Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

So you have no problem with your kid destroying another kid's sense of self-worth just as long as your kid is "on top" and first?

I am TOTALLY against it. Don't get me wrong! I just want them to get into Yale (like Mommy,) I want them to succussful, (like Daddy,) But over all, the details are up to them. Hay, a kid's gotta make his/her own way in the world!

I can only teach them what I know.

I think what is meant here not agressiveness but rather assertiveness and decisiveness as both are essential ingredients for achievement and excellence.

i would submit that "being first" is not very important. being on top is definitely not important. and being aggressive is actually detrimental.

it sounds like a recipe for preparing one's children for a life of stress, high blood pressure, and ultimately a very ugly midlife crisis.

what's wrong with just being? after all, we are human beings, not human doings. the measure of one's worth is the condition of one's heart, not pieces of paper, be they diplomas or dollars or accolades.

hasn't playing the piano taught you that yet, tomk?

What's the old saying?

"I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better!"

Well, I've never been rich, but I understand exactly what TomK is saying, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. In our competitive society, nobody is going to give you anything. So, to get ahead, you have to work smarter, or harder, and preferably both.

It is up to the individual to decide when enough is enough, or when success is no longer desirable.

Pique, (will someone tell me how to do the accent?!)

I almost always agree with you, but I have to say in this world, I think agressive is a plus. Perhaps assertive is a better word. For much of my life I was a get along go along mellow kind of guy and it didn't work. After a mid-life re-education and career change, I still try to get along but I also know I need to do what it takes to stay on top and keep my kids on top.

No longer do I suffer fools gladly or let others get the advantage because they push harder.....and there are plenty ready to push it seems....

jf

If you're using Windows, hold down the Alt key while entering 0233 on the numbers keypad. When you release the Alt key, you get é. Voilà!

The problem with just being is that you end up being the world's doormat. I am not totally unsympathetic to what you are saying, pique. There is a lot to be said for being able to appreciate life as it is instead of waiting for the day you can make it what you would like it to be. However, in this world today it is advantageous to have all the tools you need in your toolbox even if some of them only rarely need to be used. There are times when (I am speaking for myself here) one has to assert one's self or one risks having the whole world queue up to take the next shot at one's posterior. I hope I have wordede it delicately enough but that is the general idea. Sort of like nuclear weapons of which, by the way, one can really never have too many.

In these reply boxes you have to type ALT 0233 on the numeric keypad, but in most other software you can simply type CTRL+';e meaning hold the CTRL key and press the single quote. Let go of them both and then type e.

Edit: MattG was here first. I suppose I should read ahead before posting. :p

I was surprised by the number of small children involved in the hundreds of gay weddings performed today in Portland. Two married guys (to each other) had three adopted daughters, these were toddlers in their arms, while the guys were hugging and kissing each other. I had no idea that there would be so many children around as the camera panned, I wonder how many children were not there?

My only personal observation re the children issue, was a lesbian friend/colleague of mine that had a son from her first marriage, I think in first or second grade. That little boy was so incredibly messed up, uncontrollable, trouble in school and with neighbor kids, and she (my friend) had no idea what to do, nor did her Significant Other.

While filling out the form, it was a bit of a difficulty for some, as every couple had to enter one name for bride, the other for "groom." Their first fight. . .

Local quicky poll shows 57% oppose gay marriage, 32% support, 11% don't know.

Media showed crazed bible-thumpers shouting their views at the gay couples. Very ugly things being said, very mean.

Our Governor was informed only last night that this was taking place today. He got lots of exercise today, dancing the hot-potato jig. "A very devisive issue" yadada-yadada. Attorney General said it would take at least a week to form a legal opinion.

One thing cannot be overlooked: the gay couples were in 7th heaven (so to speak). Getting married was a very big deal to them, more important than anything else in life. They just want to belong, to be part of a team like husband/wife, and they want to raise children.

I'm against gay marriage (based for the most part on the children issue, and unanswered questions regarding social impact), but even so, I do not want to see these people's emotions stomped on by the coming legal roller-coaster. Most of them are NOT "in your face I'm gay" like I experienced frequently in San Francisco (lived there for 2 years). Most of them are just. . . people that live quietly in Portland.

i'm not talking about suffering fools gladly or being a doormat. (ha! i'm not known for either, myself!) i'm talking about teaching kids that they are worthless unless they can get into yale, be first in everything they do, and be successful according to conventional measure.

maybe that isn't what you mean to teach your kids, tomk, that they are worthless unless they live up to those lofty expectations, but it sure sounds to me like that might be the message they get.

i'm speaking for giving kids some room just to be, to accept them unconditionally even if they don't have the temperament to go for the top (not everyone does, and that's ok). parents invest so much in even getting their kids into the "right" kindergarten these days, the one that will lead to yale or harvard.

kids shouldn't be on a career track; they should be allowed to be kids. the pressures on them are enormous, so much is expected of them so young.

well, it's late and i don't want to expend a lot of energy on this now.

i agree that those skills can be very useful in life. but teaching a few skills that might be needed in an emergency is a little different than leading one's whole life as if being on top, being first,and "making it" really mattered. honestly, do any of you really believe this is what matters most in life?

i lived in that world where ambition and making it was everthing, and i can play the game as well as anyone. it isn't how i choose to live. with the luck of having some time and distance from it, i have to say that from here it looks like a very neurotic way to live. there isn't much quality of life to it.

i find life much pleasanter if, when someone wants to kick my ***, rather than engage, i just walk away. i've yet to see how that's hurt me in life. it's definitely gotten rid of a lot of stress.

well, how is this related to the topic at hand?

maybe in that i believe our society should be a comfortable place for ALL of its members to be, not just those who live by the law of the jungle, or who are straight, christian, and white.

this society is not currently a very comfortable place to be for gays, and i think that is wrong. it is also not the most comfortable place to be if you aren't the type to claw your way up somebody's back to the top--unless you practice a great deal of self-acceptance.

but the person who is doing the clawing to the top lives in their own sort of heck. where and when do they finally get to have some meaning in their lives?

i just wouldn't want to teach my kids that this is a good way to live. i don't think it's healthy, physically or mentally. stress kills.

rvaga, I appreciate the considerate tone of your post and the concerns you voice. Just a few observations of my own. You write:

What significance do you attribute to this? The child's problems could be attributable to many different reasons including divorce of its parents.

Most reports of studies I've seen indicate that homosexuals can be very good parents and the children of homosexuals are as well adjusted as children of heterosexuals and not any more likely to be homosexual either.

I personally think circumstances make all the difference in the world. It would seem to me that a child experiencing the divorce of its parents and subsequent "new mom" or "new dad" may have more issues than a child that has been adopted by a gay couple.

Generalizations are probably not a good thing in this matter.

I agree with TomK on the importance of aggressiveness in today's society. Often the nice guy does finish last. This is unfortunate but it is true. I understand where you are coming from as well, Pique. I learned half-way through college that my passive, nice guy attitude would not lead to me getting into medical school. Almost overnight I changed my attitude. I became competitive, driven, and aggressive. I was still nice(I think). But I aimed for the top and immediately saw the rewards.
I also agree with Tommy on the teasing issue. Kids WILL make fun of other kids. It is a fact of life.

Utopia does not exist.

As long as men govern other men, it will never exist.

Somebody, or some group, will always be on the bottom of the social pile, clawing their way to the top. That is just the way life works.

And if you think that "live and let live" is the mantra that will lead to Nirvana, imagine if gays had all political power in this country, and what their actions would be towards those Fundamentalist Christians that oppose much of their agenda.

Not a pretty thought, is it?

No, I'd rather take my chances with a group that is at least bound by some defined boundaries, and belief systems, even if individual members don't always adhere to them.

Ahhh, so most gays have no defined boundaries, and no belief systems. Or are you talking about Democrats or liberals or all three groups?

Seems to me there is only one way to be according to you, and that's *just like you*. You've clawed your way right to the top, or were born into it, and God damn it, you deserve it.

God has a special place in heck reserved for rich, white, heterosexual intolerants.

Derick

No, but there is right, and there is wrong. Morality is the defining measurement of those concepts, and morality is defined by religion, whatever the majority religion may be, of the society being considered.

Some like to paint the current gay movement as nothing but a civil rights struggle, but even Jesse Jackson can find no such value. This is a battle over societal privledges, and mores. What has become increasingly, disturbingly clear, is that enough is never enough, with respect to gay activists.

And now we have a situation, where less than 3% of the population, is trying to overwhelm the beliefs of 40% of the population (evangelical Christian).

Here is where religion, and politics intertwine. Last time I looked, this is a republic, our representatives are elected, and 40% beats the sugar out of 3%.

So son, you can wail, gnash your teeth, or tear cloth, but I have already said I am politically opposed to this issue.

And I remain so.

Apparently, there are quite a few "bigots" in America.

From Gallagher's latest column:

March 3, 2004

The latest complaint about President Bush: By endorsing a federal marriage amendment, he is "writing discrimination into the Constitution." Rosie O'Donnell called the president's words "vile" and "hateful."

Maybe she's so angry because she knows she is on the losing side of history. CBS News recently asked: "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage ONLY between a man and a woman?" In December, the American public split 55 percent to 40 percent in favor. By last week, 59 percent of Americans favored an federal marriage amendment, and just 35 percent opposed it.

The more Americans hear about same-sex marriage, the less they like it.

And it's not just Republicans or conservatives: 55 percent of Democrats support a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Perhaps Americans increasingly realize that only a national definition of marriage will end the current lawless circus, with elected officials flouting the law and judges busily rewriting it. (The mayor of Nyack, N.Y., just announced that, in his jurisdiction, same-sex marriages will be recognized; the mayor of New York City is being pressured to do so.)

Absent a constitutional amendment, marriage will end up a political football, tossed about by judges like those in Massachusetts: four people so arrogant, ignorant and mean-spirited they can't think of a single reason why keeping the normal definition of marriage matters. Judges and politicians like that imply that the 60 percent of black Americans and 60 percent of white Americans in a November Pew poll who say they oppose gay marriage must be motivated by "animus."

Translation? You're a bigot.

Take a moment and listen: Same-sex marriage advocates are saying there is no difference between two men being intimate and a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising children. They are saying that the opposite idea, that mothers and fathers both matter, is a form of hate, ignorance, animus, bias. That's why they claim that the normal definition of marriage is "discrimination."

Do you need more evidence that accepting same-sex marriage is not a small add-on to our marriage laws but a radical transformation of them? If preferring husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers together is "bias" or "discrimination," then people like me who hold such views are bigots. In the America that Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) dreams of, the idea that children deserve mothers and fathers will become the legal and moral equivalent of racism. Their logic leads not to live-and-let-live tolerance, but to an ugly culture war, using the law to root out public expression of such "prejudices." Public school curriculums will be changed to teach the new social norms to your kids (they are already being developed). Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations that fail to adhere to the new religion will be at risk.

What about laws against interracial marriage? Racist marriage laws had nothing to do with the great, historic, cross-cultural purposes of marriage. They were about keeping the races separate so that one race could oppress the other. By contrast, it is simply ludicrous to imagine that marriage was dreamed up in order to express animus toward anyone. Today, one-third of babies are born outside of marriage and end up fatherless; the deep, ongoing need for an institution that points men and women to the only kind of sexual union that protects both them and their children could not be clearer.

Imposing unisex marriage laws is not like striking down bans on interracial marriage. San Francisco is not Selma. A constitutional amendment is not a national crisis.

Our founding fathers deliberately designed the process to be difficult, so that only the most worthy proposals could pass muster.

Marriage is increasingly looking like one of those rare issues: not a wedge that divides, but a cause that unites Americans.

You opinions are not what bother me, it's how you state them; with self-rightous indignation.

The majority religion in some countries seems to think that you will go to heaven if you blow-up a bus full of innocent passengers. Does that make it right? According to what you said in your first paragraph, absolutely.

Let me point one thing out to you, prior to all these rogue mayors performing gay marriage, the big, HORRIBLE issue was civil unions. Suddenly everyone is talking civil unions.

Perhaps pushing an outrageous idea, such as gay marriage, helped those who thought Vermont was "whacked out" come to their senses?

Derick

Quote
"i would submit that "being first" is not very important. being on top is definitely not important. and being aggressive is actually detrimental."

In same sex sex this is true.

lb

If people want to change laws, the process is to get the legislature to change them. Use the process. In the meantime, enforce current law and arrest those who break the law, especially those who knowingly do so. If they are participating in civil disobedience to bring light to bear on what they view as unfair laws, fine. Maybe that will get the laws changed faster; however, if their civil disobedience involves breaking a law, they should be prepared for the consequences that go with that action.