Ok, I don't get it. I was watching the news and saw that Rosie O'Donnel and her long time significant other got married yesterday.

Now, let me start by saying, I don't personally believe Gay Marriage is right, it goes against my religious beliefs, BUT I don't think my beliefs should be someone else's law. So, if Rosie wants to marry a woman, that is fine with me.

Everyone who is against gay marriage seems to be saying that it goes against Gods law, they want to change the constitution etc....

I see two points of hypocrisy here, and I am basically wondering if anyone can explain this to me.

#1. In every interview, Rosie says she got married because of what President Bush said about amending the constitution. Where is the love? She is marrying to spite the president? To me, that doesn't show much commitment to her spouse. And if I were that spouse, I would be pretty insulted.

#2. President Bush wants to amend the constitution to make gay marriage wrong because it isn't what God intended? Well, why not amend the constitution to make divorce illegal, adultery illegal...etc.? Those things all harm the family, but no one goes after adulterers.

What is up with that? Am I the only one that thinks that is insane?
********************************************************************
02-27-04, 07:10 AM
Sherasi
I think getting married to make a point regardless of who it is or what combination of partners it is .. is wrong. Marriage should be about comittment and love not about political or social motivation.

Of course, that view had not been the prevailing view for centuries where political expediency and social elevation has been the rule rather than the exception (think arranged marriages) for why people got married.

I am not sure about my view of the actual Gay marriage concept... Civil union should be allowed, but I am not totally convinced that it is supported theologically.

But then, I am probably going to Hell for all of MY sins so I can't preach to anyone else anyway.

02-27-04, 07:33 AM
Kendor
You’re right about the Rosie thing. If she’s just trying to make a statement by her ‘marriage’, then the ‘marriage’ is baseless.

On gay marriage and the constitution, keep your thoughts on this simple, and leave religion out of it. Pretend there is no God, just nature. Right and Wrong are dictated by nature. In a given species, it is right to support one’s existence, and wrong to betray it. So embracing and endorsing anything that directly opposes this existence is wrong. Homosexuality opposes existence by the fact that it does not support reproduction directly, by its very nature. That’s why homosexuality is fundamentally wrong.

In order for our society to maintain ‘correctness’, then we should not endorse homosexuality by any means, especially by adding frills and lace to it, celebrating it via ‘marriage’. We can, and should, tolerate homosexuality, because it does exist; it’s a natural occurrence. But we should not cultivate it. By amending the constitution to include a ban on gay 'marriage', then we, as a species, are doing the right thing.

02-27-04, 05:22 PM
honilov
It was a shock when I read about Rosie's marriage because I had no idea she was gay. I don't believe it had nothing to do with what Bush said. I believe she just wanted to marry the woman, anyway.

02-27-04, 05:39 PM
MrsS
The commitment and love between the two women is, to me, evidenced by the fact that they've shared their lives, joys and hardships for years and they are raising 4 children together...If this were a straight couple we were talking about, everyone would be saying "It's about time they made it official".....I believe, based on what I have read, that the timing of their nuptials was affected by Bush's current campaign for an Amendment, but that if they were not truly comitted to one another, they would not have done it.

02-27-04, 06:04 PM
aminator2002
Just to counter Kendor's statements...

The exponential growth of the population actually threatens the human species (and other species on Earth) therefore perhaps homosexuality is nature's response. People who argue that homosexuality is not natural have a critical flaw staring them in the face... thousands upon thousands of homosexuals for thousands and thousands of years. Humans are part of nature.

Your theory goes against nature rather than vice versa, imo.

Rosie is a publicity hound. I wish her as much luck as I would have wished JLo and Ben.

02-27-04, 08:13 PM
Kendor
Ami, I understand that viewpoint, and have considered it in depth. It's just the mere principle of what I've already pointed out that cannot be ignored, or infringed upon. Once we start ignoring it and bastardizing sexuality officially, what's next; legalizing suicide, or even murder, because it aids in decreasing the population? Aren't these choices also a part of nature? C'mon.

I'm not saying we should eliminate homosexuality, and I've already acknowledged its 'natural' origin and our need to accept it. Everyone here understands the rudimentary needs of our continuation, and the reasoning that goes with it. We must stop thinking so 'short-term' and do what is logical, for a change. (Is it so hard to jump on my band wagon)?

02-27-04, 08:33 PM
MrsS
Okay, but only if you'll eliminate marital status as a factor in court proceedings, where married couples now enjoy "Spousal Privilege" and one spouse is exempted from giving testimony against their spouse, and from credit scoring,probate laws, insurance rate tables, life insurance limitations, taxation tables, medical releases.....etc, etc, if "Marriage" is nothing but a symbolic commitment, offering no benefits but the sanction of the couple's church, then I'll quit saying it must be made available to all couples, gender notwithstanding. However, there is no reason why two men with perfect driving records and "low risk" cars should pay more for their auto insurance than my husband and I pay, nor should they have to file their taxes separately when their money is jointly earned, jointly held and jointly spent.....It should be no easier or harder for them to get a mortgage or life insurance than it is for us, etc, etc....notwithstanding your deep fear that gays buying real estate just like straights will bring about the ruination of the species.

02-28-04, 01:19 PM
frankvan
Sorry, Kendoor, but I can't jump on a bandwagon that contradicts the commonly accepted facts of nature. You seem to think that the acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage will somehow thwart the grand design of evolution. The assumption that there IS a grand design in the first place smacks of creationism and other pseudo-science. As others have pointed out, homosexuality existed for thousands of years before Christ. It is estimated that it comprises approximately ten percent of the population at the present time. Since figures are unreliable and distorted by the historical stigma that has always been attached to its occurrence, where is the evidence of diminishing percentages of what you consider the desirable candidates for survival ?? And how do you know whether the human species is not meant to go the way of the dinosaurs??

The preferential treatment which our government has chosen to bestow on heterosexuals in monogamous church-sanctioned unions cannot reasonably be denied to some 10% of our citizens, based on their sexual orientation. If, in my opinion, the constitution is interpreted as bestowing certain privileges on the majority of its citizens, it can not deny them to a minority based on color, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A constitutional amendment in order to deny rights to one group of citizens is unthinkable and unlikely, particularly for the rather transparent purpose of garnering the homophobic vote.

02-28-04, 01:30 PM
juanruiz
Whether Rosie went through a marriage ceremony or not is moot; the State of California has to recognize it as valid, which it won't.

02-29-04, 11:20 PM
Tree
I agree with honi, that they were destined to be together and perhaps Bush's issues merely put it over the top.

NOT that I completely understand gay marriages, but they're happening and we have to deal with these issues.

Roll Eyes

03-02-04, 08:44 PM
DvdGStwrt
Rosie married? Who is he?

Oh wait, it was one of those marriages.

(sigh) Sure she may not have mentioned love, but then neither did Bush when he declared that he would see to it that gays can't marry ----- each other.

The truth is that she most likely would have married her lover anyway IF gay marriages were legal - most likely they would have married long time ago IF gay marriages were legal.

No, we did not rush off to the City to get married. When I get married it's not going to be in a public forum and a subject for debate by ignorant homophobes who will use my marriage as a good joke or worse a good reason to go down and teach those people a lesson about what right and wrong is.

Basing marriage on Religious grounds only, then we had better ask the Pagans their thoughts on Marriage, and the Hindus and the Jews and the Buddhists and the......


It would appear that not all religions condemn out of hand the concept of marriage between couples of the same gender.

and to make matters just a little worse, Marriage in the past appears to have records - Right out of the Vaults of the Vatican - the throne of Christianity itself - that men married men, that women married women and it was - cough - done by priests of the church!!!!!!

Morality? Whose morality?


David

03-03-04, 05:36 AM
shelster
My point was, that it was hypocritical on two counts. If Rosie wanted to make a statement, she should have shown her LOVE for her wife. Not shown anger at the president. To me, marriage is about love. I do wish them well, and I agree that they probably would have done it anyway.

Also, it is hypocritical for Pres. Bush to make such a stink about this, when there are much bigger issues. I don't agree with gay marriage. Ok, so what. I also don't agree with divorce. That doesn't stop me from being friends with divorcees or homosexual. I don't believe that the biggest moral issue in the country is homosexuality/ gay marriages. That is not a big deal to me. Let people marry. They pay taxes, like David has said in his various replies. They should have the benefits too. Pres Bush is not a church leader, he is a political leader.

If he wants to outlaw all "immoral" things, let divorce be the first to go. Make all fathers stick around for their children. Focus on educating people about sex, so that there are less "unwanted" pregnancies. Stop bashing people who love one another.

03-03-04, 09:29 AM
LVLF
This country...well, the invasion of this land by immigrants from other parts of the world...was founded on political and religious freedoms that our ancestors were not getting from their homelands.
HOWEVER... those bible thumping, finger shaking, tongue clicking, God fearing people, are the very same people who burned 'witches' at the stake...which was perfectly legal in those days. Thankfully, someone had the good sense to think for themselves, stand up and challenge the law.
If you believe God created all creatures, great and small..including mankind, then you must believe he created all KINDS of people, good or bad. That includes homosexuals. Of course, that would include serial killers and rapists. But, whereas serial killers and rapists most definitely harm our citizens and therefore we have laws that punish them, tell me...where on this earth can you come up with a single example that being a homosexual puts even one single member of this planet in harms way.
If you believe that god made us all, that his divine hand created, individually, each and everyone one of us, then he created homosexuals.
They didn't wake up one morning only to find that their life was in need of a change, that things weren't hard enough as it was...that life hadn't already made a mess of thing... things like death, war, illness, financial stress, job stress..insurance costs...etc. No, that wasn't enough, so they decided to become a homosexual. Now, on top of everything else, they have public ridicule, finger shaking, tongue clicking, holier-than-thou people telling them that they are sinning against god and nature and because of that they are not entitled to the basic rights of the rest of society.
George W..I say phooey on you.

03-03-04, 09:53 AM
MrsS

quote:Of course, that would include serial killers and rapists. But, whereas serial killers and rapists most definitely harm our citizens and therefore we have laws that punish them,


Ah, but still, these predators you mention can take for granted the right to marry,even from their prison cell....We live in a nation where, at present, a convicted child molester has rights that a law abiding citizen does not, if that law abiding citizen is gay.

03-03-04, 04:51 PM
coldfuse

quote:Originally posted by frankvan:
The preferential treatment which our government has chosen to bestow on heterosexuals in monogamous church-sanctioned unions cannot reasonably be denied to some 10% of our citizens, based on their sexual orientation.

(insert now-famous Alan Moore "snip" here)


Frank, this looks like support for the position under the equal protection clause, which has become common practice recently. Though I find your reasoning sound, "that dog won't hunt" legally (unless interpretations are tremendously broadened).

This whole business seems to be about election-year politics, regardless of right and wrong. Constitutional Amendments to ban something? Bah! What Rosie thinks or does? I really don't care.

Don't hold your breath if you want this year's national campaign to be about substance. This issue is there for the political marketing strategists - in the private arena, it is called "positioning."

03-03-04, 05:03 PM
LVLF

quote:Originally posted by MrsS:

quote:Of course, that would include serial killers and rapists. But, whereas serial killers and rapists most definitely harm our citizens and therefore we have laws that punish them,


Ah, but still, these predators you mention can take for granted the right to marry,even from their prison cell....We live in a nation where, at present, a convicted child molester has rights that a law abiding citizen does not, if that law abiding citizen is gay.


Another excellent point!

03-03-04, 07:59 PM
DvdGStwrt
Thinking about it over night, it struck me that people ask a lot of funny questions about us gays where the answers are clearly obvious.

EXAMPLE: if gays love each other why don't they kiss and hold hands in public?

Do I really need to answer that obviousity? (I did in a lengthy email once).

The issue here is not just love, its political.

Gays who declare their love for one another especially in this political realm end up being the laughing stock and not taking very seriously.

There is this misconception that because we do not show our love with one another publicly or declare our love every time we talk about it that some how that love does not exist.

Even if I knew I wouldn't get my brains pounded out of my skull - AGAIN - by homophobes, I seriously doubt I would partake of much public displays of affection. I'm not that kind of guy.

Rosie may not have mentioned the L word because she is uncomfortable displaying PDAs for the public.

David

03-03-04, 09:42 PM
methos
David's comments made me think of two similar pictures I've seen. One was in my local college newspaper, the other is below:



A newly married couple showing their love as 'Repent America' spews hate behind them.

03-04-04, 05:13 AM
shelster
David, thanks, I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I can't really understand her actions, because I am not in her shoes. Thanks for helping me understand a bit better.


03-04-04, 08:34 PM
DvdGStwrt

quote:Originally posted by shelster:
David, thanks, I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I can't really understand her actions, because I am not in her shoes. Thanks for helping me understand a bit better.


Sure thing.

Smile

03-10-04, 12:08 PM
Elexina
I would like to believe that Rosie married her partner out of love, but that she chose to do it now in order to make a point to the president. If she only married her partner to make a statement, then that is shameful and sad.

Shelster, I respect your statements. I wish that others could see it that way, too. President Bush may not believe in gay marriage or abortion or divorce or protecting the environment, but even the president does not have the right to force his beliefs onto others through the law.

Kendor, once again, so what? What difference does it make if homosexuals get married? They can't "naturally" have children now, they'll just be married and not having children. That does not affect the species. Unless, of course, we are forcing every couple to have 2.3 children whether they want to. In which case, I say, get away from my uterus!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,