Most read
- HOW MICHIGAN MEN ARE MADE: A look inside the timeless tradition
- Breakdown: Michigan football vs. Ohio State
- Heisman Trophy winners Archie Griffin and Desmond Howard reflect on both sides of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry
- Ex-Black Panther speaks about police brutality
- Prof. once denied meeting with MSA execs about DPS Oversight Committee, airs issues at meeting
On the Blogs
-
News
Special Report: DPS Oversight Committee may be in violation of state law
-
The Statement
-
The Statement
About Campus: The law student "party" house behind West Quad
-
The Statement
-
News
Prof. once denied meeting with MSA execs about DPS Oversight Committee, airs issues at meeting
-
The Statement
-
Men's Basketball
-
Bside
Printmaker Takeshi Takahara: mixing metal and acid to make beauty
-
Bside
Lila Kalick: Hippie hash, spunky clientele and greasy spooning at Fleetwood Diner
-
Men's Basketball
Comments
Dear Bigoted, Bigoted, Bigots,
I hope all you bigots have gay kids, so you can see how much their sexuality is not a choice. I hope for YOUR sake that you have the privilege of watching someone you love struggle to accept his/her identity, be abandoned by loved ones, and (like over 30% of gay teens) attempt suicide, like my parents did. And I hope that, thanks to this wonderful online archive, you can go back and read your bigoted comments.
And yes. It is bigotry. The definition of bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different viewpoints from oneself." I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Finally, I, and every LGBT person on the planet, know that your sexuality is not a choice. Believe me, our lives would be a whole lot easier if we could just blend in. But even IF (and I say IF, because this is NOT the truth) homosexuality were a choice, do two consenting legal adults not have the right to make a choice that makes them happy and hurts no one? This is the land of the free. You don't have to be gay, and you don't have to get a gay marriage, but you don't have the right to keep me and the man I love from pursuing just a little bit of happiness in our lives. Life is too short for me to care what you think.
You are the people who made me want to die for my entire childhood, and who made me fear that I would die if you got your hands on me. But you can't do that anymore. More of us that ever marched on Washington D.C. on Oct 11th and there was no fear. Only love, and hope, and togetherness. We're done caring what you think, because you clearly aren't capable of returning the favor. This is a message to every single of you hiding behind "I have a gay friend" to spew bigotry. I will NEVER be your gay friend (and your "gay friends", if real, should be ashamed to say they know you), and you've got one less faggot to kick around.
If the definition of bigotry is "intolerance towards those who hold different viewpoints from oneself", doesn't that make you a bigot? Why can't you accept the fact that Christians do not believe in destroying the sanctity of marriage? You shouldn't go around calling people bigots when it seems like you are one yourself. It really destroys your credibility, if you had any to begin with.
The difference here "Anonymous" (which I can only assume is your real name, you coward) is that my "bigotry" (intolerance of your views) does not oppress you, whereas yours very directly affects me. And if I have to hear this idiocy about the sanctity of marriage one more time, I will vomit.
Number one: Marriage is not Christian. There is not a society on this planet that doesn't have a marriage or bonding rite. We know it is not Christian because you have to get a STATE ISSUED marriage license in order to be legally married. We also know this because YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A CHRISTIAN TO GET MARRIED. Should we illegalize the marriage of atheists, because they have a different definition of marriage than you do? Should we let gay Christians get married and not the rest of the gay population?
Number two: The "sanctity of marriage", until the beginning of the 19th, was a property exchange in which women were exchanged for goods. In the millions of years (or 6000 if you're a Biblical literalist) that the human race has existed, marriage only became about love less than 100 years ago. But, you're right. There is nothing quite so holy as treating a human being as chattel.
You didn't invent marriage. The definition of marriage has always changed and always will change. And I will continue to call you a bigot until somebody like you chokes the breath out of me.
When one is wrong, one often resorts to ad hominem attacks. Using the words "coward and bigot" are going to get you nowhere, just saying. You don't see me going around calling people who want to deny the exclusivity of marriage between a man and a woman "cowards or bigots". And I also think you're being a touch to dramatic. "Choking the breath out of me"? I bet you're a reasonably nice person, and it's unfortunate that we disagree about one topic. But goodness, don't go running around putting words in peoples mouths, it hampers your already flawed argument.
Anonymous, you have added nothing to this debate with your "reply." I think Baird made great points, and if you want to rebutle them, go ahead.
I think the point he is getting when he says "choking the breath out of me" can literally be a representation of the harrasment we LGBT people get on a daily basis. Look at Matt Shepard, someone who was killed for being gay. It's not safe to be gay in America. You want to disagree fine, but this "unsafiness" presented is all too real for the LGBT community.
Maybe someday I will get to see the day when the old law of seperation of church and state is actually applied to this issue. But until then, remember this, when you leave this message board you get to forget about this issue. When I leave this, I will still be thinking about it. I will think about being gay today, and I will think about being gay tommorrow, and the next, and next year, and the rest of my life. You get to leave this issue, I never get to.
The Bible says God is Love. Not God is love, but only for heterosexuals.
Word. Everyone's an advocate of LGBT rights until they get to the polls. Just check out California's results as well as Maine's. Generally really liberal places, at least in the open. I'm telling you, people just do and say things to save face. It has nothing to do with what they truly believe.
I honestly think gay marriage isn't that big of an issue, at least not right now. Healthcare is far more important. I mean, seriously, what do want? To get married but have no health insurance? Or to have health care and then fight for what you believe?
"the people have spoken", temporarily, but that can change, particularly considering the weakness of the arguments. Get ready for the inevitable if you're against. Denying gay couples equal treatment is bad - if the simple meanness and wickedness aren't enough to sway you, try "counter-productive". Have a look at what has happened in Europe if you think things won't change.
The weakness of the argument? Wow, and I suppose "gays were just born that way" is a rock-solid argument that is going to blow everyone away...get real. Once again, I have nothing against gay people. I have several gay friends, I just don't agree with their lifestyles. If people want to be married, and are gay, then move somewhere where it is legal. No one is stopping them.
I honestly can not believe that so many people find it perfectly legitimate to hold the position that there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage bans on the grounds that gay people still have the right to marry, just not the people they want. At least with the moral crusaders, you can at least see their thinking, however close-minded it may be. The thinking presented by this argument is both irrational and dangerous to a nation that is supposed to protect its minorities.
I ask those who hold this view to imagine if people dismissed your quest for equal rights with such a ridiculous belief. Let's say the government of a gay-majority country passed a law that only gay people could get married. You, as a heterosexual living in that country, have the right to marry, it just has to be to someone of the same sex. You have the same right to marry, just not to enter into a marriage that would make you happy. A lot of people will probably attack the hypothetical scenario I've constructed to illustrate this but regardless of whether you think such a place could ever exist, the point remains the same.
If you're going to make the argument that gay people have the same right to marry as anyone else, and that it's their own problem for not wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex, you better be prepared to think about the situation if it were reversed.
If the government decided today that only marriages performed in churches in Christian ceremonies between two Christians would be recognized by the state, I, as a Jew, could still get married, just not in the way I want, the place I want, and would have to shun my beliefs in order to obtain the civil benefits of marriage. But hey, that doesn't mean I can't get married, right?
It astounds me that so many people have made this utterly absurd argument. Gay marriage isn't polygamy, it isn't incest, as people have been drawing parallels. It is plagued by this myth that their rights are being upheld even as they are being trampled.
"Let's say the government of a gay-majority country passed a law that only gay people could get married. You, as a heterosexual living in that country, have the right to marry, it just has to be to someone of the same sex. "
Let's stick with rational hypotheticals, since I'm sure that the inhabitants of your hypothetical country would realize that, if such a law were passed, the population of the country would diminish to zero within a generation. The relevant point is this: if, as you believe, members of the same sex have a fundamental legal right to marry, then there is no rational reason to justify the prohibition of polygamous and incestuous marriages. While it's true that an incestuous marriage has an increased risk of producing a child with a birth defect, such an increased risk, even if it can be demonstrated, is not used as an impediment that prohibits the marriage of unrelated individuals. In fact, unrelated persons who marry have children with birth defects quite frequently, but they are not penalized for that fact. What a fascinating mosaic of relationships a family will become if the argument of progressives is followewd to its logical conclusion!
First and foremost, if you are going to turn the argument around use the correct language.
"Let's say the government of a gay-majority country passed a law that only gay people could get married." This statement uses the opposite of the very language that is not in the law, as no mention of sexuality is in the law. Your example should read "Let's say the government of a gay-majority country passed a law that only people of the same gender could get married." With that correction to your argument made, I would probably make the argument that it should be extended to opposite sex couples as well but I would also agree that it is not a right and would not demand that the courts shove it down everyone else's throats, just as I say about same-sex couples. Please realize that some of us aren't protesting against gay marriage, just the methods being used to get there.
Your argument about the different religions is ridiculous on its face, as we do have a First Amendment and separation of church and state.
You're right in the gay marriage is not the same as polygamy. However, the argument is that if the courts are abused into extending an imaginary right to one group of people, what is to stop another court from extending the same imaginary right to another group of people? Why is it OK for the courts to say that since two men (or two women) love each other the definition of a cultural institution that is thousands of years old must be changed by the whim of a judge, but not if three people all love each other? There is no logical argument that can be made to restrict marriage from polygamists but not gay couples once you say all that matters is that as long as they love each other that is all that counts. This is why the state shouldn't be in the business of recognizing relationships anyways.
That this debate continues to rage is ridiculous and frankly disgusting.
The majority should never be allowed to vote on minority rights. And the parallels drawn to African-America struggles are perfectly legitimate for the specific reason that anti-interracial marriage laws existed in MANY states and were not fully repealed until the Supreme Court overruled the "will of the people" in 1967.
I won't get into the civil rights aspect of it, but do want to point out that significant number of people who get involved in these conversations have no idea how our republic works. That the public votes on any specific measures is a very recent development. We elect representatives and they legislate, the founding fathers never meant for mob rule to exist.
Also, as some referred to, government-granted marriage does not stipulate that the partners need to reproduce (or fornicate, or anything else). In fact, government-granted marriage is little more than teaming up with another consenting adult to go through life as each other's #1's. Your partner gets dibs on inheritances and benefits, medical rights, and the pair gets hit with tax implications. For some of the rights listed, check out http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html (but that list is not all-inclusive).
Denying that partnership to ANY two consenting adults is discrimination. Imagine if we put definitions that to be legally joined in this way one partner had to have a college education and one had to lack one? Or one had to be black and one white? Or one over 40 and one under? We would never put these other demographic lines on who can enter a legal contract, so what makes it ok to put gender lines on it?
This debate doesn't have to have ANYTHING to do with how hetero or homosexual people choose to live. The morality of it all is irrelevant. Get your dogma out of my justice system.
The majority should never be able to vote on the rights of a the minority?! What country do you think we live in, the Soviet Union?! You obviously have no idea how our republic works. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE! EUROPE AND CANADA ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU!
I'm old enough to remember what it was like for Black folks under segregation and it was cruel. They weren't just separated, but oppressed. Just like you, the racists of the time accused Black leaders of communism, routinely. If mob rule were the way, interracial couples wouldn't have been able to marry until the 90s and the 1964 civil rights act wouldn't have passed in 1964. Minorities have natural rights that can't be violated by mob rule. If you don't like it, move to Iran.
I was merely using an example to a country that did not allow its citizens to vote. Thankfully, in the United States, we're allowed to vote on measure such as the rights for gays to marry, and thank God that the silent majority won out in the end and is working to protect the sanctity of marriage once and for all.
Actually, voting in this way is a recent development.
Learn your civics. The republic elects officials to legislate. Referendums and proposals are RECENT. These "bans" and whatnot will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, where it should have been all along.
It looks like your boy Barack, who was "elected by the people", isn't speaking up on the rights of gays after all. Do you honestly think the politicians are going to support gay marriage? Bleeding heart liberals are so out of touch w/ reality it's sickening. Get real
I think that what the movement for gay marriage really boils down to, is that legitimizing marriage for gay couples will make homosexuality socially acceptable and not a taboo. Homosexuality is not a choice, and it is not a disorder, and sexual orientation in general is just one aspect of the complexity of an individual. It just so happens that there are humans who are attracted to members of the same sex, in the exact same way that others are attracted to those of the opposite sex, but in every single other way they are the same. So if in our society, marriage is the ultimate way for two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, regardless of whether they are going to reproduce or not, shouldn't that option be available to anyone?
Regarding the other point brought up about incest and marriage.. I don't think that those are analogous. Incestuous relationships can lead to sexual reproduction, in which the resulting offspring has a greater chance of genetic mutations, so here it becomes an issue of creating another life. While gay marriage would not be hurting or affecting any other party.
"Homosexuality is not a choice". That has never been proved. Relentless research, even that by partisan gay advocates looking for their answer, has never found the gay gene or the gay embryonic condition or anything related. This is a myth.
I laugh when gays try to draw parallels to their "struggle" and to the struggle of African Americans in the 1950's. Not only is that an insult to the African American population, it's downright ludicrous. Do gays have to sit on the backs of busses? Do gays have to eat in the backs of restaurants? Do gays have to sleep in the car while their friends sleep in hotels? Do gays get turned away from admissions at colleges?
If the gays don't like the 31 STATES VOTING AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE in the United States, then they can get up and go live somewhere else. The people have spoken, the majority has won.
"Neither state nor federal governments should have the right to hold certain marriages less valid than others."
Are you prepared to require society to grant legitimacy to polygamous and incestuous marriages as well, if the parties involved truly love each other? Aren't the participants in these types of unions also entitled to equal treatment? How about marriages between an adult and any child who has reached puberty? There is much more historical precedent for all of these types of unions than there is for is for same sex marriages. If you feel that the law requires legal recognition of same sex marriages on the basis of equal treatment, when will you start advocating for the release of Warren Jeffs?
"Americans have a great deal of goodwill toward gay people as friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. Most of us do not want to hurt them or hate them or interfere with anyone's legitimate rights to live as they choose. But we do not believe gay marriage is a civil right; we think it is a civil wrong. And we do not appreciate the increasingly intense efforts to punish people who disagree with gay marriage as if we were racists, bigots, discriminators or haters."
~ Maggie Gallagher, 11/4/2009
http://www.uexpress.com/maggiegallagher/
It cracks me up how Christian heterosexual couples go on and on about the sanctity of marriage, when the divorce rate is as high as it is. Oh wait, I'm sure ALL of those couples must be from some other religious background...
Just a few decades ago, the people chose to allow segregation to continue, and protested when the government decided to allow African American children to attend school with white children. And look how times have changed. All the conservatives out there can cling to their morals for as long as they like, but this article is right. Equal rights can't be denied, and gay marriage will win out in the end.
And in 31 states, people have CHOSEN NOT to allow gay marriage! What more do you people want?! Should we have a tiddly-winks competition? A three-legged race?! The people have spoken!
The government has taken away ENFORCED prayer in public schools, and allowed people the right to choose. That is democracy, the right to choose, and to live your life according to your own morals, rather than having others' morals forced down your throat. Gay marriage should be recognized by the government. That doesn't mean any church has to recognize the marriage (read: separation of church and state), but that homosexual couples receive the same, equal legal rights as other married couples.
Intolerance, you jest? As a Christian, the government has taken away prayer in public schools and has allowed the mass murder of unborn babies for years now. THAT is intolerance. The people have spoken. It is not discrimination, it is DEMOCRACY. ALL 31 states where gay marriage has voted upon as a ballot initiative have shot down gay marriage. You've taken away life, you've taken away morality in society---people are NOT going to let the LGBT community take away the last sanctified rights Christians have: marriage!
Have you ever heard of minority rights? Just because the majority feels a certain way in a democracy, does not mean it can restrict the rights of a minority.
State sanction and recognition of relationships is NOT A RIGHT!!! Its not like the state is trying to criminalize gay couples from living together, or getting joint banking accounts, or anything like that, and if they do those laws are rightly over-turned. Secondly, equal rights already exist as there is no law saying a gay person can't get married to a person of the opposite sex, the law simply says that a state sanctioned and recognized marriage must consist of one male and one female irregardless of their sexuality.
As someone who has ZERO problems with gay marriage I find it tiresome to keep having to make this argument. But quit trying to bastardize the meaning of words, the law, and the role of the courts to get the desired outcome of the extension of a PRIVILEGE to gay couples.
To deny a couple civil benefits because they're gay, and then give those benefits to another couple because they are straight is discriminatory. Due to the fact that state sanctioned recognition of a relationship exists, gays have a right no to be discriminated against for access to the same kind of benefits.
Ideally, the government wouldn't waste its time meddling in private affairs like marriage, except extreme circumstances (abuse etc.) But what do I know, Im a science guy. I try to avoid arguments like these.
Marriage is the right of a Christians? what about hindus, muslims, buddhist, atheists, agnostics?
Marriage is not jsut a religious contract here as it has a lot of civil analoges. why else does the state and not just your religious authority have to grant a mrriage and a divorce contract.
The problem with your reasoning is that if the sole purpose of marriage is sexual reproduction, then why is there not a ban against the marriage of heterosexual couples who are not able to have children either because of infertility or their age?
And the other problem is that it IS indeed a view of intolerance, because if all men are created equal and are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, then shouldn't a homosexual man have the same rights to being married and happy as a heterosexual man?
"then shouldn't a homosexual man have the same rights to being married and happy as a heterosexual man?"
Well, technically he has the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man. That that is not his preference is another issue.
Notice how I said being married AND happy. While a homosexual man can marry a woman, that does not mean that he is going to be happy in that marriage. If two people love each other and happen to be of the same sex, why should they not be allowed to share that love in the same way a heterosexual couple does? Not to mention, there are so many orphanages that are overfilled, so if anything gay couples can help provide a family for those children who were abandoned by heterosexual reproduction.
Not everyone who wants a driver's license is going to use it for driving. But they have to qualify for the potential that they may. Same for marriage and its focus on continuing society through the mutual search for DNA partners. One man, One woman, No hate.
This spin of hate language is part of the myth from the LBGT that they have no choice in life style, so are victims. There is no research that supports this no-choice view. Rather, they want to be seen as an oppressed minority, likening themselves to blacks, and often claim similar histories, much to the irritation of blacks by the way. It is not believable, and the good people of 31 states who have been asked to vote on this matter have seen right through the myths, the name calling, the intimidation tactics, the LGBT-controlled hate machine.
The LGBT is fully in control of the Michigan Daily. So it is no wonder we hear these strident advertisements that marriage must be redefined to fit a life style chosen by a tiny fraction of the population. Demonizing people who view marriage as a one-man-one-woman bond is the obvious downfall of this LGBT movement. It is not a view of intolerance. It is a view of society's purpose to protect the intentional and planned sharing of DNA and its results: i.e. that other word that scares the LGBT, "families". Boo!!
Minorities should not have to tolerate prejudice and bigotry.
Post new comment