Sunday, 22 July 2012
-
Currently
Rise Up
By Cypress Hill
see relatedDear Minnesotans (Thoughts of an 8-3/4-year-old)
In case you weren't aware, here in Minnesota there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November to make gay marriage illegal... well, more illegal, since it's already illegal, so... illegaller? With that knowledge, it's amazing how this boy who isn't even 9 years old has more wisdom than many of Minnesota's elected officials:
-
recommend
- recs 11
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to GodlessLiberal's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in GodlessLiberal's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (23)
It will be interesting to see if he ever gets an answer to those questions. People who are against SSM generally think of a couple and don't take into account any children they may already have because they think gay people don't make babies.
Suggested reading" My Two Moms," by Zack Wahls.
The amendment seeks to preserve the "sactity of marriage and seeks to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. If they added 1 time, the amendment would go down to overwhelming defeat. So much for "the sanctity of marriage."
@jrmaxwell - Zack Wahls is an extremely intelligent kid who I have much respect for!!!
absolutely no way an 8 year old wrote that.
without a significant amount of guidance.
@DEISENBERG - That's a brilliant idea! One marriage only, then, if you get divorced, you'd have to call your next one something else: civil union, for example, or "hooking up." Hey, it's Biblically based, right?
While I dont agree with homosexuality because of my personal faith and belief, I dont think it should be outlawed. In fact, I think the government should allow gay marriages, or at least civil unions. Why? The basic argument against come from religious people, yet this is a government issue and an issue of freedom of belief and expression. These people believe differently than me and they should be allowed to, so long as I am not required to agree, and as a minister, am not required (and can decline) to marry two homosexuals in a wedding ceremony.
However, I do have a problem with this image, because, using a child for an argument, is an appeal to emotions (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoEmotions), instead of a logical reason or response to the question or issue at hands. The question is not: Do I feel bad for this kid? Because of course I do... but the question instead is: Is it right or wrong? Is it the governments place to define marriage or the right of the religious? Is it the right of liberals or conservatives? How about each individual? In thinking this way, one also must accept, in my opinion, that polygamy, as well, can be an accepted form of living and marriage, because it is based on the belief of those partaking in it. Hint: I don't believe polygamy is good either.
Also Note: one could easily argue that this is the reason why homosexual couples shouldn't be raising children, because it is the couple, not the society at large, putting extra burdens and confusion on the child's life.
Even if such an argument could be false, it could also be true. But an argument based soley on emotion, can neither be proven true or false, but merely irrelevant to the primary question. The boys emotions are secondary to the argument, because decision based on emotions are fleeting anyway, but choices based on reason and logic are more longstanding. Therefore, if someone believed homosexuality is a valid form of marriage, they would agree with this and re-post this because it affirms, through emotions, their beliefs. However, if someone disagrees with this, they will feel bad; yet feel this child is put into a bad situation... of course, I think the odds of this changing someones views are minimal. For instance, take pro-lifers who post pics or videos of aborted fetus'. How effective is this in changing the view of a pro-choice person? I am pro-life but think the change is very minimal.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - You'll be surprised. I have seen and asked a lot of kids about two men or two women getting married to each other and they never saw a problem with it.
Laws are for the good of the people, generated by the Legislature, which is elected by the tax-paying adult public. Gay adults pay taxes. So, if marriage is indeed something in which the government should even be involved, it is something in which an adult, gay taxpayer can participate.
Every state gets to put up a constitutional amendment. Who are these folks that are pushing this agenda? Why aren't they pushing something that would not offend a minority? This is a case where wording can convince them to pass a amendment yet it may not pass the state supreme court.
Who is going to hurt? In a way I suppose anti gays want to limit gay rights pure and simple. The defense of heterosexual marriage? What a joke and side issue rationalization.
@RighteousBruin - EXACTLY!!! Otherwise gay people's taxes should be lowered.
Simple and to the point! Who the hell makes these laws? People wanting to mind other people's business! Religious fundamentalists, of course. Who else?
there are so many deeply disturbing problems involving the health of this nation yet bigots concern themselves with what they consider to be the "sanctity of marriage". @DEISENBERG - made a great point. add to his idea of 1 marriage and 1 marriage only, not cheating or fantasizing about someone else and i'm guessing there might be not be many marriages deemed legal in the U.S.
things we should be discussing:
automatic assault weapon ban. there are two kinds of people who believe they need these weapons to fulfill their dreams. the kinds of people who mass murder re the Batman theater killer 48 or so hours ago, the Columbine High School killers, the guy who shot Congresswoman Gabby Gifford and killed others. the other kinds of people you find in militias who believe the conspiracy theories that the government is coming to get them and guess what. if those theories prove to be true someday these militias won't stand a chance in hell. our government has a military machine bar none. so we allow the first kind of people to easily get their hands on these weapons so the second kind of people, usually a bunch of middle-aged men, can go out in the woods on weekends and play army again, reliving their childhoods with a make-believe enemy.
military spending. we spend more on our military than the next 26 or 28 countries combined. that includes China. for those who hate France think about this. France is cutting it's military budget while we are spending tax dollars to militarily protect France. What country needs a huge military budget when it has U.S. neoconservatives (neocons).
education in our country is dismal compared to most other advanced nations and Romney wants to cut education spending more while boosting military spending. this is a very real national security issue. if we cannot keep up with the rest of the world in the intellectual capacity of the students we produce we are screwed. i enjoyed the movie "300" as much as anyone but the fact is Sparta disappeared from the face of the Earth a long time ago while Athens, a center for culture and education at the same time still survives.
healthcare...there are politicians in Congress in the U.S. determined to go back to the status quo where we the U.S. citizens who can afford healthcare pay far more out of their paychecks for insurance than do people in any other advanced nation. yet these very politicians get the best healthcare options for themselves in a Congressional single-payer system.
i could go on. people need to wake up, stop believing the the NRA and FOX "news" fear mongering and think about what is best for us as a nation of 300,000 people.
speaking of FOX i recently read a blog that pointed out Rupert Murdoch, head of FOX was angered years ago because as an Australian he was not allowed to purchase a U.S. television network. he became a U.S. citizen. the blogger went onto say Murdoch has had a vengeance against the U.S. ever since. there is no proof of the vengeance aspect but it would fit the profile of FOX consistently lying about American politics. FOX recently won an appeal in Florida Court. the network was sued by two former employees because they were fired for refusing to lie about an issue on television. the two won their lawsuit. FOX appealed and the decision was overturned based on the idea that freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie to the American public. tell me what's up with that.
gays should be allowed to legally marry. if you are worried about the future of America i just pointed out a few things you should really be worried about. there are more. gay marriage is not one of them.
Aww, that just breaks my heart.
Oh, man I just wish the damn Supreme Court would settle this issue already. Society at large is ready to move on from this issue. Let two adults who want to marry, marry if they aren't related by marriage/blood, are adults, and aren't already married and be done with it. It's just stupid to still be fighting about this issue.
@Doubledb - [However, I do have a problem with this image, because, using a child for an argument, is an
appeal to emotions]
However, isn't the ENTIRE anti-gay rights agenda an appeal to emotion, or at the very least faith (which obviously plays with one's emotions)? I've never heard one solid argument against gay marriage that shouldn't also apply to straight marriage without bringing in faith or just a straight up "it grosses me out", neither of which are constitutional. I think that pointing out that fighting against gay rights tells this kid that his moms are living illegally. The argument is often brought up that gay marriage would hurt families and the children in them, this is pointing out that it works both ways. Sometimes one has to appeal to emotions to counter a similar appeal.
@GodlessLiberal - that is simply not true, there are plenty or arguments against homosexuality (gay marriage) outside of faith/religion, but you just disagree with them and find them irrelevant (not solid). And that is fine, but it doesn't mean none of them exist. But like I said, I am for gay marriage, I just dont think using an eight year old kid is good, not as a valid argument or for the child. Imagine if a pic had a kid who was writing about how he got beat up at school because his parents were gay. Maybe he wrote how he wished they didn't have to be different because it caused him pain. Would that make you think gay marriage is wrong? NO... and you would tell me it was an appeal to emotion and besides, lots of people are different and have hard times. then you might say the issue is not the child being hurt but if homosexual marriage is wrong or right? The child is hurt because of hate, which is wrong and shouldn't be... but it doesn't answer the question, but it does appeal to emotion - yet, not in a productive manner. Because, your view is still not changed, which is the whole point, right?
@laytexduckie - it's not about not having a problem with it. i very much believe that many kids don't have a problem with it.
what i have a problem with is people - in particular parents - using their children as a vessel for expressing their own views. it is not just cringeworthy, but morally dubious.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - But what about the kids who willingly did such an action? Just because a kid writes a letter about allowing same sex couples to marry does not always equate to the parents pushing them to. Despite their age, kids can feel plenty emotions themselves and have the drive to write out their thoughts. I understand your frustration with parents trying to use children as a way to express their views, but just because one, two, or a few do it doesn't mean that all do it.
@laytexduckie - i teach kids this age.
this child did not decide to write this letter off their own back.
to be clear, i fully support same sex marriage. i do not support cheap gimmicks. this is a cheap gimmick.
@twotothefightingeighthpower - I never accused you of being against same sex marriage. And besides, just because you teach a certain amount of kids this age doesn't mean that they are all the same. Unless you are the parents of this child or actually witness the parents telling this child to write this letter, then you cannot prove that this child did it on that factor. Some kids take initiatives better than others. Some really do feel this emotional constraint and want to voice their opinion and frustration in a meaningful way.
Of course this kid's letter is emotional! Love is a strong emotion, and marriage equality is a very emotional and personal issue -- particularly to those of us who are told we do not have the same rights and freedoms as other Americans and are not allowed to marry the people we love. It also seems to me that this kid is pretty well informed; he apparently understands that love is what makes a family, and he wonders what the difference is if it's a woman loving a woman or a woman loving a man. Smart kid! He's more informed than adults who oppose marriage equality -- those who ignorantly and mistakenly think that the "biblical definition" of marriage is "one man and one woman," when actually the bible outlines 12 distinct definitions and rules for marriage, which include polygamy, incest, rape, slavery, the subjugation of women and stoning to death women who can't prove they are virgins before getting married.
I don't think all those who oppose same sex marriage have hate in their heart -- but they certainly don't support the very core foundations of our Constitution and nation, which is liberty, equality and freedom for all. And whether intentionally and knowingly or not, they are indeed directly and indirectly supporting and promoting ignorance, bigotry, hate and the sad and common occurrences of violence that often derive from ignorance, bigotry and hate.
The bottom line is this: Why shouldn't I be able to marry a person I love in the same manner most Americans get to? I served much of my youth in a Marine Corps special ops unit, often putting my life on the line to protect and defend American notions of liberty, equality and freedom I strongly believed in (and still do). Yet a bunch of Americans tell me I do not deserve nor should be allowed the same freedoms and opportunities that they have? Why? Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry a man? There is no logical, legitimate answer to that question that does not either include misinterpretations of an archaic, ambiguous book; the desire to limit liberty, equality and freedom for a segment of Americans simply because we were born differently, or ignorance, bigotry and hate (or all of the above.)
Ah, but those folks will go home from the ballot box in November and continue their day to day lives, be allowed to marry whomever they want, and not worry about getting fired, harassed, bullied, beat up or maybe even killed because of who and what they are. Sad.