Gay "marriage" supporters - what is your endgame?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end game of this whole "gay marriage" thing is to treat others the same way that you yourself would expect to be treated.

Now, who preached that? JESUS for one. And, the Buddha. And, just about every other spiritually enlightened teacher to ever tread this planet.

AMEN!

[Anonymous]

What is the endgame for those currently opposing gay marriage?

[Anonymous]

Good gravy. I have to agree - those who lash out so openly are generally struggling with something of their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good gravy. I have to agree - those who lash out so openly are generally struggling with something of their own.

They picked the wrong time for this, too. SCOTUS cannot help but notice the breadth of business community's support for gay rights. It makes it difficult to argue for tradition when so much of the country has moved forward.

[Anonymous]

I want my DDs to grow up and be able to marry whomever they each love and choose. That is all.

[Anonymous]

My position is probably a bit more radical than most because I see any and all forms of loving consensual relationships as equally valid and worthy of the same exact level of recognition and respect.

I want every consenting adult to have the right to make their own decisions and live their own lives however they choose as long as it's not directly harmful to anyone. I want every human respected equally and treated with basic dignity for their own personal agency.

I want everyone to be able to find love and build a life with whomever they choose, without legal barriers or discrimination and hatred directed against them.

If a male/female couple can marry and receive all of the recognition and benefits under civil law that marriage conveys, then I want to see that right extended to any consenting group of adults of any combination of gender identities who wish to take on the commitment of a marriage (yes that means I am also personally ok with the entire poly spectrum and don't believe the government should legislate against it -- like I said, my position isn't quite like most people's).

I want to see people's sexual orientations become irrelevant to how they are treated in that all people should be treated equally, and well, regardless of personal factors. I want discrimination and dehumanization to cease.

I want all people to feel safe and respected, not have to worry about gay bashing/queer bashing and hate crimes.

I want a society that treats all people as people inherently of value, not one that judges based on who a person happens to love or be romantically or sexually attracted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear, OP. No one is saying you or your church need to recognize any marriage as valid. If you and your church want to believe that no same-sex couples are married in the eyes of your god, that's perfectly fine. As an analogy, the Catholic church doesn't consider my wife and I married, because I'm not Catholic. That's fine by me, because I don't need the Catholic church's blessing. But as far as the DC government and the rest of society is concerned, we're married. Same with all the same-sex marriages. No one's forcing you personally to agree they're married, but by the same token, you cannot prevent the rest of us from treating them as married. That freedom is what the Constitution guarantees all of us.

havent read this whole thing but this is a decent summary.

im fine with gay marriage. where it would cross the line is making other religious institutions recognize it. even in my support of gay marriage, i dont believe the government should force my church to recognize a gay marriage. i hope that people dont think that this is where its all heading, because its not. it should never happen or be considered.

+1. Religious institutions may do as they wish, but recognition and benefits from the government should not rely on that in a society that upholds a separation of church and state.

Anyone of a non-Christian religion, or atheism, can have a legally valid marriage without it following the requirements of the Christian churches. This is basically the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My endgame is to not restrict something has zero bearing on my life, but means the world to someone else.

Exactly. This doesn't affect anyone other than the people getting married, so why in the world would someone feel the need to deny that to a couple in love?

Beautifully stated, PP. I agree completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is airing her opinions so freely. Keep going, OP. The more you talk, the more you mobilize all the sane people who don't want to live in a theocracy.

Please, tell us more!

Sure!! Have Hillary run on forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes !

Can't wait .

Under the equal rights theories, your second grade home room teacher can be a man who wears a dress, heels and a wig.

1. Gay =/= either cross-dresser or transgendered (I can't tell which you mean from your scenario -- the way you've stated it means the first but I think it likely you intended the second). They have no direct relationship or bearing on each other.

2. Yes, sure. Why would this be a problem? If the person is qualified for his/her/their job and can pass the background check as a safe person to be around children (no criminal convictions, etc) why on earth would it matter how the person dresses or where on the gender identity spectrum he/she/they identify? I want my child's teachers to be educated, good at their job, and good people. Gender identity and sexual orientation tell me nothing about whether a teacher has those traits and thus have nothing to do with whether I would want the person as my child's teacher.

Shorter post: "Yeah, so?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In a few years after gay marriage is "normal" they will start to say that the churches are hate places (hate speechifiers -- they'll come up with a catchier metaphor you can be sure). There will be posters of a gay couple with a cute small child of a different race in front of a church and the child will say, "why do they hate us."

Then they will say, why tax deduction to hate?

That's how they will attack, and you can bet your life on it.

Because it's not just their plan, it's the devil's.

Oy vey, you're a whackadoodle!

My gay married friends with kids go to church and are very active in faith based activities. My single gay friends are active in their churches as well. So there's no need to fear gays tearing down churches. Seriously. You might want to try actually speaking with a gay person IRL before passing such crazy judgment.

I know gays all too well. For example, my gay brother in law left his personal dating profile on our family computer: his turn on "father son scenes."

Do you wish to be educated on what this actually means? Because just from those three words I can tell you what it almost certainly does not mean. It almost certainly does not mean that your brother in law is a person who intends to actually violate children or act on a literal sexual relationship with his hypothetical son. That wording was very specific, and means something very specific but easy to misunderstand. Your brother in law is likely not the monster you believe him to be. What you read is actually easily explainable with just a few facts about something you're probably unaware of or have serious misconceptions of. If you were to request it I could perhaps explain more fully what you BIL is probably into and why it's not a problem in any way in terms of a child's safety. My explanation would be very blunt, and possibly uncomfortable, and would not be something you can unread, but it would not be explicit in any way and thus could be written in a way that would probably be appropriate for this board.

[Anonymous]

My endgame? That gay men and lesbians can marry and have the same legal protections as straight married couples across the U.S. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is airing her opinions so freely. Keep going, OP. The more you talk, the more you mobilize all the sane people who don't want to live in a theocracy.

Please, tell us more!

Sure!! Have Hillary run on forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes !

Can't wait .

Under the equal rights theories, your second grade home room teacher can be a man who wears a dress, heels and a wig.

Well, that's just ridiculous. Flats are more appropriate for a day in the classroom.

I like you, pp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In a few years after gay marriage is "normal" they will start to say that the churches are hate places (hate speechifiers -- they'll come up with a catchier metaphor you can be sure). There will be posters of a gay couple with a cute small child of a different race in front of a church and the child will say, "why do they hate us."

Then they will say, why tax deduction to hate?

That's how they will attack, and you can bet your life on it.

Because it's not just their plan, it's the devil's.

Oy vey, you're a whackadoodle!

My gay married friends with kids go to church and are very active in faith based activities. My single gay friends are active in their churches as well. So there's no need to fear gays tearing down churches. Seriously. You might want to try actually speaking with a gay person IRL before passing such crazy judgment.

I know gays all too well. For example, my gay brother in law left his personal dating profile on our family computer: his turn on "father son scenes."

Do you wish to be educated on what this actually means? Because just from those three words I can tell you what it almost certainly does not mean. It almost certainly does not mean that your brother in law is a person who intends to actually violate children or act on a literal sexual relationship with his hypothetical son. That wording was very specific, and means something very specific but easy to misunderstand. Your brother in law is likely not the monster you believe him to be. What you read is actually easily explainable with just a few facts about something you're probably unaware of or have serious misconceptions of. If you were to request it I could perhaps explain more fully what you BIL is probably into and why it's not a problem in any way in terms of a child's safety. My explanation would be very blunt, and possibly uncomfortable, and would not be something you can unread, but it would not be explicit in any way and thus could be written in a way that would probably be appropriate for this board.

Could you -- you would actually be doing me a big favor as this is a burden I've carried because I am ill at ease with him around our kids, and I've never wanted to wound my wife by telling her. It would be a kindness -- thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good gravy. I have to agree - those who lash out so openly are generally struggling with something of their own.

It's always so comical given how many of the staunchest and outspoken anti-gay advocates have often ended up being outed in the gayest sex scandals. (Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Mark Foley and many more) At least gay liberals don't hide it and don't play games pretending to be anti-gay.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I wish to separate civil and religious marriage as they do in much of Europe. I think that would fix a huge majority of the semantics arguments, save the extreme bigots.

We never should have mixed government and religion as we did here.