Leave Carrie Alone!!

[NY Disney fan]

Who's picking on Carrie Underwood?

 

[daisax]

I was merely pointing out that lots of things offend the religious sensibilities of lots of people...but they're still legal.

Many churches consider divorce to be a sin... but people in those churches are not campaigning to make re-marriage of divorced people illegal. They may not be permitted to remarry within the church, and their marriage may be considered non-sacramental, but their legal status as a married couple is not called into question. They're not petitioning for constitutional amendments to make remarriage after divorce illegal, or the marriage of anyone married outside a religious institution illegal.

Individual churches could refuse to marry same sex people, the same way they can refuse to marry people who aren't members of their church, or people who haven't demonstrated a grasp of their church's teachings on marriage, or people they think are too immature, etc.

Every day people accept as legally married people who might not qualify to be married in THEIR church.

 

[h20jag]

Who's picking on Carrie Underwood?

Wrong Carrie... the former Miss Califas. The next Miss July '10.
Her turn-ons are frivolous lawsuits.
Turn-offs are, well, gays I guess.

That Carrie!

 

[JarethDrakul]

Carrie Prejean, she's the Ms. California contenstant in Donald trumps beauty pagent who said she was against gay marriage. A lot of people think she lost the pagent because of her answer.

All she did was express her opinion on a subject that the media itself has once said it was against (then they say alot of things...)....I'm gay and I'm not fussed about gay marriage (I've never planned to get married so its not a subject I pay much interest in). Like someone else said they shouldn't even be asking a question like that as its obvious what will happen if she said she doesn't.

There was a time where interracial marriage was opposed by the majority.
There was a time when racial segregation was supported by the majority.
There was a time when slavery was supported by the majority.

It doesn't make it right to suppress the rights of a minority based on the opinions or beliefs of the majority.

Agreed with that I don't see why people should be telling others they can't marry because they're this or that....I'd be ashamed to bring a child up in a world like that

 

[diznygirl]

I guess I'm looking for a compromise that most people would support so that neither the religious conservatives who feel that a marriage is a covenant with God and therefore a marriage between homosexuals should not be recognized because in their eyes homosexuality is a sin (and they do have the right to their own opinion on that...it doesn't necessarily mean that someone is bigoted just because their religion teaches certain values that not everyone agrees with) nor homosexuals who want the same rights as a married couple feel that their rights have been trampled on. Because I have friends who come from many different groups (and I even have one side of my family - my mom's side - that is full of Democrats while the other - my dad's side - is 100% Republican Christian conservatives), I try to find some sort of common ground that people can come together on. Maybe there isn't one on this issue.

I think the common ground is the separation of church and state. If marriage is religion based, then the states should have no power to make them legal or illegal. Churches can decide for themselves whom they allow to marry. States, however, should not limit that right.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Go get your civil union and live happlily ever after. More power to you. Very few people really care one way or the other. And from her statement, that includes Carrie Prejean.

Wrong. If 'very few people really care', then they would not vote, period. Instead, many feel that because they have the right to vote, they MUST vote. Not so. If a ballot question does not apply to you and will not affect you, there is no need to vote on it period.

You might want to watch your wording my friend. You just called everyone on here who shares her opinion ugly, homely, hideous, unattractive and icky. That's pretty "icky" as well.

Nope. She said

Bigotry is ugly, homely, hideous, unattractive and icky

Nothing about people.

 

[pearlieq]

Personally, I have no problems with gay couples having a civil union because it's the lifestyle they feel they have to live, and they do need legal rights. But I really disagree with it being called marriage because it is NOT something my church supports.

Marriage is religion based. In the Catholic church, it's one of the sacred rites. "Unions" are not religion based, so let them be whatever one wants them to be. You cannot force people that are against "marriage" on religious reasons to be happy about "marriage" being hijacked by a group that is complaining that they're bigots just because they don't agree.

I'm actually totally OK with that, from a practical standpoint.

I'm very much in favor of civil unions for all. I think "church" marriage and "state" marriage should be completely separate things.

I think any consenting, non-related adult couple should be allowed to have a legally recognized partnership that affords them the legal protections we give marriage today, i.e property transfer, next-of-kin status, etc.

Any couple that wants a legally recognized partnership would apply for that kind of union, fill out the necessary papers, and make the required legal declarations. Then they are joined in the eyes of the government.

What happens after that is between them and their God. They can have a Catholic wedding, sign a ketubah, or hold a Church of The Holy Donuts ceremonal weenie roast. I really don't care.

All I want is equality under the law.

 

[jamimb]

Wrong. If 'very few people really care', then they would not vote, period. Instead, many feel that because they have the right to vote, they MUST vote. Not so. If a ballot question does not apply to you and will not affect you, there is no need to vote on it period.

Nope. She said Nothing about people.

Her next sentence states "nobody wants a beauty queen who is icky"
Come on are you really gonna tell me she did not call her icky because of her opinion on the matter therefore implying that everyone else who believes that way is also "icky"???

 

[TCPluto]

Wrong. If 'very few people really care', then they would not vote, period. Instead, many feel that because they have the right to vote, they MUST vote. Not so. If a ballot question does not apply to you and will not affect you, there is no need to vote on it period.

Nope. She said Nothing about people.

Huh? If you were to read what I wrote, I said that very few people care about the coupling of homosexuals. That's a completely seperate issue over the question of marriage for homosexuals.

And no one's buying your weak attempt at playing the word game, not even the poster that declared all of us bigots. She admits, and you know, that she was referring to everyone who was against the idea of homosexual marriage as being "icky"..

 

[kaytieeldr]

Personally, I have no problems with gay couples having a civil union because it's the lifestyle they feel they have to live, and they do need legal rights. But I really disagree with it being called marriage because it is NOT something my church supports.

Marriage is religion based. In the Catholic church, it's one of the sacred rites.

Homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle [anyone] feels they need to live". It is what it is.

As for gay marriage not being something your church supports, well, your church doesn't support my religion. That makes mine NO less valid than yours, and my rights as granted by the government (the 'ruling' body of this country) equal to yours. Therefore, your church's lack of support for gay marriage makes that right no less valid than your right to marriage. The right to marry is granted by the government; your or anyone's church is free to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies it doesn't support, but NOT to deny the right of marriage to anyone.

As for marriage being religion-based, well, first, there was no religion at the beginning of mankind - yet there was marriage. And, just for the record, 16% of the world's inhabitants practice no religion. To claim marriage is religion-based denies the right to marry to 1/6 of the population.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Her next sentence states "nobody wants a beauty queen who is icky"
Come on are you really gonna tell me she did not call her icky because of her opinion on the matter therefore implying that everyone else who believes that way is also "icky"???

She didn't imply anything and can't be responsible for what others infer from what she stated; however, she attacked bigotry - not bigoted people as a group - and then stated her opinion of one public figure.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Huh? If you were to read what I wrote, I said that very few people care about the coupling of homosexuals. That's a completely seperate issue over the question of marriage for homosexuals.

Okay, then - can you please explain why so many people are for denying civil rights to an estimated ten percent of the population / against the government allowing this right when it won't even affect them? Thanks.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

As for marriage being religion-based, well, first, there was no religion at the beginning of mankind - yet there was marriage. And, just for the record, 16% of the world's inhabitants practice no religion. To claim marriage is religion-based denies the right to marry to 1/6 of the population.

Since humans have been what we think of as human and not a lower life form, there has been religion of some sort...maybe not Christianity, but religion. The only ancient civilization that I know of that was accepting (and even more than accepting) of homosexuality was the Spartan civilization and the reason that they supported homosexuality is that they felt that relationships between the men within their military made the military stronger. Finally, marriage as we think of it wasn't what marriage was back in ancient times. It has evolved over time. Should we allow polygamy in this country as well? After all, polygamous societies throughout the world are even more common than monogamous societies.

 

[Inigo]

it's the lifestyle they feel they have to live

At what age did you make the conscious decision to be a heterosexual? When did you make the conscious decision that you did not want to have sex with someone of the same gender? When did you make the conscious decision that you were not attracted to the same gender?

If you did not make the conscious decision for those things why would you presume that gays have :the lifestyle they feel they have to live"?

C--Straight, not narrow minded.

 

[PinkRhombus]

At what age did you make the conscious decision to be a heterosexual? When did you make the conscious decision that you did not want to have sex with someone of the same gender? When did you make the conscious decision that you were not attracted to the same gender?

If you did not make the conscious decision for those things why would you presume that gays have :the lifestyle they feel they have to live"?

C--Straight, not narrow minded.

Well, give me another term then. They "know" they're gay? How do they know. Not that they "think" this is how they should live their lives...they feel with their whole being that it is who they are and the way they're made to live their life, and I'll never tell someone that the way they feel about who they are is wrong.

I am NOT close minded. Thanks for the name calling though.

It IS a lifestyle. Not putting any derogatory meaning on it at all. How else can you decribe how a person lives their life? It applies across the board to everyone in some shape or form.

As for me, I probably started getting crushes on boys in the 3rd, 4th or 5th grade. I didn't even know that such a thing as homosexuality existed until around the 6th grade when the AIDS epidemic hit in the early 80's. That's when I was first aware of the epidemic at least. Never even considered that being an option. Never attracted to a female in any way. I've maybe gone as far as wondering what it would be like...it's just something that just doesn't interest me. No different than a gay man having no desire to hook up with a female.

 

[TCPluto]

She didn't imply anything and can't be responsible for what others infer from what she stated; however, she attacked bigotry - not bigoted people as a group - and then stated her opinion of one public figure.

You don't believe this. You're purposely being obtuse.

 

[TCPluto]

Okay, then - can you please explain why so many people are for denying civil rights to an estimated ten percent of the population / against the government allowing this right when it won't even affect them? Thanks.

That's easy. No one's civil rights are being violated.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It IS a lifestyle. Not putting any derogatory meaning on it at all. How else can you decribe how a person lives their life? It applies across the board to everyone in some shape or form.

Respectfully, how does lifestyle equate to sexuality? That would mean person A chooses/chose to live a frugal lifestyle, person B chose/chooses to live a generous lifestyle, person C opts to live a self-indulgent lifestyle... but only person D (who's gay) chose a lifestyle based solely on sexuality? Do you identify yourself as living a heterosexual lifestyle? I sure don't - because that's only a small part of who I am. But when someone is gay, THAT'S their lifestyle? Not anything about their personality, their beliefs, their attitudes, their actions - but solely the sex to which they're emotionally and physically attracted? Does that make any sense?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Since humans have been what we think of as human and not a lower life form, there has been religion of some sort...maybe not Christianity, but religion.

I disagree. What religion were Adam and Eve? Religion didn't come until later.

 

[kaytieeldr]

You don't believe this. You're purposely being obtuse.

Please don't tell me what I believe, or assume that I lack intellect. I'm pretty darned intelligent and am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions - which are generally based on what is reasonable.

I don't post (or say) things I don't believe.