Ahhh, Nova's here. We disagree on many things, but at least you bring very good dialogue and you make us think!
:blowkiss:
Nova, would it have been OK for her to say that she agrees with President Obama and with Elton John on the subject. They've both stated almost the same thing, except Elton John wants a civil relationship in which all the rights of married people are given to same sex partners.
It would have been OK with me, certainly, and I doubt that even Perez Hilton would have made much of it. BTW, however, those Obama and John quotes are fairly old now. The President has not come out in favor of gay marriage, but even he opposed the passage of Prop 8. Elton John is British and his own civil union was formed there under English law. I'm not really up on how civil unions are working there (though in general, the subject is far less controversial across the pond), but in this country we have a strong tradition
against separate-but-supposedly-equal treatment, as the CA supremes discussed in length in their ruling last year.
That is what I think the gay movement should go for because it would bypass the religious aspect and get them on the fast track to what they SAY they really want.
I would have agreed with this statement until about a year ago. But despite best efforts to construct domestic partnerships with all the same rights as civil marriage, it hasn't proved really possible because there are so many hundreds of laws affected. (Not even here in CA, where the partnership law specifically states that such unions "will have all the same rights" as traditional civil marriages.)
And I can say from personal experience, that it mattered very, very much to our children, grandchildren, siblings and friends when Mr. Nova and I were legally wed, even though we've been together for over 30 years and most of our living relatives have never known us except as a couple.
This was another fact the CA supremes emphasized: that calling something "the same" but by another name almost automatically makes it less than equal.
Imagine if men were legally allowed to "own" real estate, but women were only allowed to "hold title to" property. The two terms mean the same legally, but if we went around saying "he owns his home" and "she holds title to her condo," we would by our very language create two classes of ownership and two not-so-equal classes of people.
The very argument that the civil unions of some people should be called something other than "marriage," proves that words do indeed matter.
Now, my opinion is that gay people want the word Marriage because they are pissed that the Bible condemns it. That will never change overnight folks. Start somewhere that might get you a step forward.
Here, you're wrong. Some gay people are very religious, but most, including myself, are well aware that the Bible contains both great, universal wisdom and the local prejudices of those who wrote it (however divinely inspired they may have been). There isn't a heterosexual Christian alive (and very few, if any, Jews) who follows every proscription in
Leviticus.
So gay people aren't "pissed" at the Bible, we are baffled as to why a few, brief references to homosexually are considered inviolate and are to be enshrined in modern law, while the far more numerous bans on eating shellfish, divorce, wearing clothese of mixed cloth, etc. and so forth, are considered matters of personal choice.
And the struggle for full marriage rights isn't inspired by rebellion against the Bible or by a desire to upset straight people; it's inspired by the very human (and universal) desire to protect one's home and family to the full extent of the law.
Another thing I ponder... if a secular belief is indeed man made and secularists don't really believe in the Bible or religions, then wouldn't that make in their theory, all religions man made as well? And if they are all man made, how can you say one is right and the other wrong?
Yes, to a true "secularist," all religions are manmade and nobody can say one is right and another wrong, at least not if right and wrong are defined as "according to God's will." But even people of great faith, if they are thoughtful, honest and humble, realize there is no objective way to prove the "truth" of one religion over another. And history shows us that all attempts to enforce religious principles as secular laws end in suffering and bloodshed.
But whether one is atheist, agnostic or a member of a particular sect, one may evaluate any law on the basis of the good it does versus the harm. In the case of gay marriage, much good is done for a few people, and no harm is done to the rest.
Miss CA definitely did not answer eloquently. Regardless, if these types of questions are going to be asked, the hot pototoes need to be there for everyone. Trump said it was just bad luck that she drew the question. I think he's lying....
I certainly agree with you here. I see no reason why some contestants should be allowed to play "softball" while others play "hardball." It's no more fair in a pageant than it would be in a stadium.
