Video: Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman

Originally posted by xander68

Gee, Im gay and I dont see it as a problem. The only problem I see is that some people use the 'institution of marriage' as a way to exclude certain people or groups from getting the same benefits they enjoy, simply because they arent sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

When I see Americans treat marriage as the 'special tradition' they claim it to be, maybe I'll believe thats the real motive behind it.

In other news- Connecticut married its first gay couple I hear!!

You see Maintal, things are changing. They will take time, but they are changing. Just because something has always been, doesnt mean it will always be.

Gee, Im gay and I dont see it as a problem.

I didn't ask and it's none of my business

Gee, Im gay and I dont see it as a problem. The only problem I see is that some people use the 'institution of marriage' as a way to exclude certain people or groups from getting the same benefits they enjoy, simply because they arent sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

No wrong again, they are NOT using marriage to exclude "certain" (assuming certain means gay and you don't have a problem with it?) types of people, they are using the law to exclude same sex couples from marriage and the people have spoken in some states. In other states their are exceptions where they have same sex marriages and I would respect the laws in that state just the same.



[edit on 12-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by TheRedneck

Apparently, someone is not getting the word out sufficiently. I was not aware of the differences myself until our discussions. Perhaps that could be addressed, rather than badgering some old lady with a cross?

Well, I presume people who read articles like that other poster assumes that being given certain rights on a state level does not differ with marriage rights. The GLBT community has been pretty vocal about civil unions, domestic partnerships, because while trying to approve them in other states they have tried to correct the differences, but they are faced with the trouble that nation wide marriage is the only union the law is required to give all of these privileges to.

I don’t think the cross thing was right, I said that on the first page of this thread. What else is not right? Lumping all gay protesters or gays together as if they agree with such actions and judging them all for the actions of a few people.

Originally posted by xander68
reply to post by undo

 

True- and we know millions of people break those vows. For something that is so special to them, they constantly trample all over it.

Yes so why not take it one step further and see if gays don't trample over it too? I don't understand what are you saying here? Because they trampled on it that gives anyone else the right to say it isn't so special to those who have not trampled on it?

Interesting. Why would an old lady with a giant wooden cross protest in front of gay people and why would they take the interview in front of the gay people in question? It's interesting that there were no police present, what with it being a protest and all. I also noticed a slight jump in between 1:23 and 1:25 range. For a "live" broadcast, that's not very live. Is there an explanation to this?

I think this may have been a bearbaiting exercise.

reply to post by MacDonagh


what's a bearbaiting exercise? just for the record, if christians are doing this to make gay people look bad, then i don't condone it at ALL! if someone else is doing it to make gays and christians look bad or to instigate violence between them, i don't condone that either! but if this is on the up and up, those in the gay community might want to spread the word that that type of thing will not help the situation.

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Interesting. Why would an old lady with a giant wooden cross protest in front of gay people and why would they take the interview in front of the gay people in question? It's interesting that there were no police present, what with it being a protest and all. I also noticed a slight jump in between 1:23 and 1:25 range. For a "live" broadcast, that's not very live. Is there an explanation to this?

I think this may have been a bearbaiting exercise.

Interesting. Why would an old lady with a giant wooden cross protest in front of gay people

You can't be serious. Oh and like it is where most people have seen instances where the police are needed, I am sure they arrived just in time to make a report

reply to post by MAINTAL

Yes so why not take it one step further and see if gays don't trample over it too?

I don’t think that’s what they are saying, they are pointing out that marriage is no longer sacred as you say. If you are straight you can marry someone you’ve just met. You can marry someone because they are wealthy and you are pretty. Marriage is not a sacred union, it is essentially a legal contradict given to anyone, long as they are straight, not already married, and of the legal age or given parental consent.

reply to post by undo


A bearbaiting exercise is basically when you hound and lead your opponent to do what they normally wouldn't do. Take for example, this Prop 8 story. Both sides are very sure of their views, and they are angered, even hateful of the other side to the point of rabid. If you toss a do gooding Christian old lady, with a giant cruxifix proclaiming her views on Prop 8, which are contrary to the people who say no to Prop 8, then you get some good television of gay people self-righteously overreacting to an old lady carrying a cruxifix protesting gay people who want to get married. Bearbaiting is an old practice where they used to let loose dogs on chained bears who couldn't fight back for entertainment's sake. And that was mildly entertaining. It was a very good thing that there were some cameras there to catch all that action.

If you read between the lines, something is rotten about it.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by xander68

 

Hey xander68, I've been tackling this "tradition" argument in another thread, and it appears gay marriage has actually existed before, quite a long time ago. So the argument that marriage has always been one way seems to be rapidly falling apart. Not that it was a strong one to begin with, things like slavery have been around much longer, as a society we have greatly progressed, we can certainly let gays enjoy the same rights if doing so does not lawfully affect us. The tradition argument is just an excuse, and a bad one at that.

I never knew that before! When in history and where?

And I agree- the tradition argument is silly. If things never changed or progressed, we'd all own slaves today and women wouldn't be voting. And we all know those old ways were vile moments in our history.

25 years ago, when I was 15, I remember coming out to my family, and their response was "Dont worry we'll send you to the best doctor money can buy and fix this", but I didnt want to be fixed. I like the way I am. I love the man Im with. Im going to be with him the rest of my life. I wont let anyone's 'traditions' or fears stand in my way. I'm going to be married to him one day soon, and theres nothing anyone can do about it.

reply to post by MAINTAL


You didn't answer my question. Why would an old lady with a giant cruxifix knowingly protest where the gay people were protesting?

Glad there was a camera to catch all of that!

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Yes so why not take it one step further and see if gays don't trample over it too?

I don’t think that’s what they are saying, they are pointing out that marriage is no longer sacred as you say. If you are straight you can marry someone you’ve just met. You can marry someone because they are wealthy and you are pretty. Marriage is not a sacred union, it is essentially a legal contradict given to anyone, long as they are straight, not already married, and of the legal age or given parental consent.

Very smart young lady you are rapinbatsisaltherage

How is it some people 'get it' so easily and others dont? Maybe its because some people arent afraid or worried about what kind of sex some of us are having? Because thats what its really about after all.

reply to post by xander68


Here are two sites I obtained thanks to another poster, I’ve been researching it more thanks to them:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.enotalone.com...
The sites mention medieval Europe (six hundred years ago), Native Americans, and as far back as the Greek culture.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Yes so why not take it one step further and see if gays don't trample over it too?

I don’t think that’s what they are saying, they are pointing out that marriage is no longer sacred as you say. If you are straight you can marry someone you’ve just met. You can marry someone because they are wealthy and you are pretty. Marriage is not a sacred union, it is essentially a legal contradict given to anyone, long as they are straight, not already married, and of the legal age or given parental consent.

See this is NOT my argument it is yours with the state that makes same sex marriages illegal for other reasons having nothing to do with being sacred in a religious sense because if it did you would be raising the separation powers to the forefront of your argument. be that as it may, it doesn't make it right to say because some don't hold it in as high as place as it was intended means it is not to those who still honor it in that way.

The circumstances you give in an attempt to trivialize it by citing who can marry who no matter how shallow it may seem, the fact is in every case like that we are still talking about a man and a woman being married which is how marriage came about the meaning to bring together in one flesh making it not a sin to have sex. That is the theistic side to this and whether or not that is something they live up to by example or not the fact remains that to many, this too is an issue gays will have a hard time getting acceptance.

Look I am not against gays and couldn't care less who people want to love Ill simply let their conscience be their guide but I what I am saying is there are more reasons that this is objected to than merely bashing gays. It has never occured to them that maybe, just maybe they are asking for something more important to heterosexual couples than merely tax advantages they want to keep for themselves.

It isn't always about gays. It isn't always about gays being discriminated against but more about being discriminating about Marriage as it was intended.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

Originally posted by xander68
Maybe its because some people arent afraid or worried about what kind of sex some of us are having? Because thats what its really about after all.

That's what I thought and thank you for justifying why most people have a problem with this. It's just sex. Well let me tell you something, I don't care what kind of sex you're having, have all you want with who you want.

Marriage isn't going to make that any different than it is now for you. In fact if anything, marriage will be the reason many of you stop having sex lol

So no, sorry, that dog won't hunt. No one is saying you can't have sex and since you do now anyway and you are saying that is what this is about then you don't need marriage after all so thanks for painting yourself in a corner so nice and neat

reply to post by MAINTAL

means it is not to those who still honor it in that way.

I’m not saying people don’t honor it today, I’m pointing out the facts, marriage is no longer sacred, it is a legal issue. Not my fault.

man and a woman being married which is how marriage came about the meaning to bring together in one flesh making it not a sin to have sex.

Why are you mentioning sin? This is not about morality, this is about legality. We live in a secular nation where marriage has ceased to be a religious practice only. As for the “man” “woman” argument that’s neither here nor there. Just because something excluded a group when it was created does not mean we can not include that group ever. Lawfully we should.

It has never occured to them that maybe, just maybe they are asking for something more important to heterosexual couples than merely tax advantages they want to keep for themselves.

I guess it has never occurred to you that despite your emotionally driven belief system gays just want to have all the same rights with their partner that straight people do. They aren’t trying to bash your religion or the supposed tradition, and they are not lawfully affecting you.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by xander68


as a christian i can tell you frankly, i'm not interested in where you stick your ...ahem. i'm more interested in what happens when we die and if we will all be there. according to the bible, which is a guide book i try to follow, being concerned about something like eternity, is not only a good thing, it's a very good thing. so sharing it with people who want to hear, is the first order of magnitude. not sharing it with those who don't want to hear it, is the second order of magnitude. that some of us are at various stages of understanding that, is more about people not reading it for themselves, than anything else. but there are exceptions such as:

the slippery slope argument. if gay marriage is allowed, what will be next, man-boy love marriages? of course, the common sense view on that is that people of all walks of life are just as likely to disagree with that as they are to disagree with homosexual marriages. so the point is moot. if voting makes a difference, the only way this will ever change is if the people change. if the people don't change, the issue will persist as it always has. and maybe that's a good thing IF the slippery slope argument is a real concern. and maybe that's not such a good thing if it's just a way to ostracize a group you disagree with!

remember, we are all on this boat together. if you can't tolerate me, but i defend you, what will be your excuse when i'm attacked for simply being what i am?

it's your move. think carefully.

Originally posted by whitl103

What's your position on Prop 8, Pavil?

As I've stated either here or in another thread, the vote of the people of California should be adhered to. They have twice told everyone by ballot what they wish Marriage to be defined as. Each State can choose the regulations involved in marriage. The latest vote was for an amendment to the Constitution of California, done properly and legally. It was passed by a clear majority of the voters in California.

If the outcome would have been the exact opposite I would have supported the will of the voters in California the opposite way. When you don't respect the will of the People, bad things tend to follow in that wake.

Again, even though many here say they aren't for violence or intimidation of those opposing them, by basically giving the brutes a free pass ( "well what did you expect them to do? just stand there?") and blaming the old lady for being there you are giving tacit approval for their actions.

Let's see if anyone from the Gay community apologizes for the behavior of some in that crowd. Imagine if something truly bad had happen to the lady due to the actions of that crowd? Where would you stand on that? You are one step away from allowing mob mentality to take over.


I, by the way, do not live in California.

reply to post by undo


The slippery slope argument is silly because other nations that have allowed gay marriage have not gone down it. No one is legally marrying toddlers or animals in those countries. As for people changing I think although we saw a narrow defeat in California there is a silver lining. Increasingly support swings our way, especially with young people. With every generation we gain more support. Prop 8 winning by a narrow margin shows that, if we lived in a state where we needed a super majority to make laws it wouldn’t have passed. People can be up set with the outcome of this vote but I think they need to be thankful for this consistent trend of us gaining support.

Originally posted by MAINTAL

So no, sorry, that dog won't hunt. No one is saying you can't have sex and since you do now anyway and you are saying that is what this is about then you don't need marriage after all so thanks for painting yourself in a corner so nice and neat

Umm...no.

I state this is the reason people get in a bunch about gay marriage. They dont agree with our lifestyle, or sexual preference. I believe that to be true in most cases... I dont know how that proves any of your points.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage


Why are you mentioning sin? This is not about morality, this is about legality. We live in a secular nation where marriage has ceased to be a religious practice only. As for the “man” “woman” argument that’s neither here nor there. Just because something excluded a group when it was created does not mean we can not include that group ever. Lawfully we should.

Don't try to shame me for bringing that into it because I am here trying to tell you the reasons why many are against it and surely that is one of the many. Look if you want to get this passed, I suggest you don't make an enemy of those on the fence over this issue because they are the ones that can change all this.

I guess it has never occurred to you that despite your emotionally driven belief system gays just want to have all the same rights with their partner that straight people do. They aren’t trying to bash your religion or the supposed tradition, and they are not lawfully affecting you.

Ok I give up, you are NOT LISTENING! So I am outa here

best of luck to you and yours








[edit on 12-11-2008 by MAINTAL]