|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 7, 2016 20:27:23 GMT
I am not being deliberately obtuse. Not sure what that means. It's my opinion. I have a right to my opinion. Just like everyone else. Then I guess you can't explain it to me, because you can't tell me that because a person believes, or has the opinion, whether it is a Christian based belief or not, that marriage should be between man and woman that they hate another human being. To me. That's absurd. Some people might hate. I find that very sad. But not everyone does, and for people to just assume hate, where there might not be any, is just as sad to me. I'll try... THIS post just addresses your opinion/belief. I would say that most here would agree that you are most certainly entitled to that opinion and would not say that you are a hater at this point . Where the hate comes in--is when you actively try to prevent those whom it affects (it does not affect you) from being who they are and having the same freedoms (to marry) whom they love. If it's on the ballot and you vote against gay marriage, it is a form of hate towards a specific group of people, none of which affect you. So in simple terms, you have your belief and opinion (religious based in assuming from your posts) which is totally fine and your prerogative , but when you step into that polling booth, ready to cast your ballot on the issue of gay marriage, just simply skip over that if you cannot vote for it. Here's how your vote would play out: Not casting your vote on that issue hurts absolutely no one. Casting a NO vote on legalizing gay marriage hurts those who seek it--it does not affect you at all and does not take anything away from you, nor does it strip you of your beliefs. You are choosing to take your belief and opinion to use to shut down other human beings seeking the same thing others have. (Kind of equate this with you have no dog in the fight...) Casting a YES vote would also still not hurt you, but allow others the same freedoms that every other person does. You still retain your beliefs and opinions, you are voting for equal treatment of human beings. |
|
|
|
Post by izzyscraps on Feb 7, 2016 20:29:05 GMT
No no no. See no one has asked me how I would vote. Or what I believe. I think from my posts everyone is assuming I would vote no to gay marriage.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876 
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 7, 2016 20:32:24 GMT
This is a fallacy. One who has strong beliefs acts in accordance with those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. By insisting that people who have strong beliefs on issues (religius or otherwise) not voting in accordance with their beliefs you are hurting them and holding them to a standard you yourself won't follow. You will continue to vote in accordance with your own beliefs yet insist they do not.
And it all stems from the idea you have that your beliefs are the RIGHT ones. "Freedom" means standing up for the rights of people who's beliefs you don't agree with" as much as for those who's beliefs you do agree with. To me, it's a bit hypocritical to speak of the rights and freedoms of one group while looking to take those things away from another.
|
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Feb 7, 2016 20:33:03 GMT
On the other hand, taking gay marriage as a prime example, I get that lots of people disagree with gay marriage, and swear ten ways from Sunday that they don't hate gay people, they just believe in traditional marriage. And that's fine. The problem for me comes in when people seem to think that their disagreement means that they should be the decision-maker for everyone else. And in the example of gay marriage, the problem for me comes in when people say, I disagree with gay marriage and therefore I think the law of the land should ban gay marriage. Because while I don't intend to get into the question of hate or not hate, because that reduces the conversation to an unhelpful dichotomy, what that statement does do is it elevates the moral belief of the one unaffected over the actual life of the one affected. I've heard lots of people say this over the years. And again, just using this specific example, I don't think everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gay people, but there's more to the conversation than that. The context matters. Co-signed Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you get to be the arbiter of morality for everyone else. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Feb 7, 2016 20:39:22 GMT
This is a fallacy. One who has strong beliefs acts in accordance with those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. By insisting that people who have strong beliefs on issues (religius or otherwise) not voting in accordance with their beliefs you are hurting them and holding them to a standard you yourself won't follow. You will continue to vote in accordance with your own beliefs yet insist they do not. And it all stems from the idea you have that your beliefs are the RIGHT ones. "Freedom" means standing up for the rights of people who's beliefs you don't agree with" as much as for those who's beliefs you do agree with. To me, it's a bit hypocritical to speak of the rights and freedoms of one group while looking to take those things away from another. Wow, the media sure is under-reporting all those marriage rights lost to heterosexuals. Having a hard time finding much reportage on all those places where gay marriage has infringed upon the rights of heterosexual couples to be married. ... ... Except it hasn't happened that way. There is no hypocrisy in my belief that gay people should be able to get married, because I believe that heterosexual people should be able to get married too. No one's rights are lost here, and in fact, greater freedom exists because marriage is available to all couples, not just the majority. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 7, 2016 20:42:38 GMT
The hypocrisy is not in your "belief". It's in the idea that you can express that belief and vote in accordance with that belief while those who believe the opposite should not.
And my post was in response to Papercraftadvocate who seemed to be saying that a person who does not believe in gay marriage or in abortion should either not vote or else vote for these things despite the fact that doing so went against their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Feb 7, 2016 20:43:25 GMT
The hypocrisy is not in your "belief". It's in the idea that you can express that belief and vote in accordance with that belief while those who believe the opposite should not. I never said anybody shouldn't. I said that the question at hand is much larger than whether or not a person has the right to express or vote in accordance with one's beliefs. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 7, 2016 20:45:43 GMT
Please see the edit to my post above.
And no, I disagree, it's really not "bigger". You want to believe and vote in accordance with your beliefs about what is right and just.
Others want the same thing even if they do not agree with your belief about what is right and just. Trying to deny them that IS hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Feb 7, 2016 20:47:07 GMT
I don't believe hate is always the premise behind a vote for or against something. That's all The problem is that often, when we simplify an issue down to one statement like this, it's easy to agree with it. Because we don't all imagine the same situation as an example of it. For instance, when I answered your OP, fairly early in the thread, it was before word one was spoken about gay marriage or abortion. If your OP was indeed referring to one of those things, I had no idea. I took the very simple, vague post and the first real life example I thought of was my friend. Now, that example cannot be applied to the quote above unless there's someone out there suggesting we vote for a return to harsh punishments for those having caught having an affair.  So, now, with this statement, it's easy for me to look at this one statement, all on its own, and say "Sure, if I'm voting for an increase in infrastructure for electric cars, there's certainly no hate involved anywhere. I don't hate people with traditional cars nor do I hate gas stations who don't offer charging stations as well." But, as soon as you take this simple statement and plug in a more personal, and politically polarizing issue, the whole thing changes. Because when the issue has to do with people instead of things, obviously there are much different emotions involved. It's a lot easier to accept that someone is voting against your car than with someone voting against your life. Now, I don't know if you or any other people posting simple statements are hoping to get agreement for the simplified statement so you/they can then plug in a more complex issue as a "Gotcha!" or if you/they are truly looking for conversation, or if you/they were just thinking of a less controversial situation to begin with, but you have to realize that when you go with a very broad statement, it can have very different outcomes once the conversation veers into more specific issues. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 7, 2016 20:47:47 GMT
In the end, society's laws will changed through the natural process of elections and legislation as the mores of society change. No need to try to shut down those who don't agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Feb 7, 2016 20:47:53 GMT
I'm sorry, izzyscraps . I wish that you could say that to the person you want to. You said it very well here.  |
|
|
|
Post by PeachStatePea on Feb 7, 2016 20:48:33 GMT
I'm active on another board related to a different hobby. I have seen some things there that really bother me related to hate and intolerance of others.
The liberal leaning people consider anyone who doesn't agree with Obama 100% as evil racists. The mildest of criticism of a decision or action of his, even from another liberal, is not tolerated. They insist on lock step agreement and respect for him in every way. They love to revel in talking about what ignorant haters conservatives and Republicans are because they are too blinded by hate for the black man to see how awesome Obama is. They consider themselves the ultimate examples of tolerance and acceptance because they love their black president and gay marriage.
In this political season, all Republican candidates are called "the latest clown out of the car". Conservative men who have been elected governor in blue and purple states are treated with complete disdain. They hate Ben Carson - "How did he get into medical school? How did he graduate? He's obviously way too stupid to have accomplished anything on his own." These are common comments. To me, they seem very racist. How could a black man achieve so much when he's an idiot conservative? It's unimaginable to them, and so they pour out the hate and intolerance all over him without at all seeing the irony of their attitudes towards the 2 men (Obama and Carson).
You can disagree with Obama without hating all black people, but a lot of people who support the president don't see to be able to wrap their heads around that idea. To hate conservatives just because they are conservative with different opinions than you, is the ultimate in intolerance. But they don't see it at all.
Just wanted to vent a little, I guess, and this seemed like a place to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by izzyscraps on Feb 7, 2016 20:49:52 GMT
I was actually not speaking about anything specific. Well I guess it was a specific situation to me but not this, just sort if turned into this.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 21:14:33 GMT
I'm active on another board related to a different hobby. I have seen some things there that really bother me related to hate and intolerance of others. The liberal leaning people consider anyone who doesn't agree with Obama 100% as evil racists. The mildest of criticism of a decision or action of his, even from another liberal, is not tolerated. They insist on lock step agreement and respect for him in every way. They love to revel in talking about what ignorant haters conservatives and Republicans are because they are too blinded by hate for the black man to see how awesome Obama is. They consider themselves the ultimate examples of tolerance and acceptance because they love their black president and gay marriage. In this political season, all Republican candidates are called "the latest clown out of the car". Conservative men who have been elected governor in blue and purple states are treated with complete disdain. They hate Ben Carson - "How did he get into medical school? How did he graduate? He's obviously way too stupid to have accomplished anything on his own." These are common comments. To me, they seem very racist. How could a black man achieve so much when he's an idiot conservative? It's unimaginable to them, and so they pour out the hate and intolerance all over him without at all seeing the irony of their attitudes towards the 2 men (Obama and Carson). You can disagree with Obama without hating all black people, but a lot of people who support the president don't see to be able to wrap their heads around that idea. To hate conservatives just because they are conservative with different opinions than you, is the ultimate in intolerance. But they don't see it at all. Just wanted to vent a little, I guess, and this seemed like a place to do it. With all due respect the very same you said above can also be said on how the conservatives talk about liberals. It's not a one sided story by any means. From some on this board words like "Liberals" and "Dems" come off as dirty disgusting venomous words. It's fine to have your little vent above but at least acknowledge that there are some conservatives who treat liberals the same as you "vented" about above. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 7, 2016 21:16:47 GMT
By the same token, krazyscrapper, how about you acknowledge that just because people are conservative with conservative/traditional views and beliefs and vote in accordance with them doesn't make them haters, ignorant or any other name.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 21:46:40 GMT
By the same token, krazyscrapper, how about you acknowledge that just because people are conservative with conservative/traditional views and beliefs and vote in accordance with them doesn't make them haters, ignorant or any other name. Actually I could care less about conservative views or beliefs. That is until such time as they dictate how others should live their lives based on those beliefs. Then I care a lot. Your beliefs are yours not mine. An example are folks who are born gay. They have no choice in the matter. So that being the case why should someone else's beliefs dictate how these folks should live their lives? And unlike some on this board I don't hate the "other" side. Hate is a strong word that I don't throw around. I just feel they are misguided. Oh by the way in case you are wondering you are one of the ones who when they say "liberal" it comes across as a dirty word. Even now after you claim you have "seen the light". Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by PeachStatePea on Feb 7, 2016 22:06:11 GMT
krazyscrapper, as I said, I was talking about another hobby site, not 2peas. I do not see the hate coming from the right towards the left on that site. I stand by what I said, though. People on the left are entitled to their opinion. People on the right are entitled to their opinion. I do see people on the left, though, using words like "tolerant, accepting, and open minded" when describing themselves, while they demonstrate intolerance, unacceptance and narrow mindedness towards others. People on the right, in my experience, *do not* describe themselves as tolerant, accepting and open minded. They are narrow minded and completely open about it. They are completely intolerant of some things and are proud of it. That's the difference, to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Feb 7, 2016 22:26:03 GMT
I don't like the word hate either. And you can believe that just because someone votes the way they do means hate. I will never believe that. Everyone has a right to their opinion =sigh= I told myself I was done with this thread. Guess not. You're right, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. But when you use the power of the vote to legally impose that opinion on other people in ways that hurt them when they aren't hurting you or anyone else, that is certainly evidence of deliberate unkindness. If you don't like the word hate. Exactly how I feel about abortion |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 8, 2016 0:55:18 GMT
I understand that Elaine. However, I stand by my post. You believe you are right and so do people who believe differently and each of you vote based upon your own set of beliefs for legislators and legislation that will fight for your beliefs. Neither one of you is a "hater" or "ignorant" and calling people by those names is simply an attempt to shut the other side down and prevent them from voicing their beliefs. It doesn't change anyone's mind and it doesn't change how they vote or how they much they fight for their beliefs. If anything, it harden their position. And it isn't a simple "let everyone do what they think is best". It just isn't. One good example I can point to in my own case: I'm pro choice. However, I am adamantly against the issuing of birth control and especially abortions to minors without the knowledge and consent of a parent. I don't care if the parent won't give consent. That is THEIR right as a parent. They get to decide what non-life threatening medical procedures are performed on their children. Very often I see those in the right to choose camp seeking to take that to an extreme where it impinges on other valuable and constitutionally protected right. I find it ludicrous that a high school nurse cannot give a teenager an aspirin without both parental and medical consent from a doctor. Yet an invasive procedure like abortion can be performed just on the say so of a 14 year old? No. That's insane. And so, although pro-choice, I will fight many pro-choice measures. Doesn't make me a hater. It is just not a simple mantra: pro or anti. Ok, but what if a 23 year-old woman wants an abortion. Many on the right would oppose it and call it murder. Should they get to choose for her? You are pro-choice. How would you evaluate that situation? |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 8, 2016 1:11:59 GMT
As I said, I am in favor of choice. So yes, the 23 year old gets to choose for herself. However, those who feel it is murder have every right to vote in accordance with their conscience and to push for laws that reflect their conscience. And if there are enough of them, then their elected officials will push for laws reflecting those beliefs.
You see, just because I don't agree with them does not make the the names they are so often faced with here and elsewhere. And I see, for the most part, I may as well save my breath. The "I'm right and you're wrong" people like Krazyscrapper really could care less about "rights" except for those rights they deem acceptable for those people they deem acceptable.. It's "their way or the highway" period, end of story.
Fortunately, IRL, I meet far fewer people like that than I see here on this message board.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,375
|
Post by cycworker on Feb 8, 2016 1:12:25 GMT
In the end, society's laws will changed through the natural process of elections and legislation as the mores of society change. No need to try to shut down those who don't agree with you. Here's where I fundamentally disagree with you, though: civil rights should not be subject to a vote. I say that as a Canadian who lives in a country that brought in marriage equality with a great deal more ease than it's happened in the USA. In Canada, a lawsuit was brought forward and the Supreme Court ruled, rightly in my opinion, that same sex couples were having their Charter rights impinged upon by civil marriage being limited to hetero couple. The court told parliament that all provinces had to alter their laws to allow same sex couples to wed. A province or two tried to say they wanted a referendum on it. Or a party in the federal parliament - I admit I don't remember & I lack the time to look it up. Regardless, the court said NO. That this matter is one of constitutional interpretation, as opposed to a matter than can be determined by popular vote. They said that the public can only vote on laws that are constitutional, and a law affirming that marriage be limited to heterosexual couples would be unconstitutional. That's my issue with what's happened in the US, prior to the SC ruling this past summer. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 8, 2016 1:26:14 GMT
And cyc, that is precisely why we have a Supreme Court. Unlike Canada, our system of government is one of checks and balances. There are three equal branches (Executive, legislative and Judicial) so that all, theoretically, are protected. The court protects the minority against the whims of the majority, but the majority still has a say and unless something violates our constitution, the will of the majority should rule. Since your system of government is different than ours, it makes it difficult to discuss because you look at things through the lens of how they are done in your country rather than how they are done in ours.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 8, 2016 1:28:04 GMT
And now, I have to be up at 4 AM to catch a plane, so I'll bid you all a good night.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 8, 2016 1:48:26 GMT
No no no. See no one has asked me how I would vote. Or what I believe. I think from my posts everyone is assuming I would vote no to gay marriage. The other posters have been trying to tell you "when you vote for/against..." I just separated them! |
|
|
|
Post by izzyscraps on Feb 8, 2016 1:53:37 GMT
No no no. See no one has asked me how I would vote. Or what I believe. I think from my posts everyone is assuming I would vote no to gay marriage. The other posters have been trying to tell you "when you vote for/against..." I just separated them! Ok! |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Feb 8, 2016 2:23:21 GMT
And cyc, that is precisely why we have a Supreme Court. Unlike Canada, our system of government is one of checks and balances. There are three equal branches (Executive, legislative and Judicial) so that all, theoretically, are protected. The court protects the minority against the whims of the majority, but the majority still has a say and unless something violates our constitution, the will of the majority should rule. Since your system of government is different than ours, it makes it difficult to discuss because you look at things through the lens of how they are done in your country rather than how they are done in ours. How is that unlike Canada? After lower and appellate court rulings in favour (check, check) the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that denying same-sex marriage was against our Charter (check). Then the Civil Marriages Act was tabled and the House voted on and passed it (balance) at which point it was debated and passed by our Senate (balance). So, in the US, as in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states nation-wide. If that was your check, what were your balances? |
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Feb 8, 2016 2:33:56 GMT
I have this saved on my computer:
By Brandon Vogt
With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things:
1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "hates gay people" or is "anti-gay."
2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity.
3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction.
I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise." They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs.
4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot." )
The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage (or any other topic) is almost impossible.
Ironically, some of the Peas who declare themselves to be the most open-minded are the ones that keep coming at you and chase you down in thread when your opinions are different than their own. They cannot separate your opinion, beliefs,and ideas from your person.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Feb 8, 2016 2:57:09 GMT
FTR, if claiming the 'open-minded' label requires that I tolerate every viewpoint regardless of how it affects others, I want no part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 8, 2016 3:02:08 GMT
I have this saved on my computer: By Brandon Vogt With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things: 1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "hates gay people" or is "anti-gay." 2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity. 3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise." They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs. 4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot." ) The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage (or any other topic) is almost impossible.Ironically, some of the Peas who declare themselves to be the most open-minded are the ones that keep coming at you and chase you down in thread when your opinions are different than their own. They cannot separate your opinion, beliefs,and ideas from your person. Bwahahahaha! Funniest stupid thing I've read in weeks.  Of course he doesn't want more dialogue, because it would point out the huge gaping holes in HIS philosophy, logic and reason. Namely, he completely leaves out and ignores the whole part of the equation which involves trying to legally deny same-sex couples the same rights and privileges- legal and social - enjoyed by hetero couples. And what telling a large group of people that they aren't worthy enough to have those rights and privileges is - because that certainly isn't love OR tolerance. What a simple-minded tool - I hope no one printed his words, because it would be a waste of ink and paper. |
|
M in Carolina
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,128
|
Post by M in Carolina on Feb 8, 2016 3:15:16 GMT
I really shake my head at people who when you say that something they said or did is wrong or dumb or whatever, they get outraged and indignant that you called them wrong or dumb or whatever. No. I said what you *said* or *did* was wrong or dumb. (not usually about opinions being wrong, but concrete things like you followed the directions wrong or forgetting your passport when you went to the airport was kinda dumb) I'm not *calling* you a name or saying that *you* are wrong or dumb. We all do wrong and dumb things. I see this more than you'd think online.
I love the quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" Aristotle
and
Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." Sir Winston Churchill.
As far as the discussion about gay marriage, I am a conservative Christian and believe that God ordained marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. However, in our country there are economical and social rights afforded to married people that aren't afforded to others. I think that those rights should be available to everyone. There are also a lot of non Christians that don't believe what I believe about marriage. They can still get married even though they don't believe the way I do. I can separate my specific religious beliefs from the rights that our country should provide for citizens. I want all citizens to have these rights, so I vote accordingly. I think the heterosexual/gay issue is clouding the issue that there are some citizens that are being denied rights because of a matter that is personal and should be private.
I really wish that the US would do what other countries have done. Everyone who wants to get married goes to court, fills out a license, and has a civil marriage ceremony. Then they get married in a church of their choice or not, their choice.
I just think that all adults should have the economic and legal rights that married people enjoy. You shouldn't be able to be banned from your sick or dying loved one's side because you're unable to be their legal next-of-kin and so intolerant family can ban you from the bedside of the person you love most because that person is not able to communicate their desire for that person to be present. Or the family legally fought a legal document naming their gay spouse as next of kin because the government doesn't recognize gay marriage. That really was the key for me to see this matter in a different light.
I don't want to deny other American citizens the rights that I am afforded as an American.
With abortion, it's scary to let the government regulate a person's medical rights. That's a slippery slope. There are lots of people that don't just want to ban abortion. They would like to see ALL birth control banned. As someone who had to go through a Catholic hospital deny them a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous uterus because I hadn't had children, I got a taste of what can happen. The catholic church refusing to allow women in countries that are at high risk for the Zika virus is scary.
I am against abortion, but I think that instead of trying to legislate this issue, we should strive to make adoption and prenatal care more appealing so women have other choices available.
|
|
My original pea date was November 1999 and my number was 1803
Time to get off the internet!
Southern Side eyed Pea