Originally posted by StarChild
Uhh... OK.

Same sex marriage is wrong, either way you look at it.

The last thing we should be doing is promoting it.


Mr. M

How is it wrong? Especially some of these right-wing patriots believe in "freedom and self-responsibility" These are the same people who deny same sex marriages!

Originally posted by RedOctober90

How is it wrong? Especially some of these right-wing patriots believe in "freedom and self-responsibility" These are the same people who deny same sex marriages!

There must be a point here someplace.

"freedom and self-responsibility", as you say does not corrilate in this arguement with morality, which is the cause of the denial (or at the least the belief it's wrong).

So again, what's the point?

How is it wrong? Especially some of these right-wing patriots believe in "freedom and self-responsibility" These are the same people who deny same sex marriages!

If somebody wants to think that same-sex marriage is wrong, so be it. Again, the argument is not what's right and wrong, but rather what makes us equal. Equality is not a moral question. You can say we're each allowed to kill two people in our lifetimes. Morally, that is what you would call "wrong," but at least it's equal.

Don't try and change how somebody thinks. Bigots will always be bigots.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Equality is not a moral question.

Exactely, and at the moment there is not social equality for gay people. Noone is aking all you bigots out there to stop hating, but gay people need to be accepted into our society properly, noone can stop that.

Have i ever said in my arguments that i hated gays, or that gays were wrong?

This IS NOT about equality...its ABOUT DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE!!!...Its about a societies right to self determination

Democracy is not about equality!!!....Its gonna be 51% to 49%...and you know what? under a democracy, the 51% are gonna be happy and the 49% wont....is this equity? NO, but is it the FAIREST way to determine a decision on an issue for the entire culture. Can you suggest another form of governance?

I laugh that the answer to my points has boiled down to, "its wrong, its not equal" Discrimination is LEGAL!
A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.

We have laws (in the USA) that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....Drivers license, drinking age, ciggarettes purchases, heck even some laws and punnishments are different if you are a minor or an adult. (someone please explain how you can go to Iraq in the army and kill people, yet not buy a beer afterwards, but you can smoke your brains out....if the law says at 18 yrs your an adult legally, shouldnt the drinking age be 18 too then?)

The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs.

We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Arnold Schwartenegger can only ever become a member of congress...He'll never get to be President here, because he was not BORN American.

Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...How fair is that?
qualifying religous institutions pay NO taxes. (legal bennifits for some religions but not all)

Criminal status.....Once youve been convicted of a felony, you lose your rights to vote and bear arms. (even if you didnt use any weapon.....Once youve sevred out your sentance, why are you then still discriminated against when your "debt to society" has been fufliied?) If your a convicted sex offender, you never regain your liberty either, big brother will require you to register so they can track you FOREVER...even tho youve served out your sentance...Why dont wedo this with murders? Id rather have a perv that wants to give a 12 yr old a BJ walking around, than a guy that would just kill the 12 yr old.

VOTING....in our 2 party system, anyone thats an independant doesnt get to have any say in voting during the primary elections....I thought all votes were equal....ohh only if you sign up to the 2 "official" parties?

Hell on a really basic level, we've got segregated bathrooms by sex....
we all need to go....were all doing the same thing...why are some toilets for one sex or the other? Yet we say men and women are equal? Could I be arrested for using a womens rest room?

There are TOO MANY private groups that have "exclusionary" status/situations, these situations have not been struck down and in fact have been upheld in most cases...the biggest difference between the legally sanctioned discrimination and private groups discriminating is that a private group HAS THE RIGHTS TO DO THIS under their right of freedom of association and freedoms to gather with whom they choose to. (See supreme court ruling for the Boy scouts vs gays)

Examples,
Colleges....you cant attend unless your "smart" enough to pass an entrance test...."We here at Harvard have high standards that you dont meet, but there is the community college down the street for you."
Hmm colleges do recieve federal funds, yet can exclude based on an intelligence quotient

How about the hippocrits at he United Way? Theyve got exclusive programs for all kinds of "member only" niche groups....womens health programs, elderly programs, childrens programs, programs for the poor...all dolling out "bennifits" that others cant get (because they are not part of the exclusionary criteria)....and then they have the balls to pull funds from the scouts AFTER the supreme court sides with the scouts...The UW says the scouts are discrimitory??? Whos discriminating now against whom? They used to give $$ to the scouts (for decades!), but after the public stink (which the scouts WON) they still chose to pull funding....but they'll still support other "exclusive" groups under their wing. Some example of tolorance there eh?
I will not, no one in my extended family, my grand kids will not EVER donate anything but spit to the 2 faced bastards at the United Way EVER AGAIN! Ill find other charities to be generous with.

I could go on and on about the private forms of institutionalized discriminations but these examples should MORE than suffice...speciffically the ones in the laws.

So now that we've toured US culture and can see where things arent fair, and that some "groups" can and do get bennifits that others do not.
Where is the equity?

Why is marriage any different of an "exclusive" situation? If its ok to have an affrican american club or scholorship(bennifit), why cant we have a male/female only club/bennifits?

You can't present a serious issue to children in the form of a tv show, it just passes the buck, children need to be sat down and educated properly, not fed crap by some guy in a panda suit.

Being Pisky's padawan I remember to quote him (He is my guidence on ATS, the ultimate one...apart from skippy of course).

'Dogs are allowed to marry, but gay couples aren't?' Aaah America, lovely jubberly.

For the record I'm just giving my opinion, as I only read the first page and skimmed the last, skipping the inbetween as I figure with a subject like this it'd all be the same.

Why exactly, shouldn't 'two-mummies' be put on t.v? Give me just one excuse that's not ignorant, just one that's all I ask.
So let me get this right (and this is to people against it, no one in particular), they're allowed to show straight couples together, but not a gay couple? Why? I don't quite understand this 'logic'. Please enlighten me

The amount of crap that is on television for kids to watch nowadays, with all the violence and swearing; and people are kicking up a fuss about a perfectly natural and acceptable couple, bringing up their child in a warm and loving environment.

Originally posted by LadyCool21
Why exactly, shouldn't 'two-mummies' be put on t.v? Give me just one excuse that's not ignorant, just one that's all I ask.

Ladycool, you are cool! This is not allowing any 'gay agenda' or, as CazMedia has discussed, special treatement of a minority, this is simply equality.

LadyCool quotes Pisky,

'Dogs are allowed to marry, but gay couples aren't?'
Where in the laws is this at? Are we certain that this is not just some private groups schtick? Selling pet marriages?

She also says,
"For the record I'm just giving my opinion, as I only read the first page and skimmed the last, skipping the inbetween as I figure with a subject like this it'd all be the same."

Lets break this down...
Glad its only opinion as you refused to investigate ALL of the posts on this thread. Hmm sounds like sloppy investigation or at the least a non indepth and informed opinion.
also
"as I figure " Hmmm doesnt this mean you ASSUMED? Doesnt that break one of the major rules in LOGIC? Never assume! it makes an ass-u-me.

"Why exactly, shouldn't 'two-mummies' be put on t.v?"
IF this 2 mummies part was hidden in a young kids program, AND there was no PRE-acknowlegments to parents as this subject matter would be in the show, so thats the PARENTS could determine if that idea was suitable for their child to view and be able to comprehend appropiately....then id say it was not acceptable....If we were talking about adult programing, then do whatever...but in a little kids show? with no prior warning about content? Sounds like a sneeky plot to indoctrinate someone elses kids thru the tv by a pro gay person.

Who made the producer of this show, the person responsible to make the determination that this idea was ok for any viewers children? Parents have that right and responsibillity, not the tv.

Why do you think that computer games and music cd's or movies, or now even TV shows have a ratings system? so that the PARENTS can make the choice of acceptable programs for their children....without being "suprised" from a shows content.

LadyCool continues with,
"The amount of crap that is on television for kids to watch nowadays, with all the violence and swearing; and people are kicking up a fuss about a perfectly natural and acceptable couple, bringing up their child in a warm and loving environment"

I think the phrase "a perfectly natural and acceptable couple" is exactly the issue....the answer to if this couple really IS that way will depend on who you ask. Again, youve projected YOUR views on this topic into a KIDS SHOW....This is not your place, its the parents, weather you think or they think the issue right or wrong is irrelavent....its their decision.

Social acceptance of gays is decided by the individual. CazMedia, hypothetically, may say "screw gays, they're all a bunch of stupid-@$$es." But does that become policy? NO.

Go back to the KKK and all those hate groups. Are they frowned upon? Yes. Are they considered "immoral?" Yes. Are they prevented from talking and enjoying the same rights as anyone else? No. They are allowed state marches, they are allowed to say whatever the hell they want and they can get away with it too. That's what our republic is. Say what you want, whether someone likes it or not. So morals are useless. If we were really that moral of a nation, people like Dennis Rodman and Mike Tyson and even George W. Bush would've been executed.

I am 100% for accepting gays, allowing gay marriage and giving gay people the same rights as anyone else. Morally speaking, I think not socially accepting them is "bad." But is everyone going to feel that way? Never. There are bigots and there will always be bigots.

Fight for things you make, not how people feel.

[edit on 10-6-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to put it on TV for Kids?

There is no reason. TV Stations are responcible for the content of their shows. Should they put on a kids show that has a gay couple (non-sexually of course) then that is their perogative. Obviously they will have to live with the backlash from some who think it's inappropriate, but it will in the end change nothing.

The censoring comes from parents (in a perfect world). I already cut shows I don't want my 3 1/2 year old to watch. I would do it with this show too.

But you'll not see me stopping them from doing it.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Don't send a padawan to do a jedi's job.

Really CazMedia, I have no time for silly comments and verbal bitch slapping.
Also, I quoted Pisky on the dog marriage thing because cerimonies are held for dogs, not legal marriages, obviously, please lets do be sensible about this.

I'll skip the rest of the bitchy comments, as it really has nothing to do with the original thread (and for the record, any half wit could see that I put down 'this is just my opinion' because I hadn't read all of the posts, and was clarifying that, also the fact that I didn't have any facts).

You still have not answered the original question, why should they have to put 'warnings' up that there is going to be gay parents shown? How is it any different from straight parents? Only homophobics would find this a problem, and they are the people that need to be educated against these silly ideas that they have in their heads. Now please, do feel free to respond to this, but please stick to the topic in hand.

ATS was not designed for trolls.


[edit on 10-6-2004 by LadyCool21]

Why is it "Morally wrong" for same sex to marry? How is hurting you in a way? Is it killing someone? I don't think it is.

I thought the U.S.A. was based on freedom and self-choice.. apparently we have bigots and hypocrites around here who practice "selective freedom" for only a certain type of people.

The right wing is afraid of the non-bible thumping individuals who believe in liberalism. Sorry guys, but progressive politics will eventually push forward.

It's a phase the USA is going through, no different than the days when the fight for black rights was at it's peak.

We shouldn't keep people in ignorance based on a Christian agenda. Not everyone in this world is a Christian!

[edit on 10-6-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 10-6-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by RedOctober90
I thought the U.S.A. was based on freedom and self-choice.. apparently we have bigots and hypocrites around here who practice "selective freedom" for only a certain type of people.

YEAH, I agree. Those damn hypocrits are keeping people from being completely free.

Paligomism should be allowed too, who is anyone to judge another's actions.

Stealing? Maybe they needed the money, we shouldn't be so cruel as to keep the man from eating by having more than him.

Religion? We should outlaw it because it says things are wrong. NOTHING is wrong in true freedom.

Selective freedom is wrong and only true freedom is what we need.

RedOctober90 was talking about equal rights, not about how we should let everyone be.

Equal rights is all we're talking about. Not total freedom or morals.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
RedOctober90 was talking about equal rights, not about how we should let everyone be.

Equal rights is all we're talking about. Not total freedom or morals.

It was just a joke there sparky

Religion? We should outlaw it because it says things are wrong. NOTHING is wrong in true freedom.

Selective freedom is wrong and only true freedom is what we need.

What exactly is true freedom?

Lets take the most liberal definition of freedom, abscence of restriction, with that being said, religion teaches and indoctrinates us into a selective mindset. It put constraints on us, mentality and physicaly, how is this freedom?

How is hating a minority due to thier sexual orientation, freedom ?

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

What exactly is true freedom?

Lets take the most liberal definition of freedom, abscence of restriction, with that being said, religion teaches and indoctrinates us into a selective mindset. It put constraints on us, mentality and physicaly, how is this freedom?

How is hating a minority due to thier sexual orientation, freedom ?

Deep

Let's take this bit by bit, shall we? Keep in mind that you responded to a joke, but never-the-less...

True freedom is just what you said. But it can not exist within humanity.

Each person holds the key to their own constraints because of what we believe. We all restrict ourselves.

Religion does not indoctrinate in the sense you mean it though. We are all free to choose our religion here. In that, it is us who put the restraints on ourselves thus making it free choice.

As for this "How is hating a minority due to thier sexual orientation, freedom ?" you, among others, confuse judgement with hate.

People do not always hate theives although to most stealing is wrong, and no one has a problem saying it. Hate comes from people and the human heart, not from religion.

Yes, granted there are those who DO hate homosexuals, but they are the minority to be sure. They are not those who think homosexuality is wrong in most cases.

Paint with a broad brush, and you tend to get paint on yourself more often.

"Why exactly, shouldn't 'two-mummies' be put on t.v?"
IF this 2 mummies part was hidden in a young kids program, AND there was no PRE-acknowlegments to parents as this subject matter would be in the show, so thats the PARENTS could determine if that idea was suitable for their child to view and be able to comprehend appropiately....then id say it was not acceptable....If we were talking about adult programing, then do whatever...but in a little kids show? with no prior warning about content? .......This is not your place, its the parents, weather you think or they think the issue right or wrong is irrelavent....its their decision.

Brother of lesbian mother of 2 agrees...Some kids are born into a situation and have to be confused with the "other"kind of parents that a majority of their peers have . The children of heterosexual couples need the opportunity to inform / educate their own children in accordance with their own oppinions or values (pro or con) without interference from "suprise"content ...... On another note , as a country made up of cultures from all over the globe , founded on the basis of personal freedoms from oppresion , we sure have alot of biggots amongst us .
I support my sister and her family , you decide for yourself , and teach your kids the way you want . Oppinions should be asked for , not offered (except here at ATS of course)

[edit on 11-6-2004 by oddtodd]

Hmm. maybe this should be moved the the media section as it is concerning the use of Gay characterisation in T.V, not about the moral debate about being gay. Mods? Can it be done to help this discussion a lil' bit?

[edit on 6/11/2004 by earthtone]