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

[tlbwriter]

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?

I'm not either, but if this is the only way same sex couples can get equal protection under the law, I'd accept it. It would still be a federally-recognized marriage with all the benefits, and that's what matters, at least for now.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I'm not either, but if this is the only way same sex couples can get equal protection under the law, I'd accept it. It would still be a federally-recognized marriage with all the benefits, and that's what matters, at least for now.

I know your heart's in the right place, that's what I know.

ETA: This is a really informative organization. Freedom to Marry

 

[tlbwriter]

I know your heart's in the right place, that's what I know.

Thanks. I'm trying. I know "separate but equal" is not the ultimate answer, but it seems like a compromise that would work for now. But that's easy for a married heterosexual to say, isn't it?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Thanks. I'm trying. I know "separate but equal" is not the ultimate answer, but it seems like a compromise that would work for now. But that's easy for a married heterosexual to say, isn't it?

Listen, you get 'em to civil unions 'n I'll do my best to get 'em to equal marriage. Every li'l step counts.

 

[skater]

I'm not either, but if this is the only way same sex couples can get equal protection under the law, I'd accept it. It would still be a federally-recognized marriage with all the benefits, and that's what matters, at least for now.

And here's where it gets tricky. If its legal, how long until the government gets involved in churches telling Pastors they have to perform ceremonies they don't believe in, telling churches they have to hire a gay Pastor, etc. I don't know how to write those sentences in a gentle way - but its a valid concern.

Many churches wouldn't support an alcoholic Pastor, an adulterer, etc. (I know there have been serveral of these - but there shouldn't be). This doesn't mean I'm comparing a monogamous gay couple to alcoholics - but in the church's eye they are in sin. I have a lot of respect for everybody on this board and I know that what I'm saying is going to irritate some of you (I hope nobody feels hurt), and I'm sorry for that. I am respectfully stating this opinion without a whole lot of judgement - IMO, its not up to me to judge. I'm just saying that I have some concern that the government will one day get involved in churches - and as long as no one is being abused, I think that is wrong. This is also the concern I have with hate speech laws.

I'm a little scared to submit this. It is the opinion of many conservative christians, and you might find it interesting, but - I understand the other side. My brother is gay and is a christian. He hasn't been monogamous, but he's certainly not alone in that. Many heterosexuals are all over the place in relationships. I feel bad for him (in his struggles with his faith and other areas) and sometimes I am angry with him (not for being gay, but for being not a great partner in any of his past relationships - heterosexual or homosexual). I don't claim to know everything - I can only go by the Book - and I believe all of it.


Sorry again if I offended anyone - these are my honest opinions and I LOVE to discuss hard issues, so I had to weigh in.

 

[DWGal210]

Skater, thank you for posting. I understand where you're coming from. As a Christian, I believe in the Bible and its teachings, but I also am not offended or upset by gay people and/or gay marriage. I suspect we're not the only 2 people in the world to feel this way.

 

[Metsfan520]

And here's where it gets tricky. If its legal, how long until the government gets involved in churches telling Pastors they have to perform ceremonies they don't believe in, telling churches they have to hire a gay Pastor, etc. I don't know how to write those sentences in a gentle way - but its a valid concern.

Many churches wouldn't support an alcoholic Pastor, an adulterer, etc. (I know there have been serveral of these - but there shouldn't be). This doesn't mean I'm comparing a monogamous gay couple to alcoholics - but in the church's eye they are in sin. I have a lot of respect for everybody on this board and I know that what I'm saying is going to irritate some of you (I hope nobody feels hurt), and I'm sorry for that. I am respectfully stating this opinion without a whole lot of judgement - IMO, its not up to me to judge. I'm just saying that I have some concern that the government will one day get involved in churches - and as long as no one is being abused, I think that is wrong. This is also the concern I have with hate speech laws.

I'm a little scared to submit this. It is the opinion of many conservative christians, and you might find it interesting, but - I understand the other side. My brother is gay and is a christian. He hasn't been monogamous, but he's certainly not alone in that. Many heterosexuals are all over the place in relationships. I feel bad for him (in his struggles with his faith and other areas) and sometimes I am angry with him (not for being gay, but for being not a great partner in any of his past relationships - heterosexual or homosexual). I don't claim to know everything - I can only go by the Book - and I believe all of it.


Sorry again if I offended anyone - these are my honest opinions and I LOVE to discuss hard issues, so I had to weigh in.

Does the government step in now & tell a church that they must marry anyone? Let's say a church will only perform marriage ceremonies for members of the church, i.e., at least the bride or the groom must be a member. 2 non-members want to marry in that church, they are told no. The government cannot step in and tell the church they must perform that ceremony.

 

[Uncle Remus]

And here's where it gets tricky. If its legal, how long until the government gets involved in churches telling Pastors they have to perform ceremonies they don't believe in, telling churches they have to hire a gay Pastor, etc. I don't know how to write those sentences in a gentle way - but its a valid concern.

Many churches wouldn't support an alcoholic Pastor, an adulterer, etc. (I know there have been serveral of these - but there shouldn't be). This doesn't mean I'm comparing a monogamous gay couple to alcoholics - but in the church's eye they are in sin. I have a lot of respect for everybody on this board and I know that what I'm saying is going to irritate some of you (I hope nobody feels hurt), and I'm sorry for that. I am respectfully stating this opinion without a whole lot of judgement - IMO, its not up to me to judge. I'm just saying that I have some concern that the government will one day get involved in churches - and as long as no one is being abused, I think that is wrong. This is also the concern I have with hate speech laws.

I'm a little scared to submit this. It is the opinion of many conservative christians, and you might find it interesting, but - I understand the other side. My brother is gay and is a christian. He hasn't been monogamous, but he's certainly not alone in that. Many heterosexuals are all over the place in relationships. I feel bad for him (in his struggles with his faith and other areas) and sometimes I am angry with him (not for being gay, but for being not a great partner in any of his past relationships - heterosexual or homosexual). I don't claim to know everything - I can only go by the Book - and I believe all of it.


Sorry again if I offended anyone - these are my honest opinions and I LOVE to discuss hard issues, so I had to weigh in.

You should read this: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101

Does the government step in now & tell a church that they must marry anyone? Let's say a church will only perform marriage ceremonies for members of the church, i.e., at least the bride or the groom must be a member. 2 non-members want to marry in that church, they are told no. The government cannot step in and tell the church they must perform that ceremony.

Thank you!

 

[daisax]

And here's where it gets tricky. If its legal, how long until the government gets involved in churches telling Pastors they have to perform ceremonies they don't believe in, telling churches they have to hire a gay Pastor, etc.

Like they make Catholic priests marry Baptists? Make rabbis marry Mormons? Make all of them perform underwater ceremonies at Seaworld? Like that?

 

[skater]

Does the government step in now & tell a church that they must marry anyone? Let's say a church will only perform marriage ceremonies for members of the church, i.e., at least the bride or the groom must be a member. 2 non-members want to marry in that church, they are told no. The government cannot step in and tell the church they must perform that ceremony.

No, they don't now - its just a concern for the future.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Great. I'm happy for y'all.

I'm sorry, but I'm unaware of the right politically correct words to describe how someone lives and what their goals are. I live a heterosexual lifestyle and my agenda is to live a happy life. Others live a homosexual lifestyle and their agenda is whatever their agenda is.

I'm sorry if these words offend you. They weren't spoke so as to offend but, rather, to describe my opinions and feelings on the issue.

But you're unique, and I mean that in a nice way. Most people using the term 'gay lifestyle' don't, conversely, consider themselves 'living a straight lifestyle'. They consider themselves typical while others not like them are so unusual or abnormal in their sexuality that it can't just be who those people are, it's got to be the way they live. That's what lifestyle is.

 

[Sarah_Rose]

And here's where it gets tricky. If its legal, how long until the government gets involved in churches telling Pastors they have to perform ceremonies they don't believe in, telling churches they have to hire a gay Pastor, etc. I don't know how to write those sentences in a gentle way - but its a valid concern.

I know "how it's done elsewhere" is not a valid argument, but consider this more of an 'explanation'. I am Canadian and Canada has had legal same-sex marriage (Canada also doesn't use the term "gay marriage" because we're PC like that ) for almost 10 years, and the government and the churches have chosen to stay out of each other's way. A same-sex couple cannot be denied a marriage certificate, and a justice of the peace cannot refuse to marry two same-sex individuals... and the church is a separate entity, legally. Each church makes the decision as to whether to perform a marriage ceremony and if they say 'no', then that is their own choice.

This arrangement has worked well in Canada and, to be honest, same-sex marriage really became a non-issue very quickly. There was a lot of flap about it at first, but now it's simply all marriage.

 

[The Orchid]

Agreed. Why do people believe that EVERYONE should be promoting or supporting? Why is that judging? I love Old Navy but I won't be buying that shirt for myself or daughter. Doesn't mean I hate ANYONE! Wearing a shirt means nothing. All it is is a marketing tool to get people in their stores to buy clothing. They are jumping on the band wagon while it's hot which is smart. Not buying doesn't mean hating though.
There are so many other groups out there still struggling to be accepted and appreciated. Did people embrace the first black Princess as much as they will embrace these shirts, No. The tickets sales prove that! DO you buy your little girls different race baby dolls?

I LOVED Princess and the Frog. It is easily my favorite Disney movie ever. I love that Disney finally made a princess who was strong, capable and intelligent and didn't need a man to take care of her!!!!!!! Princess Tiana rocks and yes, I did buy my daughter dolls that were black. She wouldn't touch them. But she also wouldn't touch the white ones. She came out when she was 13, so I guess that explains the dislike of dolls when she was little.

I'll be buying those awesome t-shirts at Old Navy!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Uncle Remus]

I LOVED Princess and the Frog. It is easily my favorite Disney movie ever. I love that Disney finally made a princess who was strong, capable and intelligent and didn't need a man to take care of her!!!!!!! Princess Tiana rocks and yes, I did buy my daughter dolls that were black. She wouldn't touch them. But she also wouldn't touch the white ones. She came out when she was 13, so I guess that explains the dislike of dolls when she was little.

I'll be buying those awesome t-shirts at Old Navy!!!!!!!!!!!

Great story!!

 

[Spoodleink]

Why is it important for anyone to get married? If it isn't important to get a piece of paper stating that you are legally married then why does anyone do it? I wanted to be able to have my wife's last name. I wanted to be able to be on her health insurance and vice versa. I wanted to never ever have to worry about not being allowed to make medical decisions if anything should happen to her. Heck, I wanted to be allowed to see her in the hospital. Why should I need to defend my reasons for wanting a legal marriage just like yours? If legal marriage is so unimportant why did you get married then?

This is the only reason my husband and I got married, he wanted me to make the health care decisions for him and not is Mom. Luckily for us since we're straight all it took was $25 and an hour to get married. They only asked us our names , parents names and addresses. WE could have met 10 minutes earlier out in front of the courthouse .Any two consenting adults should be able to get married but my state won't let gay couples marry .

For years I had my brother as the beneficiary of my life insurance and retirement accounts. As soon as we were married my husband automatically superseded him. There are tons of legal, financial and social benefits to marriage. Everyone should be entitled to them.

Carly Roach

I think you need to check out the declaration of independence again. We have way more than 3 rights. The phrasing "among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" implies that there are other unenumerated rights many of which are laid out in the Constitution.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Gay marriage as much of a "human right" as some want to call it, it is not the most important one right now. There are some serious issues going on in this country at the moment I personally don't feel like gay marraige is high on the priority list. It's there but just not high to me. Could we possibly fix the things that are REALLLy tearing this country apart and then work on Gay Unions or coupling or whatever it will be called? Marriage is not a right. Saying marriage is a "human right" seems weird to me because your union to your spouse is between you and them. No states recognition makes it valid or even invalid.

State recognizes it then what? You get to pay taxes together? what doesn't it really mean? (i'm not being sarcastic here I'm really looking for an answer because i don't understand what the big deal is.)

When you give some people the right to do something and deny others who meet virtually all the same criteria the possibility of doing the same thing, based solely on the genders of the people involved, how Is that not denying them a basic right? How complacent would you be if the law stated marriage could be between Caucasians only?

Same issue, different group.

 

[Spoodleink]

I know "how it's done elsewhere" is not a valid argument, but consider this more of an 'explanation'. I am Canadian and Canada has had legal same-sex marriage (Canada also doesn't use the term "gay marriage" because we're PC like that ) for almost 10 years, and the government and the churches have chosen to stay out of each other's way. A same-sex couple cannot be denied a marriage certificate, and a justice of the peace cannot refuse to marry two same-sex individuals... and the church is a separate entity, legally. Each church makes the decision as to whether to perform a marriage ceremony and if they say 'no', then that is their own choice.

This arrangement has worked well in Canada and, to be honest, same-sex marriage really became a non-issue very quickly. There was a lot of flap about it at first, but now it's simply all marriage.

I'm pretty sure the Catholic church now will deny some couples the right to be married in the church. Those people just get married somewhere else. I was married by a Justice of the Peace and my brother was married by a judge. Church officiants aren't the only people who can marry couples.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I know "how it's done elsewhere" is not a valid argument, but consider this more of an 'explanation'. I am Canadian and Canada has had legal same-sex marriage (Canada also doesn't use the term "gay marriage" because we're PC like that ) for almost 10 years, and the government and the churches have chosen to stay out of each other's way. A same-sex couple cannot be denied a marriage certificate, and a justice of the peace cannot refuse to marry two same-sex individuals... and the church is a separate entity, legally. Each church makes the decision as to whether to perform a marriage ceremony and if they say 'no', then that is their own choice.

This arrangement has worked well in Canada and, to be honest, same-sex marriage really became a non-issue very quickly. There was a lot of flap about it at first, but now it's simply all marriage.

There is a lot the US could learn from the Canadians, same-sex marriage being one of those things. Another thing we could learn is how to make Universal Health Insurance work, implementing gun control that actually works, and most importantly - how to get along with our fellow countrymen without making big, fat, hairy issues out of things that shouldn't be issues in the first place.

I consider Canada one of the ultimate "live and let live" countries and I'm proud to be a neighbor to them.

 

[kaytieeldr]

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.

I disagree only with the bolded part. People can say anything they want, but there's a different attitude about the term civil union in comparison to marriage. It's almost like it's second-best: "Oh, too bad you weren't allowed to marry, at least you have the consolation of being civilly unioned!".

Instead, the government term should be 'marriage/marry/married', and the religious term should be Holy Matrimony. Makes more sense. One of the definitions of matrimony is marriage. There's nothing about the term civil union that equates it in any way with marriage or being married.

 

[princessmom29]

When you give some people the right to do something and deny others who meet virtually all the same criteria the possibility of doing the same thing, based solely on the genders of the people involved, how Is that not denying them a basic right? How complacent would you be if the law stated marriage could be between Caucasians only?

Same issue, different group.

Great point. I never thought about it that way, but it is very much like laws in southern states that made iterracial marriage illegal.