“They Won’t Magically Turn You Into A Lustful [snip]: Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I just came across this letter while browsing my Facebook timeline and felt it needed to be posted here. Chris Kluwe, a Minnesota Vikings punter, decided to write a letter to Politician Emmett C. Burns in response to a letter Mr. Burns sent to the Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti. Mr. Burns sent a letter to Mr. Bisciotti in response to linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo choosing to speak out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage.

Here's Chris Kluwe's letter, in full, to Mr. Emmett Burns:


Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):
1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mind#ing obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy #ing #balls. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh #. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth cluster# you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.


After reading this letter, Chris Kluwe is now my hero. He's said things I could never dream about saying in this letter regarding same-sex marriage, and he has also put my thoughts into words over this subject. While he may have used some obscenity in his letter, I think it was just and deserved. The part that stuck in my head the most was this right here:

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population...
Because it's true. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have NO ill-effects on those who do not choose to partake and marry someone of the same sex. Heterosexual marriage has had NO ill-effects on my life personally, so why should same-sex marriage be any different?

Now, what I would like from you, ATS, is a response to Chris's letter. What did it say to you? How did reading this letter make you feel? Can you answer some of the questions Chris asked in his letter to Mr. Emmett Burns?

All in all, I think what Chris Kluwe said and did was incredible and I applaud him for speaking up.
edit on 7/9/2012 by Believer101 because: Derp moment
edit on 7-9-2012 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
You just discovered the magic word!

"SNIP"

You will never get banned here!
Unless this is not about chickens.

edit on 7-9-2012 by tvtexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Burns wrote his letter to Ayanbadejo's boss asking him to keep his player from the controversial statements,

In response, Ayanbadejo took to Twitter, tweeting, ''Football is just my job it's not who I am. I am an American before anything. And just like every American I have the right to speak!!!''
I'm not taking a position one way or another on anything, but doesn't Burns have the same right? Players have been fired, not just silenced over comments they've made to the press. For a while, it seemed like Tim Tebow was being told daily to lay off the prayer business. If Ayanbadejo was told to "shut up," he certainly wouldn't have been the only one.

As an aside, Burns is a black, Democrat politician. I recall that the Mayors of Boston and Chicago, both Democrats, wanted to hinder Chick-fil-A's business and punish then for their speech.

I'm truly (and I know you won't believe it) not trying to be partisan, but do the Democrats play a little harder hardball?

Anyway, as I say, I don't have a position on the issue, the story just sparked some thoughts.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Burns wrote his letter to Ayanbadejo's boss asking him to keep his player from the controversial statements,

In response, Ayanbadejo took to Twitter, tweeting, ''Football is just my job it's not who I am. I am an American before anything. And just like every American I have the right to speak!!!''
I'm not taking a position one way or another on anything, but doesn't Burns have the same right? Players have been fired, not just silenced over comments they've made to the press. For a while, it seemed like Tim Tebow was being told daily to lay off the prayer business. If Ayanbadejo was told to "shut up," he certainly wouldn't have been the only one.


While Burns does have the same right to free speech as anyone else does, what he did was uncalled for and downright ridiculous. He took his free speech right too far and attempted to silence someone else's right to free speech. Yes, players have been fired over comments made to the press, but those comments ( as far as I'm aware) haven't been regarding equal rights to others. The only time I've ever heard of a player being fired for talking to press was about the team itself, not what they believed in. Really? I never heard of Tebow being told to stop praying.


As an aside, Burns is a black, Democrat politician. I recall that the Mayors of Boston and Chicago, both Democrats, wanted to hinder Chick-fil-A's business and punish then for their speech.


They weren't trying to punish them for their speech, they were taking a Zero Tolerance policy against Chick-Fil-A. Chick-Fil-A doesn't just not support same-sex marriage, but they refuse business to anyone they may view as homosexual and the mayors of Boston and Chicago didn't want anything to do with that. Besides, it's not like they were making a worldwide ban of Chick-Fil-A. It was only in certain areas of their towns.


I'm truly (and I know you won't believe it) not trying to be partisan, but do the Democrats play a little harder hardball?


When compared to others not of any party, sure, but when compared to the Republican party they don't do nearly as much. It sounds a little weird, I know, but most of the outcry I've heard, especially recently, has been from those of the Republican party. The mayors of Boston and Chicago are the first I've heard of Democrats actually fully speaking out (other than POTUS) and doing something about it.


Anyway, as I say, I don't have a position on the issue, the story just sparked some thoughts.


And it should have. That was the point in me posting this letter. I wanted it to spark thoughts on whats going on in the world of LGBTQ rights.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




I'm truly (and I know you won't believe it) not trying to be partisan, but do the Democrats play a little harder hardball?


Interesting question Charles. I think it depends on where on the time-line we choose to look. There was a time when suggesting that gays should have equal rights wasn't even something you could say out loud in mixed company

Now that they have a voice - and a safe place to use it - they've got some stuff to say. Being polite isn't going to win them a single thing

And if it appears that people who are civil-rights-minded want to punish the opposition - well, yeah - some probably do. We (of the level heads) who ask why - really should wonder why :-)

Besides - the mayor of Boston can't make good on his threats - and he knows it. It was all just trash talk

But - not without effect - right? Mr. Cathy did get to have his say - and what he got back in return was an honest reaction

Anyway, how much money, time, effort and rhetoric has been poured into preventing the gay community from winning any of their battles?

Not to mention the actual abuses (crimes) against gay individuals in the past and in the present

So, please - define hardball

:-)

with respect - Spira

edit on 9/8/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Because it's true. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have NO ill-effects on those who do not choose to partake and marry someone of the same sex.


You speak these words from a stance of ignorance of the words of God. It's a sign that judgement is already being made, and that wrath will be poured out upon our nations. It will not only have "ill effects" upon the partakers of such unions, but if will bring severe penalties to those that condone it and tolerate it. Wrath is promised, and He will fulfill it. Our Lord and God is patient that all can be saved, however, the end to that patience is upon us.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Because it's true. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have NO ill-effects on those who do not choose to partake and marry someone of the same sex.


You speak these words from a stance of ignorance of the words of God. It's a sign that judgement is already being made, and that wrath will be poured out upon our nations. It will not only have "ill effects" upon the partakers of such unions, but if will bring severe penalties to those that condone it and tolerate it. Wrath is promised, and He will fulfill it. Our Lord and God is patient that all can be saved, however, the end to that patience is upon us.


I find that translation puzzling. Marriage was never supposed to be about the state and it's rights over us as citizens.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Because it's true. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have NO ill-effects on those who do not choose to partake and marry someone of the same sex.


You speak these words from a stance of ignorance of the words of God. It's a sign that judgement is already being made, and that wrath will be poured out upon our nations. It will not only have "ill effects" upon the partakers of such unions, but if will bring severe penalties to those that condone it and tolerate it. Wrath is promised, and He will fulfill it. Our Lord and God is patient that all can be saved, however, the end to that patience is upon us.


Okay but what's your thought that hasn't been seeded into you by religion? How does same-sex marriage effect your life? How does someone you don't know and have never met's marriage affect your life? I bet my parents marriage didn't do anything to you personally, so why should my best friends (who are gay)? How would their marriage effect you personally?

No, I'm not looking for an answer out of the bible or one about God. I'm asking you on a personal level, in your own thoughts and words that have nothing to do with religion, how will same-sex marriage effect you personally?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 

Dear Believer101,

I knew I shouldn't have stayed away for as long as I did. I was hoping it wouldn't turn into a gay marriage debate, but here we are. Just for a moment, may I go back to the topic?

I found the letter that Burns wrote. It was in .pdf and I haven't figured out how to bring that to ATS yet. But it's not hard to find. The letter has two paragraphs. The first says, basically, "I'm upset that this guy is an active supporter of gay marriage." The second paragraph is roughly, "Can't you tell your players not to talk like that." There were no threats of personal or official action. I think he made a mistake putting it on State stationery, but there was nothing in the letter that mentioned any thing official.

The idea that Tebow was never asked to stop talking about religion is understandable. There's been some time between then and now, and a lot has happened. But:

Lib Radio Host Bill Press Tells Tebow: ‘S-T-F-U’ (Shut the F**k Up) About Jesus

www.theblaze.com...

As former Denver quarterback Jake Plummer told a reporter, “I wish he’d just shut up after a game and go hug his teammates.”

www.salon.com...

That’s when I decided that I would side with the critics — Would you just shut up already?!? – and for altogether different reasons.

www.urbanfaith.com...

Many criticize this transformation, insisting that athletes should play ball and keep quiet about anything else. Summing up that belief in the wake of Guillen’s impolitic comments, Politico’s Jonathan Allen declared that athletes should “just shut up” and play.

www.inthesetimes.com...
There's been a lot more national pressure on Tebow to shut up, than on Ayanbadejo.

I'm afraid I can't accept the idea that Chick-fil-A wasn't being punished for it's speech. Of course they were. They've been around for decades, and the Mayors choose to roar a few days after the interview the CEO gave? Just not believable. And they were threatening government action against any franchisee that tried to open a shop in their cities.

And the idea that they refuse to serve anyone they think is homosexual is entirely without basis, they've never been found guilty of that, they have gay customers and gay employees.

If I've missed any of your points, or misunderstood them, please let me know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

Dear Spiramirabilis,

Hooray, you're back! Nice to see you. You've raised more questions than just "How I define hardball?" May I go from top to bottom?


Interesting question Charles. I think it depends on where on the time-line we choose to look. There was a time when suggesting that gays should have equal rights wasn't even something you could say out loud in mixed company

Now that they have a voice - and a safe place to use it - they've got some stuff to say.
Perfectly correct, entirely understood. It's really hard to express an opinion that goes against not only the majority, but in those times it probably was closer to 99%.


Being polite isn't going to win them a single thing

And if it appears that people who are civil-rights-minded want to punish the opposition - well, yeah - some probably do. We (of the level heads) who ask why - really should wonder why :-)
I don't wonder why at all. But after that, we start to separate a little, maybe it's just a misunderstanding. So being polite is useless but some feel that "punishing" those who oppose them is fine.

Is the plan (among some) that they will destroy property, insult people, go to their homes, harrass family and children, disrupt their businesses, and make death threats? I can understand, but I can never agree with it or accept it. It is to be condemned by everyone. But it's not.


Besides - the mayor of Boston can't make good on his threats - and he knows it. It was all just trash talk
I'm convinced that they (including Emmanuel) meant it at the time. And they could have made good on the threats. Then their lawyers got a hold of them, slapped them around for a while and said "If you ever make one single move to keep a Chick-fil-A out of town after what you idiots said on TV, they will sue us for any amount they want, and they will win." At least that's what I would have told my clients. Shortly afterwards, the Mayors went back on TV to say, "Nah, we really didn't mean it."


But - not without effect - right? Mr. Cathy did get to have his say - and what he got back in return was an honest reaction
Absolutely right, every word of it. He got an honest reaction, but it wasn't always a legal reaction. Spray painting buildings and grounds, for one. And I suppose you saw the video of the man who tore into the Chick-fil-A drive-through worker. That was honest, too. NOTE: But I do not believe that that was the standard reaction of the entire gay movement. Every movement has it's extremists. Every movement should condemn those who go outside the bounds


Anyway, how much money, time, effort and rhetoric has been poured into preventing the gay community from winning any of their battles?
You're right, tons and tons of it. Not as much as the Democrats and Republicans are spending to win their battles, but that is how battles in the US should be fought. Not with "hardball."

So we've finally reached the beginning. There may be a formal definition for hardball, but I've never looked. For me, hardball includes what is commonly known as "dirty tricks." Attacks on family members, blackmailing opponents, (By the way that reminds me of Obama. In his earlier life he managed to obtain the 10 year-old, sealed, divorce records of an opponent and used them to win his primary.), the possible theft of Romney's tax records, the attacks on Palin's kids, losing your opponent's votes on the way to have them counted, threatening your opponent's supporters, using government agencies to scare or silence your opponents. That's the sort of thing I mean.

Evidence that one side does it more than the other? I don't have evidence, I just have an opinion. That's why I put it as a question, because I don't like making statements that I don't have at least some evidence to support.

It is always a joy to read your posts. Don't let me get away with anything. I'm not here to win, I'm here to get my thinking straight.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I am back - but you've left me with so little to work with Charles :-)

looks like we agree - mostly

NOTE: But I do not believe that that was the standard reaction of the entire gay movement. Every movement has it's extremists. Every movement should condemn those who go outside the bounds

Let's face it - this world would be just swell minus the extremists and hotheads. What can we do about them I wonder?


So we've finally reached the beginning. There may be a formal definition for hardball, but I've never looked. For me, hardball includes what is commonly known as "dirty tricks." Attacks on family members, blackmailing opponents, (By the way that reminds me of Obama. In his earlier life he managed to obtain the 10 year-old, sealed, divorce records of an opponent and used them to win his primary.), the possible theft of Romney's tax records, the attacks on Palin's kids, losing your opponent's votes on the way to have them counted, threatening your opponent's supporters, using government agencies to scare or silence your opponents. That's the sort of thing I mean.

I understand what you're saying - I'm pretty sure at this point both sides are playing hardball. But at least now - both sides are playing hardball :-)
By the way, nicely done :-) I didn't realize this thread was about Obama. But of course - from here until November I'm pretty sure all the threads will be about Obama - one way or another

Evidence that one side does it more than the other? I don't have evidence, I just have an opinion. That's why I put it as a question, because I don't like making statements that I don't have at least some evidence to support.

I don't have any evidence either. I'll say this much - this is going to be fascinating to watch no matter which side of this you're on

It is always a joy to read your posts. Don't let me get away with anything. I'm not here to win, I'm here to get my thinking straight.

Likewise - and I'm not here to win either

Wrestle maybe - but it's not a blood sport for me :-)

Goodnight Charles



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Because it's true. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have NO ill-effects on those who do not choose to partake and marry someone of the same sex.


You speak these words from a stance of ignorance of the words of God. It's a sign that judgement is already being made, and that wrath will be poured out upon our nations. It will not only have "ill effects" upon the partakers of such unions, but if will bring severe penalties to those that condone it and tolerate it. Wrath is promised, and He will fulfill it. Our Lord and God is patient that all can be saved, however, the end to that patience is upon us.


and this is why you will never understand why the letter is so beautiful. it cuts through the dogmatic prison of belief that you choose to create for your self-imposed sin-based-foundation of life here on earth. you have been programmed with basic instructions that are based on a god you have conjured up and now defer all thinking to. quiet your mind and question everything you believe. not only question, but consider that as a creation machine you will flesh out whatever instructions you give the machine. you have chosen an instruction set that has a deeply entrenched and heavily invested system to back it. there is no right or wrong in any of this as we are all subject to others programming from day one. but that is changing. people are starting to realize that the thoughts and feeling linkages are merely indicators to be used to manage the machine, understand it's ego wirings, and experience a life of your passions and creations. do as jesus taught, that is to love. if you miss this important nugget of faith, then you have allowed your ego to define for you a god you created complete with the rules you must now submit to. it's all you. that's the biggest secret of religion. this deferral of responsibility to a collective god and all of its actions and energies that go with it, is the ego run amok. the ultimate mirror people are blinded to. life is a mirror. what you do and say reflects on this state of being and your world will be created to conform to the lenses you choose to look through.

you see, others who have come to understand this and have been in your shoes in terms of belief, faith, born again, fire & brimstone & wrath, etc. there is a perspective from picking it apart in the path of self discovery that leads one to quiet the chatter mind and understand the wirings that have been established. it allows one to rewire the system of the mind to allow for the creation process to be realized. everything is a mirror and what comes out of a person pretty much defines their belief structure or instruction set of behavior. but you can delete these programs and follow the guide of awareness that observes the chatter, need-to-know ego mind.

it takes a pretty big blow to the ego to be able to practice diminishing it's influence but it will eventually acquiesce. you see, the call is to be christ. no labels, no judgment. "they know not what they do" applies not only to the "heathen", it applies to the believer trapped in a prison of their own creation.

peace on the path you create!
edit on 9-9-2012 by elmoastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

Dear Spiramirabilis,

Oh, so you want to fight do you?
Ok, here, (briefly, thank goodness) are the areas where I can't seem to get agreement.

Gay marriage supporters are looking for the benefits that government gives to married couples, benefits are determined by laws, which are determined by votes. Citizens voting on the issue have, so far, always said "no," and they have the right to. (And there are fewer than 20 states left to hear from.)

The tactics used, and not condemned, by the movement have alienated and frightened some people. The gays need every vote they can get. I think they're doing it wrong.

Attempting to get those benefits by executive order and judges, instead of by popular approval, will create, I think, resentments, backlash, and a movement to change back to the "old ways."

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Ah, Charles...

Oh, so you want to fight do you? Ok, here, (briefly, thank goodness) are the areas where I can't seem to get agreement.

there you go - no point dancing around it then - is there? It's a rather large elephant after all... :-)


Gay marriage supporters are looking for the benefits that government gives to married couples, benefits are determined by laws, which are determined by votes. Citizens voting on the issue have, so far, always said "no," and they have the right to. (And there are fewer than 20 states left to hear from.)

They have always said no - but to be fair - for quite some time they never had a real request to say no to

Now that the requests come fast and furious - they still say no, but not as quickly or as unanimously as they used to. In addition to that, they've had to become far more clever in how they say no

What does that tell you? :-)

Times change - attitudes change - laws change. And thank goodness

Why Charles - did you know that women did not receive the right to vote until 1920 in the United States of America? It wasn't because they didn't ask either :-)

The tactics used, and not condemned, by the movement have alienated and frightened some people. The gays need every vote they can get. I think they're doing it wrong.

I would argue that people were frightened (if not recoiling in horror) at the idea before it even was a full fledged idea - but alienated? Alienated from who - or what? The good old days?


Attempting to get those benefits by executive order and judges, instead of by popular approval, will create, I think, resentments, backlash, and a movement to change back to the "old ways."

Did it create resentments and backlash when other groups won their civil rights?

Well, yes - we both know it did

The only real response I have to that is - tough

The only reason these people don't have their rights now is because another group says they can't. Who are they to say they can't?

Well, of course - this is a democracy (or - whatever) and people get to vote. But - as I said - we change our minds sometimes - we citizens of earth. Thank goodness

Then, one real world question: what will happen to the people who don't want this when their nos aren't enough anymore?

Will their lives change? At all? Really?

:-)

There - short but sweet. No blood

I look forward to your reply Charles



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

Dear Spiramirabilis,

What's wrong with us? We're coming to agreement on large portions of this gay marriage discussion, gaining some understanding, and yet we're not mindlessly repeating the same things over and over or getting verbally violent. Why can't we be like the other kids playing here?

Now that the requests come fast and furious - they still say no, but not as quickly or as unanimously as they used to. In addition to that, they've had to become far more clever in how they say no

What does that tell you? :-)

Times change - attitudes change - laws change.
For various reasons, not always good or natural ones. But I agree with all that. Dagnab it, how am I going to get a fight started this way?



Why Charles - did you know that women did not receive the right to vote until 1920 in the United States of America? It wasn't because they didn't ask either :-)
Agreed again, but I think voting and getting benefits from marriage are different enough to take note of.


I would argue that people were frightened (if not recoiling in horror) at the idea before it even was a full fledged idea - but alienated? Alienated from who - or what? The good old days?
I meant, alienated from the movement, repelled by it, "turned off."


The only reason these people don't have their rights now is because another group says they can't. Who are they to say they can't?

Well, of course - this is a democracy (or - whatever) and people get to vote. But - as I said - we change our minds sometimes - we citizens of earth. Thank goodness
I think this is where our difference can be found. Nobody is entitled to, or has a right to, by law, a religious marriage ceremony. So let's look at the government sponsored marriages I honestly believe that if there were no benefits written into law for a married couple, then no gays would insist on a "legal" marriage. They'd just say "I love you," and start living together.

So for me, (And I am perfectly willing to admit this is just a feeling, and that many see it differently.) the gay marriage question is "Will you pass laws so that we can get more benefits than we had in the past?" I can understand that it would make them happy, and would be a "nice" thing to do, but I don't see the necessity for it. And I don't want to sound harsh, but I can almost hear the straights asking, "Why should we change? What do I get out of it?" And I haven't heard a good answer.

Government discriminates between people all the time in the handing out of benefits. We have High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. An individual riding a motorcycle has the "right" to use them, an individual in a car doesn't. Society decided they wanted to encourage one and not the other.


Then, one real world question: what will happen to the people who don't want this when their nos aren't enough anymore?

Will their lives change? At all? Really?
You're right, I don't know if there lives will change, and I would bet that they wouldn't. However, I would wager that you and I both have cheered or booed proposals that wouldn't affect us personally. The fresh raw milk off the farm controversy, for example. I've got an opinion, but raw milk will never affect me personally.

I think it's not unreasonable to assume that gay marriage will have an effect on society as a whole, though.

Spiramirabilis, I'm taking a chance with you, because of my respect for you. I'm intentionally trying to explore areas where there might be some disagreement, trusting that we won't fall into the traps that others seem to. This is helping me to open up, have my beliefs challenged (and modified), and gain a better perspective on this issue and other people.

Thank you very much.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
All I can really say is good on him. Too bad the people he's speaking out against are far too ignorant to understand anything he's saying.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Because it's true. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have NO ill-effects on those who do not choose to partake and marry someone of the same sex.


You speak these words from a stance of ignorance of the words of God. It's a sign that judgement is already being made, and that wrath will be poured out upon our nations. It will not only have "ill effects" upon the partakers of such unions, but if will bring severe penalties to those that condone it and tolerate it. Wrath is promised, and He will fulfill it. Our Lord and God is patient that all can be saved, however, the end to that patience is upon us.
You can't call someone ignorant and then in the same breath say that a mythological being is going to punish nations because they treat gays equally in regards to marriage. You have to have an actual reason why gay marriage is bad, not made-up ones.
edit on 9-9-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The word ‘marriage’ is supposed to be equivalent to the phrase "Holy Matrimony" and yet, somehow the phrase "gay marriage" doesn't quite translate into "gay holy matrimony." Go figure.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


You know, something came into my mind on this topic while I was considering homosexuality today and I think I understand a possible logic behind God calling homosexuality an abomination etc.

(I know this is not normally a common occurance for most people to ponder on such things!)

But all things in religion is supposed to be logical. So I was thinking on how I have always believed that the procreation thing was to keep the nation (a Jewish nation) strong enough to always fight their enemies... demographics at work.

And that homosexuality can have the potential to threaten a strong society through a birth rate decline when widespread within that society.

But I could not really decide upon why such a big sin... sin is sin is sin in religion, there are greater and lesser but one has to ponder why homosexuality was considered one of the greatest sins, up there with someone who murders.

But then I thought, you know, religious laws were given to a 'nation' of people. Therefore, should homosexuality be accepted as 'normal' and a birth rate decline happen to this nation of people, then the enemies of said nation could essentially overpower and destroy that 'nation'.

Therefore, homosexuality could be seen as up there with murder, if it has the potential of contributing to the destruction of an entire nation should it be accepted as a normal state above a couple who procreates.

And these laws were given to religious people, in the beginning Judaism was only for Jews, not everyone... obviously. Basically it was a law given to a nation ruled by a theocratic government.

So, in effect, it should not matter what people do who are devoid of a theocratic nation, because it effects not my religion, nor my 'nation' of people.

It was just a thought! Might be dumb but it sounded good at the time!



Also I am not concerned that someone elses behavior will ever effect my own. It will never weaken any part of me to have a live and let live attitude.
edit on 9-9-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Wow what a bad impression the guy is sending to everyone, fellow players, fans, coaches etc. So unprofessional! If he's at odd with someone write them the same kind of letter, keep it short and professional. That way it doesn't reflect so bad on you, your team and might actually get the recipient thinking. All this would do is ruffle feathers while making yourself and your team look very unprofessional. Gay marriage is bad for society as a whole. They've already done studies on this proving some of the aspects, such as the kids they raise which turn out to be totally messed up adults. Gay marriage is so terrible for society as a whole. And if they get the benefits then it's wasted tax payer resources as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate anyone, but it's just my opinion that it's not a good thing for society and the country as a whole.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Wow what a bad impression the guy is sending to everyone, fellow players, fans, coaches etc. So unprofessional! If he's at odd with someone write them the same kind of letter, keep it short and professional. That way it doesn't reflect so bad on you, your team and might actually get the recipient thinking. All this would do is ruffle feathers while making yourself and your team look very unprofessional.


In my full opinion, what he did was the complete opposite of how you feel. He's gained more support from fans, other players, coaches, etc. than if he didn't write this letter.


Gay marriage is bad for society as a whole. They've already done studies on this proving some of the aspects, such as the kids they raise which turn out to be totally messed up adults.


Oh really? Try telling that to researchers.

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."
And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.


Source


Gay marriage is so terrible for society as a whole. And if they get the benefits then it's wasted tax payer resources as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate anyone, but it's just my opinion that it's not a good thing for society and the country as a whole.


Wasted tax payer resources? How exactly is giving same-sex couples the exact same benefits others would get through marriage "wasting tax payer resources"?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join