Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I guess we know who all the closet gays are now on this board? The issue is not that anyone cares he's gay--there's lots of gays in the world--the issue for me is showing two dudes making out on a sports channel?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    do you know what mcarthyism is? (any internet search can help...and display what the jargon you type above is  re: "I guess we know who all the closet gays are now on this board?"

     

    baiting?

     

    a long way to go my friend in coming out from the ignorance we were taught growing up in this culture.

     

    and knowing what it is to not join in the oppression of your fellow humans.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey dipsh--it-just because people dont agree with your liberal opinions doesnt make you right-Freedom of speech brother - and maybe I watch Football for football not 2 dudes making out!! And that homophobe crap your trying to tongue down my throat-dont think so partner?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MichFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Brady2Welker47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     The dude is being used by the liberals to push their agenda.

     

    Brady2Welker47

     

    Why couldn't they just focus on the player, his ability, game film and collegiate accomplishments? I could care less about his personal srxual preference! But ESPN chose to make it about that instead of Sam the player...

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]


    Good grief... bunch of clowns here. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Thank you for your sanity - EXACTLY-focus on his football films not his gay porno kissing another man stupidity!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Excellent post by Agill ... it takes a big person to admit their discomfort is their issue and not someone else's.

    Per points of view, the point of view that gay people, or anyone really, shouldn't be on TV is bigotry. You are entitled to be a bigot, but others are entitled to call a spade a spade. A non bigoted person might not care, they might think its cool, they might cheer for it, but they'd never want to bar someone from TV based on the fact that they might (shock and horror) kiss their significant other. Back when Star Trek had Kirk and Uhura kiss, there were tons of people who thought Roddenberry was shoving it in their face. Its childish. Other people going about their life and ESPN covering a Very newsw event is not shoving it in your face any more than ESPN's 500 cuts to AJ McCarron kissing whatsherface is McCarron shoving his heterosexuality in your face or ESPN doing the same.

    Per "1st Amendment nonsense": The fact is, and this is fact, ESPN showing a gay person on TV in no way infringes on someone‘s right to free speech. Unless you are really soft in the head and completely misunderstand how the first amendment works, you'd know this. You are not guaranteed the right to not see something, or to silence soneone else. Just change the channel if you are so bothered by it. And to be clear YOU aren't being silenced when you change that channel: on the contrary if you had your wish you would be violating ESPN‘s right to speech and Sam's. Negating someone else's 1st amendment rights is not a 1st amendment right. You are otherwise freely able to go complain about it (which many are doing here now), but removing Sam from TV is not a point of view, its an action based on a point of view. You arent entitled to that in the same way you aren't entitled to make black neighbors to move away because you don't want to see them. Case in point, you may not want to hear me call you a bigot, but you cannot stop me from saying it. Respond how you want but MY expression doesn't limit yours. Neither does Sam's, nor does ESPN's.

    Per "showing the kiss", please, AJ McCarron, ring a bell? Forget the other 1000 times ESPN has played affection into celebration, this guy aline has been on the network kissing his GF for 100x the air Sam‘s moment had. You just overlook tgat, or perhaps dont nitice it, because you don‘t want to? 

    Per the question of draft status, Id say it was likely he was drafted where he otherwise might have been. Perhaps he was drafted a bit lower, based on teams not wanting the media attention, or not wanting to upset a homophobic lockerroom. If he hadn't been drafted  I'd have been incredibly suspicious .... in the history of the SEC DPOY award, every single one has been drafted in the 5th or higher and Sam is no worse than half of those prospects. istory 

    [/QUOTE]


    Another moron missing the point entirely--let me try to explain it to your brilliance-I watch the draft to see football players who are going to be taken and their football tape etc-with possibly with my son. All of a sudden I'm watching two dudes making out? If two gay people bought a gay porno movie and at the 20th minute a real football game started playing they'd be goin like what is this? I watch football for football when ESPN decides to show guys making out they have changed what I chose to view-it doesnt make me a bigot!!! Lastly I'm sure when Sam and his boyfriend(chuckle) went to Vegas that nite they were doin more than just kissing!! Football not gay porn is what I thought I was watching-and am now boycotting ESPN!!! And I could give two rats arsses what you feel about that!!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AcheNot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I tend to agree with you. Especially now

    Coming out in gay-friendly 2014 America = borderline BFD moment. To me it is anyway. This is not Jackie Robinson redux

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course it's Jackie Robinson.  It's discrimination or society's shackles on a minority group. It's the exact same thing, which is why black right wingers always crack me up with their religious rhetoric as to why gays don't deserve equal rights.

    The height of hypocrisy.

    The day skin color or sexual orientation don't matter, don't need a report attached to it, is the day our country is better off.

    Hopefully, this Sam thing paves the way for that just like Robinson's emergence into MLB did in the mid 1940s.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I watch football for football not two dudes kissing--and for you to equate Blacks breaking into MLB with Homosexuality is ludicrous!!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to carawaydj's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Nope, but my sister is, her wife and some friends are.  I refuse to be a hypocrite too ignoring all men are created equal and what that principle truly meant.

    It was bad enough with slavery and all of the political targeting of minority groups then or now.

    To play semantics and rank which discrimination is superior to another is ridiculous.  Discrimination based from bigotry is discrimination based from bigotry.

    [/QUOTE]
    Ranking degrees of success, bad behavior, etc. is not semantics.  It's fundamental to a civilized society.  Imagine a society where all crime of the same type was punished equally regardless of "ranking".  Like it or not, there are degrees to discrimination much like there are degrees to everything else both good and bad.  If that is ridiculous, then the world around you is ridiculous.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

    [/QUOTE]

    How are you quantifying the degrees in this case?  A black man or woman being lynched, imprisoned wrongly or discriminated against in some way is more offensive to you than if the person was white and homosexual, similarly victimized?

    Why is that?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If we were all gay there wouldn't be any equality because there wouldn't be any people-Make sense now?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I watch football for football not two dudes kissing--and for you to equate Blacks breaking into MLB with Homosexuality is ludicrous!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Good luck with that argument.  I made the same point here a while back and a couple people had a real problem with me thinking that.  I find it ridiculous!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Preposterous.  Our society has discriminated against all kinds of minorities.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed no doubt.. but in today's society discrimination is all social media bs and idiots through a computer and people who are ignorant. its all talk. no action.

    Jackie Robinson? legitimate death threats. fastball's to the head. spiked. etc. etc. etc. constant abuse.

    America's racism in the 40's was still ruthless as he1l, I cant even imagine the 1800's.

    While obviously the discrimination of minorities is wrong, peoples sensitivity levels are also ridiculously high in this day and age too.

    Someone types "OMG" and they get fined. Obviously that is discrimination and it is wrong but to compare "OMG" to all of the slurs that Jackie took is preposterous. I think Jackie would gladly take all of the discrimination the gays get nowadays in a heartbeat. He had it much worse.

    Now, Sam is still a HUGE breakthrough and I'm glad to finally see it happen. you can compare JRob and Sam all you want for the imprint they will leave on society but please just concede that Jackie had it much worse.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I watch football for football not two dudes kissing--and for you to equate Blacks breaking into MLB with Homosexuality is ludicrous!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Good luck with that argument.  I made the same point here a while back and a couple people had a real problem with me thinking that.  I find it ridiculous!

    [/QUOTE]
    If it makes you feel better this very same argument is playing out elsewhere in Internet land.  Most agree it's ludicrous to equate the two.  Maybe if this was 30 years ago I'd see the comparison a little more.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    Sorry rus


    Our culture and laws have always begun with the Judeo Christian culture and in the beginning a very religious nation


    i cannot help that atheists today want everyone to practice their religion and rewrite and ignore the fact that the USA wouldn't have been the USA without the devout beliefs of our founders all the way up until just a few years ago


    please note all of the oppenning prayers before government bodies and the vast amount of religious references in all of the government buildings


    the fact that fewer  people are religious today doesn't change the past. At one point I time the belief in God was over 90%. The ceremonies and laws were more highly interwoven


    i am always amused at the noting of " separation of Church and state" This term came from a private letter written by Jefferson after he was president. This was never ratified by the USA. I don't think it was ever mentioned in the federalist papers. What is clear is that the founders did not want a government with same united bodies of gov and religion like England was. Or like sharia law toda. the Constitution speaks of not establishing any religion . Not acting like it doesn't exist.


    and it is certainly not like today's libs who declare that religious freedom is only protected with the sanctuary walls.


    but you choose to miss my point. The gay magi chose to go after the term marriage because they demand acceptance and that those who don't must bow down and celibate it.They are fascists in the way they go about their advocacy. Like demanding Nintendo to have gays in their sim game, or sue to have eharmony serve them too. but if they should wish to, that is fine.But instead they chooses to attack instead of getting all their deserved rights thru civil union laws. And I am not a fan


    at the same time I would grieve for each and everyone of them who are unjustly wronged. If someone were attacking your sister, I would hope that I would have the personal bravery to  step up.


    we won't agree, so be it.


     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to carawaydj's comment:


    If it makes you feel better this very same argument is playing out elsewhere in Internet land.  Most agree it's ludicrous to equate the two.  Maybe if this was 30 years ago I'd see the comparison a little more.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.





    Jackie Robinson made it easy for Sam to come out. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from cousteau. Show cousteau's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I guess we know who all the closet gays are now on this board? The issue is not that anyone cares he's gay--there's lots of gays in the world--the issue for me is showing two dudes making out on a sports channel?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    do you know what mcarthyism is? (any internet search can help...and display what the jargon you type above is  re: "I guess we know who all the closet gays are now on this board?"

     

    baiting?

     

    a long way to go my friend in coming out from the ignorance we were taught growing up in this culture.

     

    and knowing what it is to not join in the oppression of your fellow humans.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey dipsh--it-just because people dont agree with your liberal opinions doesnt make you right-Freedom of speech brother - and maybe I watch Football for football not 2 dudes making out!! And that homophobe crap your trying to tongue down my throat-dont think so partner?

    [/QUOTE]


    is it OK then for a guy and girl to "make out" on draft day? Did you tune in to watch that? If you are OK with that and not two guys, than your argument is bogus

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to agill1970's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Good post agill1970.

     

     

     

    Here is something to consider... I think it was a bit much, not so much two guys kissing but the fact that it was being shown over and over and over again.  Why not just show the phone call, that was a emotional moment watching him receiving the phone call but both ESPN and NFL network chose to show the two kissing again and again and again.  Now had it been a guy kissing his girlfriend they would not have played it over and over again as many times as they did the Sam kiss.  And I really wouldn't be surprised if had they showed a straight guy kissing his girlfriend as many times as they have shown Sam kissing his boyfriend people would be making comments as to why they have to keep showing a guy kissing his girlfriend over and over again. It would be like, okay we get it already.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    *******************************

     

     

     

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I didn't watch day 3 of the draft, so I cannot take this in the same context as you.  However, I'm guessing the network showed it repeatedly to show they are ok with it.  But, it went overboard because there is really no appropriate universal line drawn in the sand.  This is new frontier type stuff, much like the kiss between Kirk and Uhura.  I'll bet the people in the control broadcasting room were pulling their hair out wondering what to do in order to seem like they were doing the right thing.  The constant repeat of it got the masses talking, for good or for bad, which is never bad for a network. 

     

    As for public displays of kissing which some others have brought up.  A couple second kiss is no big deal regardless of who is kissing who.  Longer than that goes down the road of a makeout session, and I don't particularly care to see that regardless of who is kissing who. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Maybe for you two guys kissing is no big deal? For me it is and not because I'm homophobic simply because I do not wish to see dudes making out when I PAY to watch football!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This was embarrassing, maybe McCarron should have reined it in knowing the coverage that would be there. At any rate, I'm not bigoted or anything, but I don't know how I feel about ESPN covering AJ's kiss, or AJ kissing. Its kind of throwing it in my face. Other points of view should be allowed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey Z just come out of the closet already--its pretty obvious dude? To equate a man and a woman kissing to two guys is pretty lame? When did homosexuality become not abnormal? I dont care what people do with each other but trying to call black, white is ridiculous.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle Rico. Show Uncle Rico's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Hey Z just come out of the closet already--its pretty obvious dude? To equate a man and a woman kissing to two guys is pretty lame? When did homosexuality become not abnormal? I dont care what people do with each other but trying to call black, white is ridiculous.

    [/QUOTE]

    +100

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This was embarrassing, maybe McCarron should have reined it in knowing the coverage that would be there. At any rate, I'm not bigoted or anything, but I don't know how I feel about ESPN covering AJ's kiss, or AJ kissing. Its kind of throwing it in my face. Other points of view should be allowed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey Z just come out of the closet already--its pretty obvious dude? To equate a man and a woman kissing to two guys is pretty lame? When did homosexuality become not abnormal? I dont care what people do with each other but trying to call black, white is ridiculous.

    [/QUOTE]

    When was homosexuality ever abnormal? Has been around always, sometimes regarded as normal (ancient Greece), sometimes quietly tolerated (English boarding shcools), and sometimes criminalized and discriminated against (most non-secularizes societies).

    This is surely a great step forward for the NFL and the homosexual community, deal with it. Why do you think they showed it? Because people still respond the way a lot of posters do here, showing that true equality is still in the future.

    Supra societatem nemo

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This was embarrassing, maybe McCarron should have reined it in knowing the coverage that would be there. At any rate, I'm not bigoted or anything, but I don't know how I feel about ESPN covering AJ's kiss, or AJ kissing. Its kind of throwing it in my face. Other points of view should be allowed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey Z just come out of the closet already--its pretty obvious dude? To equate a man and a woman kissing to two guys is pretty lame? When did homosexuality become not abnormal? I dont care what people do with each other but trying to call black, white is ridiculous.

    [/QUOTE]

    When was homosexuality ever abnormal? Has been around always, sometimes regarded as normal (ancient Greece), sometimes quietly tolerated (English boarding shcools), and sometimes criminalized and discriminated against (most non-secularizes societies).

    This is surely a great step forward for the NFL and the homosexual community, deal with it. Why do you think they showed it? Because people still respond the way a lot of posters do here, showing that true equality is still in the future.

    Supra societatem nemo

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude I get it now go pick up your boyfriend already--just come out dude its ok! And if you think its a great step forward for the NFL to embrace two guys who like to have sex with one another I must be missing something? It aint normal dude - now get over it!!!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle Rico. Show Uncle Rico's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    When was homosexuality ever abnormal? Has been around always, sometimes regarded as normal (ancient Greece), sometimes quietly tolerated (English boarding shcools), and sometimes criminalized and discriminated against (most non-secularizes societies).

    This is surely a great step forward for the NFL and the homosexual community, deal with it. Why do you think they showed it? Because people still respond the way a lot of posters do here, showing that true equality is still in the future.

    Supra societatem nemo

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The networks showed it not for what it was but for the political side of it. 

    You are being led to believe differently.  You must be very gullible!

    How embarrassing, gay or straight, to watch 2 guys shoving cake into one's mouth like they are getting ready for their honeymoon.  Oh snap.... girlfriend!!

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from kevin13130. Show kevin13130's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    This was embarrassing, maybe McCarron should have reined it in knowing the coverage that would be there. At any rate, I'm not bigoted or anything, but I don't know how I feel about ESPN covering AJ's kiss, or AJ kissing. Its kind of throwing it in my face. Other points of view should be allowed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Z, I get the gist of your argument and mostly agree. But a peck on the lips as shown there of AJ and his girlfriend after a game is not the same as what was shown of Michael Sam. I think if AJ was frenching his girl after a game, that would generate a significant reaction too.

    If the media wanted to capture a historical moment, they overdid it. I get what they're (maybe) trying to accomplish, but they did force the issue and, in doing so, stirred up some negative responses. Had they been less in your face about it, I think it would've worked out better and not elicited such a strong reaction from those who are not necessarily ready to accept a gay man playing in the NFL. The way to promote equality is not to give a certain group preferential treatment, and that's what it seemed like ESPN was doing.

    Also, cause I'm immature, I laughed at the phrasing of the title of this thread.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brady2Welker47. Show Brady2Welker47's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    2 guys 2 gals guy n girl...scene with cake eating was over the top. Kevin couldn't agree with you more. 


    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    This was embarrassing, maybe McCarron should have reined it in knowing the coverage that would be there. At any rate, I'm not bigoted or anything, but I don't know how I feel about ESPN covering AJ's kiss, or AJ kissing. Its kind of throwing it in my face. Other points of view should be allowed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Z, I get the gist of your argument and mostly agree. But a peck on the lips as shown there of AJ and his girlfriend after a game is not the same as what was shown of Michael Sam. I think if AJ was frenching his girl after a game, that would generate a significant reaction too.

    If the media wanted to capture a historical moment, they overdid it. I get what they're (maybe) trying to accomplish, but they did force the issue and, in doing so, stirred up some negative responses. Had they been less in your face about it, I think it would've worked out better and not elicited such a strong reaction from those who are not necessarily ready to accept a gay man playing in the NFL. The way to promote equality is not to give a certain group preferential treatment, and that's what it seemed like ESPN was doing.

    Also, cause I'm immature, I laughed at the phrasing of the title of this thread.

    [/QUOTE]


    Brady2Welker47

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

     

     I just have to ask Bradysgirlforreal if you're a boy or a girl, because if you're a boy the irony is delicious. If you're a girl, I kinda wonder why you care so much.   

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

    so good , I think we agree that no one here is trying to harm a gay just because they are gay, isn't that a good thing? Absolutely

    The marriage issue is a whole different conversation that really hasn't been discussed in this thread.You obviously have a dog in this fight. And very good for you to take what you view as clearly an open and shut case.

    My problem with all this is judges making this decision. Just like Roe v Wade made abortion a mess as there was already a trend towards fixing this in a less antagonistic and decisive way. I have never considered marriage a USA constitutional issue.Say what you will but marriage is a word of religious origin. and that origin is man and women. the State recognized the institution in law.

    In the beginning of gay civil rights, civil unions were to assuage this issue. IMO this effort was sabotaged so that civil unions weren't the same. and they could change the definition of the word

    If a church wanted to recognize a gay couple as married, like the episcopal church, that is in their purview, but don't ever expect the Catholic Church or othersto join in. IMO the gay movement is trying to change the definition, By changing the definition they are demanding acceptance and some are demanding that one must not only accept but celebrate it. Whereas if they had taken and made a truly equal civil union they would have had all the legal rights they should have.

    So there would be a distinction with a marginal perceptible difference. and before you say that is discrimination, the laws all the time discriminate. for example, why shouldn't each person pay the exact same dollars in taxes? ok that is the government. but I, you and every one here does too

    But I could go either way on this issue, haven't put a lot of thought. But you know what peas me off? The gay mafia (thank you Bill Mahyer) When they forced out the founder of Mozilla as CEO cause he gave a thousand bucks to a political organization 6 years earlier, , did not implement in business one anti gay policy, AND it was the exact position of Obama at that time. why didn't they demand his resignation? at that time I throw up my arms and want to say the hell with them. Tolerance is only tolerance if you agree with them I guess.

    all is just IMO

    [/QUOTE]

    Seawolf, I can see why you'd have a problem with judges making this call, like Roe v Wade. But the problem with that position (in practice) is that common sense is not as common as one would prefer. And the fact of the matter is that, while more simplistic, less volatile issues may defer to "common sense," gay marriage and gay rights are not simple, and opinions will differ. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to make rulings on these issues to defend the rights that have been granted to us. If one comes from the perspective that gay marriage is wrong, then yes, I can see how he would conclude that a ruling could "make a mess" out of the issue. However, if someone believes that the current (or past, in some states) situation where gay couples cannot marry is wrong, a movement toward the other side would not be construed as "making a mess." 

    You bring up an interesting point in believing that marriage is not a Constitutional issue. It's not a position I agree with, and I'll explain why, but I do find it interesting regardless and have some questions I'd like to ask you. Do you agree with the legal benefits bestowed upon married couples like tax breaks, visitation rights, the passing on of one's estate, etc., or should those not be handled by marriage? Do you consider those aforementioned items to be legal benefits at all? If they should not be handled through marriage, how should they be handled? And under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, should these benefits be included, and if not, why not?

    My reasoning for believing that gay marriage/rights is a Constitutional issue lies in the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. No, marriage is not expressly cited in this Amendment. But neither is desegregation or equal voting rights (not for just minorities, but women as well). I believe that the protections and benefits bestowed upon couples through the legal status of marriage are legitimate, and these should also be protected by the 14th Amendment for all people. Now comes the question of what is this term "marriage," and is it one single entity or does it contain legal and sometimes religious/social ramifications?

    I doubt that anyone would try to argue the merit of the argument that marriage is a social/cultural phenomenon. The main dissension typically lies in its legal vs. religious basis.

    Proponents of the "traditional marriage" view cite their belief that "Marriage has always been between man and wife" and sometimes also that it is the way God/the Church made it. But is this truly the case? In order to answer this question, we have to turn to history. Same-sex unions existed throughout history- including ancient Greece and through 13th century Mediterranean states. In those states, the ceremonial rites were the same for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, including the recitation of marriage prayers, the meeting of the couple on an altar, and the marriage kiss itself. These practices were banned in the early 1300s for being unchristian. Thus, though same-sex marriage may not predate opposite-sex marriage, it certainly co-existed with it, and certainly predates the Christian ban on it, or the "traditional" stance.

    In fact, marriage (and same-sex marriage) predates Christianity. In ancient times, marriage was a tool to bind families together or create peaces amongst states. In ancient Rome, it was a civil affair, completely separate from any religious ties. In the 5th century, the church declared it a holy union- yet still it wasn't until 1215 that marriage was even dubbed a Christian sacrament. Let's also not forget that polygamy was practiced commonly in history, including even amongst ancient religious figures in the Bible.

    What does this all tell us? Once again, marriage historically has existed under separate (but not mutually exclusive) civil and religious forms. "Traditional marriage" is only "traditional" in the sense that it is what the Church has taught for a long time, what "traditionalists" have known for their entire lives, but it is not the only form that has existed historically, even in their religion.

    Marriage today has two sides: civil, and religious (if the parties choose for a religious celebration). I doubt most gay couples are fighting for acceptance in religious ceremonies, and it is my belief that it is up to the religious leaders of those religions to create their own rules. If the Catholic Church forbids same-sex marriage in their churches, fine by me. Don't marry gay couples there. But don't deny same-sex couples the civil protections granted by marriage. And no, them calling their union "marriage" doesn't detract meaning from your marriage. They are getting married under the law, not under the Church. As anyone with any education knows, English words can have multiple meanings and interpretations, and marriage is no exception. 

    I'd also like to turn the tables here a bit. The Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorces, but rather, only divorces that are accompanied by an annulment. What would be Catholics' reactions if the US's law was that Catholics could not obtain civil divorce? They would be free to live separately, separate themselves under the Church's laws, and carry on, but they could not be civilly divorced and enjoy the privileges of that civil divorce. I think the reaction from Catholics would be uniformly negative.

    The parallel is simple: Marriage exists in two forms- civil and religious (if chosen). Dissolution of marriage exists in two forms- civil (divorce) and religious (annulment). The Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex marriage, nor does it recognize civil divorce. Preventing one group (same-sex couples) from obtaining the protections of civil marriage is as legally and morally reprehensible as preventing another group (Catholic couples) from obtaining the protections of civil divorce.

    TL;DR- Marriage predates Christianity. Same-sex marriage also predates Christianity. Marriage has always been governed by civil laws, but only more recently has been governed by religious laws. Marriage exists as a civil and sometimes religious entity. Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Churches should not be forced to recognize same-sex marriage. Calling same-sex unions "marriage" does not detract from the meaning of a religious marriage.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


     


    In response to JMUFranco's comment:





     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.


     


    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females). 




    Babe, the 14th amendment most likely would be interpreted to require equal rights for all "people," not equal rights for all men and different equal rights for all women. Your argument would be stronger, however, if you said "all people (regardless of gender) have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex."  That said, the courts are increasingly defending a more expansive view of our liberties by interpreting the Constitution to protect the right of all people (regardless of gender) to marry a person of either sex as they choose.  As someone who values liberty over all else, you must, I'm sure, be quite pleased with this change. I know I am. 


     


     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share