connotations, and was more of a legal bond. However, due to the founding of Christianity, and it's spread throughout Europe and eventually over to the Americas, religious marriage was the popular way of looking at marriage, so due to that, we should just accept the evolution of that word and not try to look back back to the original view of it?
Joe Bradford
I'd like to make an addendum to my previous statements. I think, because marriage these days can occur sans-religion (meaning atheists can marry, and you dont need a priest to marry you -- (JP's) -- I think thats even more of a reason that gays should be allowed to marry. I see where Derek is coming from, and I thought it was a significant point to bring up, but Civil Unions = separate but equal, and we know that that not only doesnt work, but isnt constitutional.
Comments?
Risa Kapp
A A B A
Maegan Michaud
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Tom Barthelmes
1. A-i don't care who marries anyone. it just doesn't make a difference to me, people should marry whoever they want, do who/whatever they want, so long as it doesn't affect anybody else. butttt 2. C-we have far more pressing matters in our country right now 3. B-this is nearly the same question as 1. if you answered A for 1, why WOULDN'T you answer B for this one?
4. A-yep
Derek McLeod
Marriage as we know it came to be in the Medieval Times under religious ideologies. Before it was like, mother chooses Husband for daughter and they were forced together. The concept of "by choice" marriage was made popular by the Christian church in Medieval Times (which later spawned a really shitty show and eatery in New York). So yes, Marriage is religious. And I guess I'm confused by your argument Kevin, you're saying we should accept the evolved definitions? Meaning that marriage is religious and gay means stupid??
Joe Bradford
@Derek - see my comment. do you agree or disagree?
Tom Barthelmes
but i will say this...i believe two people should have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage, but i believe in the value of having both a mother and father figure, for a child. Homosexuality is something that cannot be changed in a person; homosexual behavior has been seen even in some animals, which pretty much eliminates the idea that its "a choice," since animals can't think minus instinctual stuff. But i think it's very important having both a father figure and mother figure, if it can be helped (i understand situations where there's a single parent either through death or divorce, but i don't imagine that's good for a kid, either.). i think people need both.
also, the number one factor in determining a persons political ideology is their family, and, let's face it, more homosexuals are democrat than republican. i think there are already too many liberals in our country. simple as that, my opinion.
Tom Barthelmes
now, as for the political correctness bandwagon...
i just don't care. i don't. i agree with derek, people should lighten up. please don't use sophisticated language to try to tell me about the external and internal oppressions of these people. it is how the language has evolved, for gay to mean stupid. guess what guys? homework is retarded. if someone is really pissing me off, i might even tell them to stop being a faggot.
i know people who are gay. i hate some, they're douches. i also like many, they're cool!
i know people who are straight. i hate some, they're douches. i also like many, they're cool!
i do not want to live in fear of my own words, plain and simple. we will always offend someone, no matter what you say, especially if you're offending them.
my homework is stupid...
...hey, that offends people with low IQs!
Political Correctness tries to make us all think and behave in the same way. Even Karl Marx said it was the first step towards communism.
Lauren Bolles
AABA
Maddy Aiken
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. B
5. A
Now this looks confusing i suppose. Here's the thing- I'm a devout catholic (hence the religious views). So I'm not against gay people at all, but i also dont believe that in the eyes of God, they can ever be joined in matrimony. Yeah, so there you go ejj
Molly Rooney
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. A
Kevin Sheehan
No, I was trying to say (obviously very poorly) that, in essence, just because a word has changed its meaning over time it does not mean (to me) that we should count on this definition as absolute. The way we define marriage evolved from an earlier definition to work for a specific group of people. That specific group of people should not have the voice for the entirety of the country (or world), especially with a country with a populace and culture as diverse as ours is today. Therefore, I don't see any reason to once again alter the definition of a word to better suit the times and culture surrounding it.
Derek McLeod
This is why Tom's blog is funny.
@ Joe- You make an incredible point. But Civil Unions aren't really separate but equal. I think that they should get all rights of married man and woman. It's really Gay Marriage, I'm just arguing the stupid point of not calling it marriage.
when you really get down to it, I am in favor of Gay marriage, just not calling it marriage, which is stupid, I know.
Kevin Sheehan
haha, Derek, I wouldn't call your point of view 'stupid', especially because you're entitled to your opinion just as much as anyone else. You obviously came from a very Christian upbringing, and thus you have those morals and beliefs instilled in you, making your point of view completely logical. I just disagree because the way I see it, marriage wasn't always religious, the way it is seen now obviously is, and I think it should continue to be religious, just not in its entirety. Why can't two men call each other 'husband', and celebrate their marriage as opposed to calling each other 'domestic partners' and celebrate their civil union? If you have no problem with the word 'gay' being somewhat redefined, why do other words have a special barrier protecting that, despite their previous redefining?
Derek McLeod
OHHHHHHHHH, I get your previous point now Kevin. Way to suck the first time around! (Also, do vacuums find the word suck offensive?)
I totally see where you're coming from, but we're talking about LEGALLY defining marriage as between a man and woman, man and man, and a woman and a woman. The evolution of "gay" and "retarded" haven't been legally defined. To me, Marriage is a strictly religious term that has been made secular, but is still religious at it's roots. By legally allowing gay marriages, you are tampering with a Church's right to preach what it wants, because it can legally no longer say that a Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Saying Marriage is legally not only between a man and a woman is a strict violation of the First. If socially a "Civil Union" evolves into a "Gay Marriage", then by all means, two gays have every right to be "husbands" and "wives". Just not under the law.
EJ you better post this paper when you're done! :-P
Tom Barthelmes
kevin-i guess its just all those bullshit taboos?
derek-no, kevin's wrong, that is stupid
i love how all these people who fundamentally agree on this idea of gay marriage, all have these little differences surrounding it which has just erupted into this huge disagreement. it's like the frickin crusades.
Danielle Moreau
AABA
I don't really mind if it's not called marriage. I think there are some people who are insecure about the entire situation. I think that some people don't want to call it marriage because if ever they say they are married, someone will have to wonder if they are gay or not. So, if that made any sense, it's not the title that matters to me, it's the meaning behind it. I think everyone deserves the same rights despite race, religion, gender, orientation...
Lastly, I think religion has found its way into matters that it has no right being in. It is not part of our laws and should not be used as a reason to justify or reject them. I believe that our constitution gives everyone the right to be married, and I don't think it needs to be blatantly stated in order for it to be implied. I think it's hateful for people to put others down for who they love - it's all about being happy with who you are and the freedom to not be afraid of it.
Kevin Sheehan
Tom, thank-you for that lovely insight and for elaborating on your stances so eloquently.
Derek, I think the church can still preach what it wants, yet have people go against it, in fact that happens 24/7. Legislature does not agree with all of the Church's preachings, and they don't (shouldn't in my view) have to look to the Church to make sure that all legislature does not interfere with their beliefs. If that were so, the US government would need to pass their bills by every single religion that exists in the country to stay out of everyone's hair. You can preach what you want... the rest of the country doesn't have to agree.
And I think that marriage was a secular term that was then made into a strictly religious term. Regardless of having a choice in marriage, marriage still occurred, and well before Christianity, thus it can't have its deepest roots in religion.
Derek McLeod
Nah, come to think of it. It's not stupid. It's actually totally correct. That's the fun thing about having an opinion, you're entitled to it and to you, it's right 100% of the time. In fact, thinking there are too many liberals in this country is stupid. There aren't too many liberals. People have EVERY right to believe what they want to believe.
The sad part is, people don't know what they believe, they just go with what's cool. People like to say that Gay Marriage is okay because that's what the groups on Facebook tell them. I'll be the first to tell you that Obama won because of "bandwagoning"
That's what pisses me off, stand up for what you believe in, don't believe in what others tell you to. My ideals are not my ideals because of what Father Bob tells me on Sundays, or what my parents say at dinner time. My ideals are my ideals because I believe them to be true. Are they stupid? Maybe to you, but that makes you wrong, because I'm always right to me.
Jackie Coffin
AABA
Kevin Sheehan
"People like to say that Gay Marriage is okay because that's what the groups on Facebook tell them. I'll be the first to tell you that Obama won because of "bandwagoning""
"My ideals are my ideals because I believe them to be true."
So nobody who voted for Obama or supports gay marriage does so out of their own very strong beliefs on the subject, yet all of your ideals are sturdy and purely your own? I hope it wasn't your intent, but the post you just made seems to say that you hold yourself, and your beliefs, to a higher standard than others because you think others haven't thought their arguments through as much as you have?
Also, the last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Doing only what's 'cool' and 'bandwagoning' for others directly goes against you forming your own beliefs completely on your own. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe there is ANY way to say that your own personal beliefs and morals were not influenced by your upbringing.
Lan Gu
Awareness comes with a recognition of self. Rely on thyself. Yet celebrate diversity.
Joe Bradford
I dont think anyone should be saying "My opinion is right and yours is wrong" (even if they do have the right to say that.) -- ultimately is about talking about it, and trying to explain ourselves. no one is putting you down for believing what you believe. they may not understand it, and they may not agree, but it is still your opinion.
Lan Gu
(Basically, I just combined Derek's and Kevin's viewpoints.)
Derek McLeod
@ Kevin
I'm going to have to disagree with what you said about marriage not being religious in it's deepest roots. Isn't the concept of "choice" what we've been arguing about? Homosexuals should have the choice to be married or not?
Can we agree that Marriage is defined by love, whether homo or heterosexual? Being forced into a relationship without loving who you're "marrying" is not marriage.
Derek McLeod
@ Danielle Moreau
The thing about the constitution, is that it DOES need to be blatantly stated. The reason we have the US Supreme court is so that they can interpret the Constitution and guess what it means. That's why we have this argument, to interpret what the forefather's wrote in their moments of badassness. The Constitutions STRICTLY promises three things, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not happiness, the pursuit. That's why America is pretty cool. Homosexuals, and any group for that matter, have the right to PURSUE, what they want, not necessarily the right to what they want.
Mike Chabek
ABBA....haha my choices came out to be abba. i hope you do well on you paper and of course you lost the game :-)
Derek McLeod
Actually, Derek, it was originally Life, Liberty, and the right to own land, the pursuit of happiness is just kind of bullshit.
Kevin Sheehan
I think an arranged marriage is still a marriage because regardless of love, it is a legal action that was recognized for tax/property purposes, and the government doesn't care how deeply in love you are, they want to know what the records should say. This doesn't mean I don't believe in love, and I think it's the most important thing in today's marriages, just I don't think your argument is all that sound.
Sarah Strickland
A
A
B
A
Kevin Sheehan
Doesn't closing all of the doors in front of you stop you from pursuing what's behind them?
Banning gay marriage stops any and all pursuit of that.
Lan Gu
The Constitution does need to be defined. But by whom? By lawmakers who have their own personal biases.
Joe Bradford
Question: Does the constitution grant the right for gays to marry? Apparently, it depends on who you talk to. The constitution, in my opinion, is an elastic, living document. Not the end-all, be-all to rules of how to live.
Mariah O’Rourke
And wasn't the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution?
@Kevin: Technically, in the eyes of the church, marriage is a bond between two people who love each other. At least now a days. Love has everything to do with it."
Jennifer Willis
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Joe Bradford
@Mariah -- Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage, but CAN exist without each other. There are plenty of marriages of convenience and not because people love waking up to their husband/and/or/wives' face.
Derek McLeod
"So nobody who voted for Obama or supports gay marriage does so out of their own very strong beliefs on the subject, yet all of your ideals are sturdy and purely your own?"
No no no, that's not what I meant at all. A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for him for a reason. Essentially I was generalizing our generation and age group. But you can't deny people go with trends. I'm saying that a lot of them did, not all of them. I apologize for the misconception.
Also, were my beliefs influenced by my upbringing? Yes, but that's not to say that my beliefs are what they are because of my upbringing. Influenced, not decided.
Kevin Sheehan
Well that depends on your philosophical views really...
(Note: This is mostly just Kevin playing Devil's advocate for a moment)
Mariah O’Rourke
@Joe: You're definitely right, I was just saying in the eyes of the Church
Kevin Sheehan
But to say that people voting for him because of trends, or whatever the reason, holds less weight than you voting based upon your beliefs and research creates somewhat of a double-standard.
Derek McLeod
@ Mariah
You're right, I feel stupid now. The DOI and Constitution are often paired together. Shows how much 50k get's you :-P (I love BU...)
Derek McLeod
“But to say that people voting for him because of trends, or whatever the reason, holds less weight than you voting based upon your beliefs and research creates somewhat of a double-standard."
How so?
Is it right to say that the kid who becomes a Yankee/Red Sox (both have band-wagoners!) fan because of the fact that they win World Series is on the same level of someone who goes to EVERY game through thick and thin? Absolutely not. People who voted for Obama because it's what other people did do not hold the same weight versus people who voted for him because he lined up with their personal ideologies.
Kevin Sheehan
Your beliefs, in my eyes, are no more valid than the beliefs of anyone else, regardless on how you arrived at your decision.
I really can't do this anymore, so summarize:
I don't think that the Church should have sway over the United States government more than can be helped, and especially not over groups with less supporters. That being said, I think gay marriage should be legal, and called such, because regardless of the Church's views, granting everyone equal rights entails giving everyone equal rights to use whatever words they would like, thus it would be unfair to take a 'separate but equal' approach, like with civil union.
Mariah O’Rourke
Clearly no one is understanding that all I'm saying is that in the eyes of the Church, marriage is defined by love. It's not the law
Derek McLeod
I'm not saying that Heterosexuals have the RIGHT to anything either. Hence the, "and any group for that matter". No one is guaranteed the right to be happy, they are just guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. Not just homosexuals, but everyone. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness, no one has the given right TO happiness. No one.
@Kevin, who left:
I'm basically generalizing that a lot of people voted for Obama totally regardless of their personal beliefs, but because "everyone else was" They had no idea what he stood for, no idea what he wanted to do. That's who I'm talking about.
Kevin Sheehan
I'm kind of here... I'm wary to leave in fear of the wave of notifications I could receive...
I know who you were referring to. My comment still stands.
Derek McLeod
If that's the case then we agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue that useless small point any further.
I will say, that I am proud of us so far. This is the first internet "debate" I've seen where no one was personally attacked and people were logical. Congrats.
Mariah O’Rourke
Somehow I feel like I knew that this would come down to a Kevin/Derek debate. I'm proud of you boys for remaining respectful...Wow that sounded so stupid. I apologize.
Derek McLeod
Of course it's going to come down to Kevin and I!
Kevin's a respectable guy. Also, he may be Jesus in his second coming and I don't wanna mess with that shit.
Derek McLeod
So, can we see the paper?
Tom Barthelmes
tom is now taking kevin's place
Derek McLeod
Well that was fun! At least it lasted 7 hours and I'm leaving work soon, thanks guys!
Mariah O’Rourke
Oooo...shut down, Tom =)
Joe Bradford
I am now lan, kevin, derek, and tom.
and jesus and obama.
Danielle Moreau
"@ Derek
I don't want to argue about these things, I always feel it never gets us anywhere - but the same goes for you. The pursuit of happiness means you have the right to pursue your beliefs, but that does not mean you will get them. You may not want gays to get married, but that is not something that is promised to you just because it would make you happy. I also think it is quite sad that every minute detail must be written into the Constitution in order for people to understand it. We are given the right to bear arms, but does that really mean we are allowed to keep nuclear weapons in our homes? No, that is ridiculous - yet we understand it even though it's not blatant.
Tom Barthelmes
kevin-if that 'Tom, thank-you for that lovely insight and for elaborating on your stances so eloquently' was sarcasm, it's not appreciated. we honestly disagreed on just about one thing, the dad/mom thing.
derek-i fully 690% agree that obama was elected via bandwagon. people were more concerned with hope and change and electing a BLACK president than they were with electing a good president. he may have convinced all those young people out there, but he certainly hasn't yet convinced wall street, and his job-approval rating is lower than bush's was at this time when he was first elected. but i digress.
and personal attacks are waiting and at the ready. the case over the big red button has been lifted, all i have to do is press the button.
Derek McLeod
I didn't even mean to shut down Tom, his post wasn't there when I was writing mine. I hadn't refreshed the page!
Tom Barthelmes
danielle why aren't we allowed to keep nukes in our homes? since when?
Derek McLeod
"@ Joe- hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
/End
Tom Barthelmes
joe-okay, i'll be joe
Tom Barthelmes
and raptor jesus
Tom Barthelmes
i went extinct for your sins!
MEETOER COMIN LAWLZ
Derek McLeod
Unend-
Regarding Wall Street. I'm ready to tango here if you want. I love the economy, hell, it's basically what I'm majoring in. I can talk about that one all night!
But I won't because it's going to end in a pointless flamefest. Wall Street is not going to be fixed overnight, nor is it going to be fixed AT ALL in 2009. Tomorrow, if the meeting regarding marking Bank's assets at market goes through, stocks are going to SOAR, but only temporarily. Someone fell asleep at the wheel here, and Obama isn't going to fix this problem in 2 months. People don't realize that this isn't just going to be fixed. Hell, the bailout money hasn't even been dispersed yet.
But I'm not about to debate the state of the economy too.
Danielle Moreau
Lol, well I suppose we are [and I guess I shouldn't have assumed the obvious] but it's a ridiculous concept and completely unnecessary :)
Tom Barthelmes
derek, im not saying that wall street will be fixed overnight but it just keeps getting worse and he's not exactly providing much confidence. and this (the economy) was the final nail in mccain's coffin that led to obama's victory.
let's start WWIII. boost industry.
Tom Barthelmes
danielle-what the hell do you mean ridiculous? since when can't we have nukes in our homes? is this seriously a law? if it is its garbage
Tom Barthelmes
Fin
Danielle Moreau
It was more of a hypothetical/logical point, that nuclear weapons are not necessary in homes. I doubt that they are legal, though I could not tell you for certain - either way I would have to kindly disagree with you :)
Zoe Jost
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Liz Demeo
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Sam Moore
1:A
2:A
3:B
4:A
Nathan Jellis
i am now going to comment on a few things without having read most of the posts, or even any of the posts in the immediate vicinity, so i'll probably either repeat something someone else has said, or say something completely irrelevant, but i don't really care.
according to derek, "Civil Unions aren't really separate but equal. I think that they should get all rights of married man and woman. It's really Gay Marriage, I'm just arguing the stupid point of not calling it marriage." i don't really know how to point this out without sounding obvious and condescending, but that is exactly what separate but equal IS. you'd probably have better luck arguing that separate but equal is an acceptable situation for the time being than arguing that civil unions aren't a case of separate but equal.
Nathan Jellis
according to kevin, "I wouldn't call your point of view 'stupid', especially because you're entitled to your opinion just as much as anyone else. You obviously came from a very Christian upbringing, and thus you have those morals and beliefs instilled in you, making your point of view completely logical." the philosophy that people are entitled to their own opinions inherently guarantees that a lot of opinions are going to be stupid, not that every opinion is valid, kevin. to quote douglas adams, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." and just because derek had a religious upbringing, that doesn't validate his opinion. maybe you're saying it makes it easier to understand where he's coming from, but it doesn't make him logical.
Nathan Jellis
and finally, ej. i understand that some people's style of debate is that they try to keep the peace and find common ground, but that's the opposite of how i feel. i think you should confront people, often in a harsh and blunt manner. i would understand if someone is just being counterproductive that you might want to delete their comment, but after having made a case, i usually want to call a bigot a bigot, you know? i don't think you've really crossed the line in being too sensitive, but it's not a mindset i'm entirely comfortable with. too many religious debates are stopped dead in their tracks because "that's their faith, that's their belief, that's their WAY OF LIFE! who are we to question them or debate them on such a topic? we might OFFEND them!"
Ross Daly
I love reading great debates like this, It really brings out everyone's true opinions and who everyone really is. I think that Tom's point should be debated a lot more, in how a child's upbringing is affected by gay parents. In my opinion this is giant issue in this debate that should be addressed. What are the differences between being brought up by gay and straight parents? One statistic that I remember reading is that children who are brought up by a same sex couple have a lot higher rate of being gay than those brought up by a mother and a father. So now this brings in whether gayness is "nature" or "nurture" (tabula rasa) (or more likely a combination of both). Tom argued that because animals can exhibit homosexuality and animals cant decide things for themselves that gayness is purely nature. Now from the statistic I mentioned before, this can not be possible, because if gayness was purely nature, then every child has an equal chance of becoming gay (which is not true).
Ross Daly
Therefore gayness is not purely nature. Upbringing has to be at least some part of whether or not someone is gay. A corollary is that IF there were no gay couples with children, then there would be less gay people in this world. So basically letting kids grow up with gay parents creates a higher percentage of gay people i this world (which I am NOT necessarily stating is a bad thing, just following deductive reasoning). So my question is , Is it a bad thing to "turn" people that would have become heterosexual with heterosexual parents into homosexuals with homosexual parents?
Another point I would like to make is what the child of a gay couple would probably experience in his years around other kids. Honestly a lot of kids are mean to one another throughout grade school (bullys namecalling etc...) Kids make fun of other kids about any thing that is different from the "norm". I have no evidence to support me here, but I am sure that a lot of kids with same sex parents will...
Nathan Jellis
actually, looking at the results of this survey, i'm feeling really optimistic that the next generation of gay kids, and the kids of gay parents won't have to worry much at all about being bullied. almost everyone here answered AABA or ABBA *sniffle* you guys make me so proud to be in this generation :) looks like it's time to declare gay rights a success and move onto polygamous marriage rights.
Ross Daly
have trouble with bullies and such in school probably more than others. But then again, it is also possible that if kids are legally allowed to be brought up by homosexual parents, then within a few generations, it WOULD be considered normal and kids would not get made fun of or have a difficult time in the social hell of grade school. But also would the kids of these "few generations" be worth it to have this done upon them? or does the end justify the mean.
Ross Daly
Damn you nate! you posted in between my sentence haha
Nathan Jellis
oh that's silly ross. would you also prevent poor people from bringing kids into this world? i mean they'd suffer at least as much as the gay kids, with their parents barely being able to support them.
Ross Daly
First, I am not referring to gay kids, I am referring to kids with gay parents. Second, being raised poor is not "new" in the sense that being raised by homosexual parents is. (NOT saying that just because something has happened for a long time, it is not bad) Third being raised by homosexual parents is something that can be controlled by legislature unlike being poor and lastly, I am just bringing up new topics to debate.
Derek McLeod
Totally did not expect people to still be posting on this "according to derek, "Civil Unions aren't really separate but equal. I think that they should get all rights of married man and woman. It's really Gay Marriage, I'm just arguing the stupid point of not calling it marriage." i don't really know how to point this out without sounding obvious and condescending, but that is exactly what separate but equal IS."
To debate your point, I totally disagree with this. Separate but equal (SBE from now on, i'm lazy) as it was ruled unconstitutional, was not outlawing the concept of SBE, but the way SBE came to be. When you look back, SBE was not equal at all. Blacks had MUCH worse schools, facilities, transportation, houses, etc etc. The practices under "SBE" had be outlawed, not the actual idea of SBE (Kinda sorta... not saying it was right, but I think it would have been a harder fight if everyone was granted the same EXACT rights. the rights weren't equal under SBE)
Derek McLeod
you see what I'm saying? Kinda? It not like everyone hated the idea of SBE, it was basically ruled unconstitional because it wasnt working the way people wanted it to (Read: No universal health care... wait what?) Granting someone a Civil Union with the EXACT same rights as a married couple is nowhere near SBE. Had the blacks had the same quality schools and what not it would have been a hell of a lot harder to prove SBE unconstitutional.
Also, I believe that being gay is nature WAY more than it is nurture. To say it's a choice is just ignorant and stupid. I don't like certain foods, do I choose to dislike them?
That being said, it CAN be a choice for some. I mean, hell, look at all male prisons. Men just become gay in there just because they have to. But that's an extreme example
Derek McLeod
Also, let me state that I was talking about SBE like that for the sake of argument. I was in no way promoting the concept, or the "evolved definition" of SBE.
Nathan Jellis
"and just because derek had a religious upbringing, that doesn't validate his opinion. maybe you're saying it makes it easier to understand where he's coming from, but it doesn't make him logical."
I also very much disagree with this. My "religious" upbringing most certainly validates my opinion just as your way of life validates your opinion,
While you may not think so, I don't see how my opinion is not logical. It's not like I'm standing here telling you Gay Marriage isn't okay because the Bible doesn't say that. That's illogical. I'm bringing up the point that ALL sides need to be seen here. Every person is entitled to their opinion, and if it's well thought out and researched, it hold just as much value as the next opinion. My opinion isn't just religious rhetoric. Hell, my roommate/best friend is gay and he's the one who brought up this idea to me (he's also against gay marriage, as his his boyfriend) To say your opinion is more valid then mine is ludicrous.
Kim Larie
A
A
B
A
Little rant from a gay friend of mine:
Yes, the idea of being married IS important, but when it really comes down to it, a lot of the gay marriage debate is over whether the state recognizes the couple as a couple, leading to huge tax breaks/benefits. In essence, its a business transaction. Like it has been until just about one hundred years ago.
And to those who say that this will only lead to people marrying each other for money or for healthcare or for immigration purposes, that happens all the time too. What difference does it make if the couple is same sex or not? The 'sanctity of marriage' is not what it used to be.
And one more note...don't most same sex unions last longer than regular marriages? I'm not sure about that, but I think i heard it from a reputable source...
Nathan Jellis
i never actually knew anything about separate but equal, i just assumed that it meant what the words meant.
i wasn't saying that your opinion was wrong (i'll say it now, but that's a different issue). i was just saying that your upbringing doesn't automatically justify it. which you seem to understand, because you talk about how your opinion is well thought out and researched. but if you understand that, i don't see why you would claim that your upbringing can validate your opinion. or do you mean that your upbringing gives you the right to have your opinion? well, sure, obviously. your existence gives you the right to have your opinion. i always find it dreadfully fucking inane when people say "everyone has a right to their opinion" because for one, it's completely obvious, and also because often it's used as an attempt to stop a debate before it starts.
Nathan Jellis
"First, I am not referring to gay kids, I am referring to kids with gay parents." yeah yeah that's what i meant.
"Second, being raised poor is not "new" in the sense that being raised by homosexual parents is. (NOT saying that just because something has happened for a long time, it is not bad)" okay, if you're not saying that then i don't see why you brought it up.
"Third being raised by homosexual parents is something that can be controlled by legislature unlike being poor" following the analogy, the legislature would be preventing poor people from having children, which is something that definitely could be controlled.
my point is that if we are going to prevent gay couples from having kids, and our justification is that we don't want to bring children into the world that will have to suffer like that, then if that justification were the TRUE justification and not just a rationalization, then you would have to apply it to other situations too, such as with poor people.
Kenneth Mantler
I wasn't tagged in this note, but I'm throwing my two cents in. All A's for me. The state level is important, but the thousands of rights given on the federal level is perhaps more important (and it is literally 1,000s of rights/perks/benefits). The idea of separation b/w church and state is 20th century notion. To think that our politics and religion is separate is inaccurate. This is true no matter the religion/state. I don't believe in a sacred/secular split that modernism tried to create. One of the more interesting thing for this paper would to be to consider semiotics. The word 'marriage' has a lot of different meanings behind it. This may deeper than you want to go, but the research of Paul Ricoeur and Saussure are especially relevant. If you care or have questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Derek McLeod
"i wasn't saying that your opinion was wrong... attempt to stop a debate before it starts."
1) of course you believe my opinion to be wrong, hence the "debate"!
I read your statement 100 times, and I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree, and I'm not going to go back and forth about it. Your opinion is justified by however you see fit. I justify my opinion by my upbringing, research, and personal beliefs.
But let me ask you this, what is truly more important, having Gay Marriage or having the same rights as heterosexual couples?
If tomorrow NH came out with a vote to legalize Civil Unions with ALL of the same benefits of a Marriage, but it wasn't a marriage, how would you vote? Would you vote no because it wasn't a marriage?
If so, then in my opinion, your priorities are misaligned.
Nathan Jellis
no, i WAS NOT saying that your opinion that there should be civil unions but not gay marriage was wrong. i was not saying that. saying that, i was not. that is not what i was saying. i was only saying that "but that's how i was brought up!" is no justification for that opinion. whether or not i agree with your opinion is irrelevant. so the debate would exist no matter how i felt. that said, yes, i do happen to also disagree with it.
we must have some kind of disagreement on the meaning of certain terms, because "your opinion is justified by however you see fit" sounds absolutely insane to me.
the rights are, of course, the more important thing. i still think gay marriage should exist in full. i don't really care to debate this. i'm much more interested in how you think it's okay to think something just because that's what you were taught growing up.
Nathan Jellis
why must people misunderstand the fuck out of me? i try so very hard to be unambiguous.
Jennifer Connors
1) A
2) A
3) B
4) Can't vote in NH so I guess n/a
Erica Richards
A,A,B,A
Kevin Sheehan
I'd just like to address a little point of what Ross was saying without getting too much deeper into a debate... Your whole 'bullying' argument I find to be really weak. Kids will find any reason at all to pick on/make fun of other kids. Whether it's being gay, or wearing a green shirt, especially in earlier grade schools, it really doesn't matter, so though I agree that having a less than traditional set of parents could spark children to pick on the child of these parents, I don't think that it's any different or deeper than if the parents had chosen to have their kid wear a blue shirt every single day.
Maegan Michaud
It's not like marriage is suddenly religious - I could walk down to city hall with some guy and get married in five minutes. God has lost His place in American marriage (more often than not) and besides, seperation of church and state is crucial to abiding by the constitution. Especially when that religion discriminates against people - gays not being able to marry is discrimination. No one ever thought interracial couples would ever be able to marry - and now it seems silly that they couldn't. The same will happen with same sex couples. And the world won't come crashing down. Fancy that.
Kassie Tenney
AABA
Derek McLeod
The separation of Church and State has never, and will never exist(ed). Ever. We need to accept that fact and move past that. Do I agree with it? No, if you read my entire argument, you'd see I'm not regurgitation religious rhetoric. Gays deserve EVERY right that Heterosexuals have, and you are correct, the world would not come crashing down. To me, Marriage is defined by the Church as between a man and a woman, therefor not having gay marriage is not discrimination. By definition, Muslims can't receive the Eucharist in the Christian church. Is that discrimination? No, it's not. Gays not being entitled to the same rights is, in fact, discrimination. When you really get down to it, the homosexual community is arguing for the same rights, and the same ease of acquiring those rights, as heterosexual couples (you know, taxes, money, loans, "inheritances", adoption), ALL of which I 100% agree with. I'm simply offering my opinion, and what MAY be a compromise.
Tom Barthelmes
a good compromise leaves everyone miserable..
--Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes)
Tom Barthelmes
and nate, reading over your comments, i never thought you were ambiguous in your arguments. i have not misunderstood the fuck out of you.
and ross, i still think its nature more than nurture (that is, the greatest cause for the proliferation of homosexuality is natural, not because there are more gay couples out there who make up a vasttt minority)
Derek McLeod
"a good compromise leaves everyone miserable..
--Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes)"
The irony in that, is Calvin is named after John Calvin, founder of Calvinism/Presbyterianism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have come full circle. We may all die in peace! :-D
Michael Moore
A,A,A,A
Joe Bradford
What is equal? What is fair?
These things are subjective.
Church and state are married, and forever will be in bed together. Wether you like it or not, we still have half of the country who won't vote for muslims, jews, mormons, etc -- (see: the south)
People will always discriminate against other people. This is inevitable.
Religion does play a major role in marriage, although the non religious are currently allowed to marry. Why should this be any different with same-sex couples?
Personally, I wouldn't want to be gay, and I'm glad I'm not. I don't understand how you could be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. To me, I believe people were meant to procreate and die. Being gay disallows true marital procreation. Is this bad? No. Is this wrong? Again, no. We need adopters. If gay couples want children, they should have the right as any other parent does. If they would like to artificially create a baby using the parent's DNA, I'm notsure how Ifeel boutthat
Joe Bradford
However, they should still have the right to.
Ultimately, marriage is just a stack of legal documents, and a legally binding agreement between two people. This agreement ties them together, for better or for worse, until death (or divorce). Why should this be limited to strictly men and women?
Kevin Sheehan
Equal is not subjective.
Meghan Yankowskas
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
Leah Daniels
I would say A A B A
Lan Gu
Nathan Jellis at 8:08pm March 16
I totally agree with this slippery slope argument.
Other thoughts:
Upbringing does not "turn" kids gay. In fact, all gays had to have been created by straights. Because back whenever the first gay child was born, we had no sophisticated methods to artificially inseminate or elaborate written contracts to lease surrogates; to me, gayness could be a simple genetic mutation*, which has survived as people have obtained access to technology, and through concealing identity. Gayness is most likely more prevalent than you think. For those of you who've seen Milk (I suggest you see it if you haven't), consider if everyone gay were to come out. How many more gays would you know? Probably many more.
*Research on the "gay gene" is inconclusive.
Lan Gu
Other thoughts (continued):
A good compromise does not leave everyone miserably necessarily. Often times it is necessary to maximize the overall happiness of a society. (But then, there is this debate on whether society has an "overall happiness...")
Bottom line: You can't always get what you want, and if you're miserable, that's your problem; don't blame your misery on others. Goes for both sides, gay and straight.
I can well be miserable with, for example, the current state of the economy, but I'm not. This is not to say that I'm ignorant of the current state of affairs--I believe we should all be AWARE and NOT indifferent just because we each choose to go our own ways. In other words, while our thoughts may differ fundamentally, we do not live without obligations to others, from a social contract standpoint. This is not to say that we always go our own ways: sure, humans are inherently self-interested, but when we do come together (peacefully), it is beautiful.
Lan Gu
The word limit is killing me.
So continuing...
The above points I've made should have you ask the following question: what obligations to others does the social contract contain?
I'll let you think about whether a gay marriage provision should be added.
Last thoughts:
As Shakespeare beautifully put it:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."
Separate but equal? Gay marriage?
A name; what does it matter? Love is what matters. Names are artificial and meaningless conventions when they impede our abilities to get along with one another. What value do I see in a name? A name can offer a sense of self, the individual. But this individual that modern society celebrates... is not the same as the individual that Emerson or Whitman celebrated. How have we changed? Why have we changed?
Lan Gu
The individual, now, has become a divisive force; it separates us from others. This differs from the Emersonian definition of "individual," in that, in his view, we all came together as parts of a larger chorus (society).
So is it that we recognize our own worries about getting lost in the crowd? (Using the metaphor of the chorus, is it that each one of us wants to sing louder than all others?) Is this why we call upon debate? Does controversy sustain us? Certainly, it makes some of us stars (in that our voices, above all others, are recognized), but it also makes some of us shine less bright, when our opinions are slighted.
What then is a good balance? Does compromise necessarily create balance? Or does the rapid switch from one extreme to the other necessitate balance?
