|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are you for or against the concept of same-sex marriage? |
| For |
|
71% |
[ 91 ] |
| Against |
|
28% |
[ 36 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 127 |
|
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
[qu
...For instance when TUM refers to Christ's admonition to the harlot he had saved from stoning ("Go, and sin no more") and purposely neglects to mention what He had just previously said to the men holding the stones - this is misuse of the Scripture, because TUM took a story whose purpose was the show the mechanics of forgiveness and instead turned it on its head to promote an idea of hard-line repression and intolerance for those who sin.
TheUrbanMyth
| Quote: |
| I pointed out that if you as you said really wanted to see more of a positive attitude around here, you should make an attempt to contribute to it, instead of calling everyone a bigot who disagrees with you. |
(1) I've disagreed with a lot of people here, but the only ones I've called a bigot are those who have shown themselves to be exactly that, either on this thread or others. You do know who and what you are, TUM, and you know very well that I don't pull words like that out unless I've done a fair amount of work to show it.
(2) I suppose you would prefer a discussion about gay marriage be done in a sterilized atmosphere that does not include concepts like bigotry and hate.
And I can think of quite a lot of reasons why you would prefer that....
[" |
(numbers are mine)
1. Wrong again. I used it to show that simply because Jesus forgave sins does not give the person the right to continue in said sin. Try actually reading what is there, rather than twisting it to give it the worst possible interpretation. As for bigotry do you really want to go there? Do you really? I've done the work to show why you shouldn't.
It is noteworthy that not a single person publicly agreed with you, while several people (most notablely Mr. Kuros) came to my defense. I guess that shows who's presented the better case on these forums. And that explains why you are so desperate to quiet me. There is much more I could say, but that would be getting into a flame war, which I am trying to avoid.
2. Actually I would prefer a discussion of gay marriage to done in a civilized and mature manner, which is why I refrained from personal attacks in this thread..but no longer. If you want to make personal attacks I will respond in kind.
However I think we can do without the "you're a bigot" "No you are, and I can prove it with this link" type of stuff. We've done that in a previous thread (several actually) and most ended with the mods either deleting it or deleting the most offensive passages. It doesn't really strength your case and people are starting to call you on it.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I have no regrets because the ESL teachers were advocating genocide and the destruction of cities full of innocent people. Anyone with half a brain could see that. Do you have half a brain, Thundarr? Sorry, I can't loan you any, because I am using the one I have right now ... maybe you forgot that you can actually USE your brain when you come around here. |
No, I have a full brain. That's how I know the line about Mecca was a joke. But I do agree with you, someone with half a brain definitely WOULD think it was advocating genocide. I can only suggest that you get some kind of refund on the apparently shoddy, refurbished, blue-light special brain you got.
| Quote: |
| I can't think of a single reason to apologize for calling people bigots who advocate massive genocide against millions of people. I thinkyou need to apologize to yourself for defending something like that. |
Bobster, what you can't think of would fill a barn. But I already addressed that it was a joke. And the point was about staying on topic, something you love to lecture others on while doing so little of it yourself. (Oh, I forgot, when you do it, it's ok. My bad. It's just I have this thing about hypocrisy. Apparently you do not.)
From the President's thread:
The Bobster wrote:
| Quote: |
| A few too many bigots around for my taste lately, not only wannago and The Urban Myth, but most recently bigverne and Leslie Cheswick. In My Very Humble Opinion, rabid animals such as these need to be put down as quickly as possible, with little compunction about humane methods, as they are a severe threat to the larger body of humanity. |
| Quote: |
Sorry to nut you with reality again, but that topic was actually about who is the worst president ... |
Whether greatest, or worst, you jumpted straight into advocating the death of other posters. Not at all on-topic.
| Quote: |
| They compared themselves to terrorists by advocating the destruction of cities occupied by people who simply hold a different faith. And only a moron would decide that my metaphor about rabid dogs was literal and did not refer to verbally "putting down" someone" ... |
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Verbal put down. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....ha ha ha...ha...Whew. That was good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
In the stoning parable, Jesus told the "righteous" men : Who are YOU to judge this woman, and by his actions indicated that fornication is not worthy of death. He told the woman to change her life and be good, because of course everyone ought to prefer that, but the message of the parable is that the forgiveness of God is granted to ALL sinners, with no exceptions.
I agree and disagree. Jesus' actions did not indicate that fornication is not worthy of death. The Bible teaches that, "the wages of sin is death," and that all have sinned and therefore all deserve death. The good news is that Jesus came to take that punishment in our stead. Jesus was not saying that the sin did not deserve death, he was saying that the others had no right to judge her because they were all equally deserving of death as well.
Also, as far as the forgiveness of God being granted to all sinners, I would say rather that the forgiveness of God is offered to all sinners. Perhaps you meant as much, but it is an important distinction.
TUM was off-base to refer to only one side, though, the part where Jesus told the woman to repent - and by ignoring what he said to the men he made a grave and serious error about using Jesus' words to support only one side of an issue. If you agree with him that there is little to be learned from the question of who has the right to judge others, then I think perhaps you are in error also.
I agreed with the idea that repentance is important and should not be glossed over. There is no question as to who has the right to judge others. Only God has the authority to do so, only God has the moral standing required to do so, and only God has the complete knowledge of people's hearts necessary to do so.
| Quote: |
| When some people think of Jesus, they only think about love and forgiveness. It's somewhat understandable because the forgiveness of sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the Gospel, or "good news" in a nutshell. However, in the cross, both the love and the holiness of God are displayed. |
And by contrast, any depiction of the Crucifixion also displays the hatefulness and cruelty of human beings, and the story of it, including the betrayal by members of the religious community, and even His closest friends, displays how unworthy we are of His love, of course ... the fact that the love is given regardless, is the greatest and most moving aspect of Christianity.
Absolutely.
It's not about telling people how to live - it's about telling people which choices are better and which are not so good.
I'm not sure about the distinction you just made. Are you saying that the teachings of Christ and his apostles are mere suggestions and not requirements?
Getting back to gay marriage, though, I will continue to argue that homosexuality per se is not a sin - the word "abomination" is used in many places that describe things that are simply not seen as well approved of, and I think God (if she exists) forgives the alcoholic who loves his children and holds down a good job, as well as the adulterer who strays from the heart rather than the gonads and yet does his best to keep the family a safe and serene area for all ... and the same would apply to gay people who love and contribute to the community by their labor and by the works of their conscience.
God's forgiveness has nothing to do with how well we "make up for" our sins. We cannot. The homosexual, the alcoholic, the adulterer are not forgiven because of their love for their children or their contributions to the community. When they receive forgiveness, it is because they confess their sins to God and believe that their sins have been paid for by Christ. If we could make up for our sins by doing good, then Christ died unnecessarily.
| Quote: |
| Why did Jesus have to die in order for God to forgive man's sin? Because God is Holy and cannot tolerate or ignore sin. The wrath of God needed to be poured out on the sins of man but the love of God did not want to pour out that wrath on man himself. The only solution? Take one man, who did not sin and was therefore able to take on the sins of others (because his own life was not already forfeit due to sin) and pour out God's wrath on him while he bore man's sins: [/color] "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter) |
All very nice, but one needs to accept the notion that homosexual love is sinful. In the Bible it is only criticized in a few places, and there is no mention made - not even of heterosexual fornication, come to think - in the Ten Commandments.
[color=red] "only...a few places" I wonder, how many places should it be mentioned before we take it seriously?
It is interesting that you bring up the Ten Commandments. I believe you earlier posted something like, "Read the New Testament, ignore most of the Old." That is why I posted NT scriptures. But now you appeal to the OT (well, not really, just a few verses of it. Other verses in the OT are very clear on this issue). I'm not sure who popularized the idea that the Ten C's is like a Top 10 list from Letterman, but let me tell you what else is not on that list: kidnapping, torture, child abuse, incest, rape, etc. Lying and keeping the Sabbath day made it, though. In fact, when Jesus was asked about what the most important commandment was, he said, "Love the Lord your God with all heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength." That command is from the OT, but not the Ten Commandments. Something not being in the Ten Commandments does not mean it is not important to God.
God commanded us in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply ... are we sinning if we choose to remain childless by choice? You are walking down the road that ends with sexuality being a sin only if one enjoys it and does not engage in it only to create more Christians - do you want to go there?
The command, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it," was given to Adam and Eve. There are now over 6 billion people on this planet and I believe it is more subdued than many would like it to be. I think that "command" has been taken care of. It was never a command in a moral sense anyway, God said, "Be fruitful and increase in number," to the fish and sea creatures too. I will assume that you did not deliberately misuse that "command" in an attempt to justify your position that "homosexuality per se is not a sin."
Just to be clear, I do not wish to ban homosexual marriage anymore than I wish to ban divorce, cursing, fornication (as you mentioned) and so on. I do not expect those who do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God to live by it. I certainly would not. I do not wish to make anyone abide by its teachings. It is sad that there are some who use the Bible to justfiy their hate. As a Christian, I believe such people to be phonies. However, I am also distrubed by people who use the Bible to justify activities the Bible clearly condemns. It comes back to that, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," phrase. Some people hate the sinner and the sin. Other people accept the sinner and the sin. Both are wrong. The former is worse though as it seems that many of the latter are well-intentioned, but it is impossible to be well-intentioned while hating another human being. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freezer Burn
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So has any of these discussions in this thread convinced you any that its not a choice to be gay?, you cant look at living the best way you can with what you have been given as an assult of god, or a sin.
I think that with your beliefs its easier to accept that it has to a personal choice involved, because if it was genetic and you believe that god created us in his image, then that means that you have to accept homosexuality as gods work and i think that has bearing on a lot of discrimination on this issue.
I can tell you for certain that its not a choice, and if you were gay would you be arguing that you have a choice to be 'normal', when you think you are already normal, and having to hear otherwise from people who don't know is very insulting.
I can respect your faith despite our previous discussions, it doesnt mean I have to agree weith it but you have to accept my point, because it comes from a source, while you point comes from a belief.
Homosexualitys biggest enemy is religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canadian_in_korea
Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is being gay a choice? Hmmm...perhaps for some its not....but I have a cousin who would disagree with you, he is gay. He did the whole closet thing when he was a teenager, had a beautiful girlfriend who was willingly his 'cover'. Not long after high school he came out to the family, a few people had problems but the problems were theirs I suppose. He introduced a boyfriend to the family I guess he felt it was pretty serious, after about three years this guy informed my cousin that being gay just wasn't for him, he had only been 'experimenting' and finally he had met a woman. I don't think being gay is a choice for everyone, but it is for some. My cousin recovered from his heartbreak and has now been with a guy for quite a few years, they had a private ceremony in a chapel..I'm sure they'll do what is necessary to make it legal. I think its important for people to remember that you can not force a church/religion to accept something that isn't accpetable in their beliefs just like people can't make you change who you are. Is the point of marriage in a religious sense not to 'go forth and reproduce'? I once found a passage in a bible that said something along the lines of 'he who lieth with a man as he should lieth with a woman, may their blood be upon them' (I'll start looking again, find the passage and post it and the bible it was found in) What about people who are divorced, if the church changes its beliefs and allows same-sex couples to be married shoulsn't they also make exceptions for divorced people? I guess I just think of like this....gay couples should be entitled to all the same rights that straight couples have, but they should also show respect for the rights of the church to refuse to participate in something that they do not agree with. Anyway, Rosie O'Donnell got married in Halifax yesterday..
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/07/13/f217.raw.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endofthewor1d
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Location: the end of the wor1d.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i don't think anyone here has any beef with what the church should or shouldn't do. i think it's the legal stuff that's got everyone's feathers in a ruffle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjk1128
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:02 am Post subject: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND |
|
|
This issue is important to me - though, I confess, I did not read all 15 pages of postings. I browsed.
While moral and religious debates rage, I think about mine and my partner's situation. We are much more interested in legal equality. While being embraced as moral members of the human race or fit members of our respective churches would be pleasant, we can both live without either. The single thing we do want out of life is the right to share it with each other.
I am a US citizen, and he is Colombian. We have been in a relationship for 5 years, but for more than 2 years, we haven't been able to live in the same country. In fact, for well over a year we haven't even been able to see each other in person. He is in Canada and was denied asylum over a year ago. (The single adjudicator who decided his case was clearly prejudiced, even insulting, in rendering his decision, but there is no recourse.) Soon after, I was denied entry to Canada because I had crossed the border too frequently to visit him, a refugee claimant, and was therefore considered suspect. I filled out paperwork to be allowed to reenter and still haven't received a response beyond Canadian Immigration's acknowledgment of receipt of my application. He has a Humanitarian and Compassionate App. in the works there, but it may be another 1-2 years before he gets a response.
...So for anyone who feels he or she can fully accept gay people and our relationships without extending full legal rights to us, tell me how my partner and I are supposed to realize our relationship. His country is too dangerous for me to live in, and mine gives us no legal recognition whatsoever. He can't even enter my country to meet my family, much less to live with me. Failing a now unlikely pleasant outcome in Canada, we will be looking at economic immigration. We'll have to spend extraordinary amounts of money just to gain residency in the same country, probably Panama, so we can live together.
For any of you opposed to gay marriage who have somehow convinced yourselves that this is not equivalent to prejudice against gay people and their relationships, face reality. I'm happy to place an individual story and face on the issue. I wish you could look me in the face and explain to me why I shouldn't have the right to be in the same country with my spouse, the person with whom I made a life committment 5 years ago. We didn't need anyone's approval to make our commitment, but people like us will always need you people's approval to allow us to be together. So have at it 30% who voted no to gay marriage -
Either
1. Tell me I don't have the same rights as you to make choices about who I spend my life because my way of life is a disgusting aberration
Or
2. Do some self-searching and see yourself for the bigot that you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| So how are we supposed to decide which Biblical events are true and which are just metaphores? |
Study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
hey seoulunitarian.
my understanding of the law is that, since most (though not all) denominations would consider the marrying of homosexuals contrary to teaching, the "freedom of religion" clause stands as an option for them to utilize if they don't want to perform the ceremony.
That said, if you are into getting married in a church or spiritually, the United Church is totally into it.
| Quote: |
| You are wrong, AIDS wasn't caused by homosexuality, no education about the virus is what helped it spread, do you really think the problems Africa is having with the HIV/AIDS epidemic is caused by rampant homos running around the jungle. |
My parent's have done relieft work their and say that promiscuity is spreading aids around like a pound a butter on a slice of bread.
They've had 6 women as their cooks during their stints (in Southern africa). four of them had aids...one woman died of it just after they finished their contract.
| Quote: |
On the one hand we have a loving Christ, and on the other we have a God who commands the killing of innocent "heathen" children. Both can't be true, no matter how limited our human understanding may be.
|
to say nothing of the verses that say that if a man (or woman) marries an unbeliever, their unbelieving partner is saved through THEIR faith.
| Quote: |
If the bible presents itself as fact, why are the so many tales of fiction within it's pages?
|
Could you point out a story that has been PROVED as PURE fiction?
Even the flood story, as crazy at it seems, when not taken literally from the Bible (change the world: Whole earth...to tigris+euphrate river basins....or 145days...to millenia)..., is absolutely unavoidably true. |
Good points. When I used the word "fiction", I did not mean it in the sense of Stephen King novel fiction, but in the sense of myth, or that which is embellished but sometimes based on reality. I suppose there is really no way to prove one way or the other which stories or true and which are false or partly fiction. But the search is important.
Peace,
Daniel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:47 am Post subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND |
|
|
| sjk1128 wrote: |
This issue is important to me - though, I confess, I did not read all 15 pages of postings. I browsed.
While moral and religious debates rage, I think about mine and my partner's situation. We are much more interested in legal equality. While being embraced as moral members of the human race or fit members of our respective churches would be pleasant, we can both live without either. The single thing we do want out of life is the right to share it with each other.
I am a US citizen, and he is Colombian. We have been in a relationship for 5 years, but for more than 2 years, we haven't been able to live in the same country. In fact, for well over a year we haven't even been able to see each other in person. He is in Canada and was denied asylum over a year ago. (The single adjudicator who decided his case was clearly prejudiced, even insulting, in rendering his decision, but there is no recourse.) Soon after, I was denied entry to Canada because I had crossed the border too frequently to visit him, a refugee claimant, and was therefore considered suspect. I filled out paperwork to be allowed to reenter and still haven't received a response beyond Canadian Immigration's acknowledgment of receipt of my application. He has a Humanitarian and Compassionate App. in the works there, but it may be another 1-2 years before he gets a response.
...So for anyone who feels he or she can fully accept gay people and our relationships without extending full legal rights to us, tell me how my partner and I are supposed to realize our relationship. His country is too dangerous for me to live in, and mine gives us no legal recognition whatsoever. He can't even enter my country to meet my family, much less to live with me. Failing a now unlikely pleasant outcome in Canada, we will be looking at economic immigration. We'll have to spend extraordinary amounts of money just to gain residency in the same country, probably Panama, so we can live together.
For any of you opposed to gay marriage who have somehow convinced yourselves that this is not equivalent to prejudice against gay people and their relationships, face reality. I'm happy to place an individual story and face on the issue. I wish you could look me in the face and explain to me why I shouldn't have the right to be in the same country with my spouse, the person with whom I made a life committment 5 years ago. We didn't need anyone's approval to make our commitment, but people like us will always need you people's approval to allow us to be together. So have at it 30% who voted no to gay marriage -
Either
1. Tell me I don't have the same rights as you to make choices about who I spend my life because my way of life is a disgusting aberration
Or
2. Do some self-searching and see yourself for the bigot that you are. |
At the risk of being called a bigot, I should point out that this seems to be an Immigration issue, not prejudice against gays. I see nothing that could not happen to straight people too were they in your situation.
That said, I do feel for you. When your partner is in another country and it is difficult or impossible to visit, that is one of the worst feelings possible...at least in MHO. I hope that things work out for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjk1128
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: You really don't see the connection? |
|
|
| Quote: |
At the risk of being called a bigot, I should point out that this seems to be an Immigration issue, not prejudice against gays. I see nothing that could not happen to straight people too were they in your situation.
That said, I do feel for you. When your partner is in another country and it is difficult or impossible to visit, that is one of the worst feelings possible...at least in MHO. I hope that things work out for you. |
If the US (where I am a citizen by birth) had marriage for gay people, we could get a fiance visa for my partner immediately and live there together. If we were married, we could get permanent residence for him in my country followed by (eventually) citizenship. If Korea recognized the gay marriage, he would be allowed to live with me here as my spouse on a special visa--- etc. That is why it "could not happen to straight people" if they were in our situation. They would always have the option of marrying and invoking all of the immigration rights associated with that in their home countries and by extension around the world. Relatively speaking there is no cost, no waiting. There are simple interviews, and a legitimate relationship always results in approval of residency or a visa for the non-citizen. Does that make it clear how it's different?
In addition, there are a host of other legal rights usually associated with marriage which gay people can only attempt to construct with the help of a lawyer - property rights, hospital visitation rights, social security and retirement benefits to name a few. Many are simply unavailable to gay people; others can only be created by (expensive) legal contracts. In short, the legal contract which marriage represents for heterosexual people with all its rights and priviledges (including immigration) - and which is recognized around the world once created - is not available at all to gay people in my country. How is that not prejudice against gays? There is a legal status which is unavailable to me because of my sexual orientation. I don't think it can get much clearer than that. Why not just say I can't own a home, or drive, or anything else that "all" citizens in the US can do without respect to religion, race, and so forth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjk1128
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:38 am Post subject: One more way to look at it |
|
|
Or you can look at it this way: the immigration laws associated with marriage were originally created so men could import their foreign property - their wives and children - into their home countries. Eventually, the same right of "duty free" importation was extended to women when women were granted the same rights as men. I have the right to "import" one person if that person is female, but not if the person is male. If I or my partner had a sex change, we could marry and gain access to all the same human "importation and exportation rights" that couples of different genders have in both of our countries: It would be laughable if it were not so absurd.
Some Christians may think it sinful to marry a Buddhist, but a Christian woman can take her Buddhist fiance with her to America next week, marry him, and have residency for him in a few months. I have been with my partner for 5 years and have known couples who married and divorced in that space of time. He is the first man I ever committed my life to and will be the last. Why do Christian extremists have the right to tell us when and where we can live together? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sportsguy35
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjk1128
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:45 am Post subject: Religiosity |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are 58% of Americans extreme Christians??? Because that is how many are opposed to gay marriage. |
I don't know why Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Clearly my position is that I can see NO logic in denying me the same rights as everyone else. So if religiosity is not the answer - and yes, I think it plays an important role in all of America's decisions - what's your explanation (or excuse)?
Clearly a majority of people are opposed to gay marriage in the US. That isn't in question. If you can explain why without referencing religion or moralism based on religion, I'd love to hear the argument. In my personal experience, even Americans who do not otherwise seem particularly religious often use a religious argument when stating why they oppose gay marriage and equal protection and rights under the law for gay people.
As for American religiosity, it ranks pretty damn high:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:22 am Post subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND |
|
|
| sjk1128 wrote: |
...So for anyone who feels he or she can fully accept gay people and our relationships without extending full legal rights to us, tell me how my partner and I are supposed to realize our relationship. His country is too dangerous for me to live in, and mine gives us no legal recognition whatsoever. He can't even enter my country to meet my family, much less to live with me. Failing a now unlikely pleasant outcome in Canada, we will be looking at economic immigration. We'll have to spend extraordinary amounts of money just to gain residency in the same country, probably Panama, so we can live together.
For any of you opposed to gay marriage who have somehow convinced yourselves that this is not equivalent to prejudice against gay people and their relationships, face reality. I'm happy to place an individual story and face on the issue. |
Dammit, I'm glad you did, glad someone finally put a face on this.
I had mentioned earlier various aspects of marriage that affect the legal rights and benefits of people who can engage in it, and I will confess some fault when I say now that immigration issues had not been considered among those benefits. I am grateful that you pointed it out, just as I feel some sadness to understand the nature of your plight.
Accept my hopes that things can be arrnaged, by whatever means, to allow you to be together with the human being you have found most worthy of your love.
You've posted things here that I didn't know before and possibly didn't care enough about before to have discovered on my own - the kind of bigotry liberals such as myself are guilty of lies in the places where we like to talk a good game but are unwilling to do the work and make the sacrifices we need in order to make the world the kind of place we think it ought to be. The stuff you have said is stuff i ought to have known if I cared about this as much as my energy on such topics would seem to demand ... in short, thank you for eliminating one more corner of my own ignorance.
Someone posting above me wants to call this all to be an issue of immigration rather than marriage rights. He is likely as ignorant of the facts as I was before I read your recent posts - and yet he will try to assert there is some clear separation of them that is meaningful, and I suppose folk like him will refuse to see what is obvious for as long as necessary. It's sad for such people, but sadder for the rights of whole groups of people who must live as 2nd-class citizens until the rest of us look around and see what is happening.
| Quote: |
| There is a legal status which is unavailable to me because of my sexual orientation. I don't think it can get much clearer than that. |
No, you are correct. It can't get any clearer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
