Old Navy Debuts Gay Pride T-Shirts For It Gets Better

[kirbsam]

the sentiment here is that you should be allowed to marry anyone that you want. well, i am married, but have my eye on a hot little number that lives up the street. what are the thoughts that i can also marry her? i think my wife would be ok with it.

 

[wtccheermom]

Bingo (to bolded part). I also agree that people wearing a shirt (or thanking a soldier) aren't really part of the solution. If they believe in a cause then they should get involved, not just give lip service or buy a token and say they're 'doing their part'.

Agreed. I'm more interested in the issues that are affecting the majority of Americans who are sliding, or have already slid, into poverty. Whether or not Gay Americans can marry seems a very trite point to me when looking at this "richest country in the world" rifled through with third-world pockets in every state, city and village and people dying every day because of it.

Solve the bad economy issue,
then solve the health care issue,
then solve the infrastructure issue,
then solve the housing issue,
then solve the education issue (which hopefully would have been solved in the economic issue),
THEN revisit the Gay Marriage issue.

Because the bad economy, enormous health care problems, a crumbling infrastructure and low education levels truly affect a heck of a lot more people every single day than the lack of marriage affects the Gay population.

And, Gay or Straight, if you don't have a job, don't have affordable health care, your highways are falling apart, the bridge you cross every day might just kill you, there are rolling blackouts and you can't afford decent housing, then getting married will likely be at the bottom of your survival list anyway.

It's all a moot point. It seems this was just a marketing ploy by Old Navy and they're not really selling the shirts anyway. They just wanted to look 'hip' by appealing to the fad.

Or maybe the amount of people who said they'd boycott made them change their minds about selling them. Kind of a "Lose the shirts or you'll lose YOUR shirts" deal. Who knows? Tempest in a teacup really.

Do all those issues outweigh Autism awareness also or do they just trump gay rights?

 

[DWGal210]

If you're both consenting adults, whatever floats your boat.

I imagine you posted that to stir the pot but I wanted to give you an honest answer, not a snarky one.

the sentiment here is that you should be allowed to marry anyone that you want. well, i am married, but have my eye on a hot little number that lives up the street. what are the thoughts that i can also marry her? i think my wife would be ok with it.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

the sentiment here is that you should be allowed to marry anyone that you want. well, i am married, but have my eye on a hot little number that lives up the street. what are the thoughts that i can also marry her? i think my wife would be ok with it.

Oh, here comes the "slippery slope" defense, my favorite!

Feel free to marry the "hot little number", just divorce your wife first and remarry. Lets keep the conversation as like to like, two consenting adults who wish to join together, legally under the eyes of the law.

Another personal note, it was not my choice that the government ever got into the legal arena of marriage. I don't think there would be nearly as much energy on same-sex marriage if the government never granted legal protections/obligations to married couples.

For those who are married, if the government repealed all the of the legal protections/obligations, would you feel the same you do today? If you had to pay taxes on all inhertances, if you had to get blood family permission to visit your spouse at the hospital, if you had to file seperate tax returns, had to develop rock solid living wills (at a large expense to add) to protect each person's interest, would you feel the same way?

 

[tlbwriter]

Oh, here comes the "slippery slope" defense, my favorite!

I'm surprised it took this long to come up. And that nobody has involved animals either.

Another personal note, it was not my choice that the government ever got into the legal arena of marriage. I don't think there would be nearly as much energy on same-sex marriage if the government never granted legal protections/obligations to married couples.

I think you're right. Same sex couples have so much to lose. If all of those protections/obligations weren't at stake I don't think it would be as big a deal.

 

[princessmom29]

the sentiment here is that you should be allowed to marry anyone that you want. well, i am married, but have my eye on a hot little number that lives up the street. what are the thoughts that i can also marry her? i think my wife would be ok with it.

you are consenting adults. I don't think it is really any of my business. As long as everyone involved knows the score, you should be allowed to marry anyone you want, gay, straight, or multiple.

 

[Carly_Roach]

If a same-sex couple could be married, they may not have issues with health care, because they could be covered by their partners.If their partners don't have decent jobs with decent healthcare, no one's covered.

They might not have to deal as much with poverty because they could receive a transfer of assets if their partner passes away. Again, in poverty there are no assets to be transferred.

They might be able to get affordable housing because they wouldn't be discriminated against for being a same sex couple. If housing is $1000 per month, and the couple can't afford that price, then regardless of sexual orientation they're not going to be getting decent housing.

There will never be the "right" time for anything if we follow your logic. There will always be a bigger fish to fry. If our politicians can only cover one major event, then they're not doing their job, things are not an either or situation. True, but the bottom line is that a majority of the country is heterosexual who have basic issues that affect all human Americans, not just homosexual human Americans. Homosexuality is a wedge issue (like abortion) that's brought up to deflect attention from the fact that the basic issues that affect us all, Gay or Straight, aren't being addressed. A tactic that seems to work brilliantly each and every time it's brought up because we're too stupid to recognize it for what it is.


One's sexuality is not a fad, it may be marketed different ways, but it does not make it a fad. It is a fad for everyone to say they're so modern and tolerant of homosexuality because, in certain crowds, it's cool to espouse those opinions. Whether or not people are really as 'modern' and 'tolerant' is clearly demonstrated by their actions (voting or lack of voting), not their words.


Highly unlikely, but if that is what lets you sleep at night, more power to you.

I sleep just fine. As I've said before, someone's sexual orientation and/or who they choose to love or sleep with isn't something that I care about one way or another. FTR, I voted against the amendment of one man, one woman marriage when it was proposed here in Michigan.

But it was a rainy day and many people who probably spend time espousing the whole "Let's support our homosexual brothers and sisters!" agenda probably didn't want to stand in line in the rain to vote their convictions. I, and many others who felt the way I do, were voted down and the amendment passed because people who were against homosexual marriage made it their business to stand in line in the rain to vote their convictions.

Bottom line: talk is cheap and easy. Actions will always speak louder than words.

 

[Carly_Roach]

the sentiment here is that you should be allowed to marry anyone that you want. well, i am married, but have my eye on a hot little number that lives up the street. what are the thoughts that i can also marry her? i think my wife would be ok with it.

IMO, yes. I believe polygamy should be legal and those in a polygamous marriage should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the church and the law.

You'd be amazed at how many people will say they are FOR homosexual marriage but are steadfastly AGAINST polygamy. As long as everyone's over 18 and is willingly consenting to the arrangement, I don't believe any of this is any of our business. People should be able to marry whomever.

 

[skater]

IMO, yes. I believe polygamy should be legal and those in a polygamous marriage should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the church and the law.

You'd be amazed at how many people will say they are FOR homosexual marriage but are steadfastly AGAINST polygamy. As long as everyone's over 18 and is willingly consenting to the arrangement, I don't believe any of this is any of our business. People should be able to marry whomever.

Why should polygamy be allowed in the church?

 

[Carly_Roach]

Do all those issues outweigh Autism awareness also or do they just trump gay rights?

???????? What world do you live in where food, clothing and shelter trump ANY awareness issues? Of course they trump Autism awareness. They also trump diabetes awareness, special olympic awareness, any kind of awareness.

How hard is this concept to understand? I don't think it should be that difficult to get:

If you don't have food, clothing and shelter, you don't survive.
If your country doesn't have a good economy, affordable healthcare and housing for it's citizens, a decent education and a stable infrastructure, your country doesn't survive (or thrive).

See, this is what I was talking about when I said I wasn't sure how much time I wanted to waste on this issue. I totally don't get how Autism awareness gets thrown into this.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Why should polygamy be allowed in the church?

Why should homosexuality be allowed in the church?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Why should homosexuality be allowed in the church?

You'd have to ask those churches that accept gays, I just want my government to fairly represent me 'n all gays since we're tax payin' citizens too.

 

[skater]

Why should homosexuality be allowed in the church?

I guess this is where I was going with my question. I'm a fairly conservative christian and my opinion is that gay people should have rights that would include all those things previously mentioned. It makes me sad that two people who love each other would not be allowed to share health care, be at each others' side in an emergency, etc. I think that a lot of the debate could be settled if these rights were allowed - through either civil unions or possibly more liberal churches. At the same time, I would not support gay marriage in a bible teaching church. But then, its probably true that many gay couples wouldn't want anything to do with a conservative church anyway . I guess this is an extremely convuluted statement, but I'm still trying to figure out where I stand.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Why should polygamy be allowed in the church?

Why should homosexuality be allowed in the church?

My point being that there are people who will quote scripture to say polygamy is a sin therefore it shouldn't be allowed in the church, so I'm sure there is scripture to be quoted about not allowing homosexuality in the church, either.

However, there are many, many churches out there that embrace homosexuality, which is great. In fact, I'd like to see just as many churches embrace polygamy as well, or at least the LDS churches take it back as an acceptable practice.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I guess this is where I was going with my question. I'm a fairly conservative christian and my opinion is that gay people should have rights that would include all those things previously mentioned. It makes me sad that two people who love each other would not be allowed to share health care, be at each others' side in an emergency, etc. I think that a lot of the debate could be settled if these rights were allowed - through either civil unions or possibly more liberal churches. At the same time, I would not support gay marriage in a bible teaching church. But then, its probably true that many gay couples wouldn't want anything to do with a conservative church anyway . I guess this is an extremely convuluted statement, but I'm still trying to figure out where I stand.

Married is a legal status with legal rights 'n responsibilities. Those churches who have decided to recognize gay unions/couples has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage or the rights of equal marriage.

Lots of folks get married outside the church 'n they're considered married by the government.

 

[skater]

Married is a legal status with legal rights 'n responsibilities. Those churches who have decided to recognize gay unions/couples has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage or the rights of equal marriage.

Lots of folks get married outside the church 'n they're considered married by the government.

This makes sense to me. I have beliefs about it in relation to church, but that is separate from the legal definition.

 

[tlbwriter]

Married is a legal status with legal rights 'n responsibilities. Those churches who have decided to recognize gay unions/couples has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage or the rights of equal marriage.

Lots of folks get married outside the church 'n they're considered married by the government.

I've seen a suggestion that there be two kinds of marriages - church, and government. A church could choose to offer same sex marriage or not. The government would allow same sex marriage, since they'd have no reason not to without the religious objection. You could even call the government marriage a "civil union" if that lessens the sting to people who somehow feel they're being harmed by it. Both types of marriages would offer the same legal benefits and obligations, and the church marriages would offer church recognition as well, to people who want that. I think we could do this.

 

[skater]

My point being that there are people who will quote scripture to say polygamy is a sin therefore it shouldn't be allowed in the church, so I'm sure there is scripture to be quoted about not allowing homosexuality in the church, either.

However, there are many, many churches out there that embrace homosexuality, which is great. In fact, I'd like to see just as many churches embrace polygamy as well, or at least the LDS churches take it back as an acceptable practice.

That's up to the LDS church although it certainly doesn't make sense for the beliefs of my church. I guess I do have a bigger problem with polygamy. Mostly because I've read too many stories of people being hurt by it. And one person having too much power over others.

 

[skater]

I've seen a suggestion that there be two kinds of marriages - church, and government. A church could choose to offer same sex marriage or not. The government would allow same sex marriage, since they'd have no reason not to without the religious objection. You could even call the government marriage a "civil union" if that lessens the sting to people who somehow feel they're being harmed by it. Both types of marriages would offer the same legal benefits and obligations, and the church marriages would offer church recognition as well, to people who want that. I think we could do this.

This is how I feel.

 

[Uncle Remus]

This makes sense to me. I have beliefs about it in relation to church, but that is separate from the legal definition.

I don't know of any church that can legally marry anyone if they don't have a license to marry from the state.

I've seen a suggestion that there be two kinds of marriages - church, and government. A church could choose to offer same sex marriage or not. The government would allow same sex marriage, since they'd have no reason not to without the religious objection. You could even call the government marriage a "civil union" if that lessens the sting to people who somehow feel they're being harmed by it. Both types of marriages would offer the same legal benefits and obligations, and the church marriages would offer church recognition as well, to people who want that. I think we could do this.

See above.

I know a lot of places of employment to include city governments recognize domestic partnerships/civil unions, but those entities don't include any federal rights which is what the equal marriage covers. Even those states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut 'n others do not afford any federal rights to gay marriages.

But primarily, I'm not a supporter of separate but equal. Married is a legal status 'n I see no reason to redefine marriage, kwim?