Yahoo 知識+ 將於 2021 年 5 月 4 日 (美國東岸時間) 停止服務,而 Yahoo 知識+ 網站現已轉為僅限瀏覽模式。其他 Yahoo 資產或服務,或你的 Yahoo 帳戶將不會有任何變更。你可以在此服務中心網頁進一步了解 Yahoo 知識+ 停止服務的事宜,以及了解如何下載你的資料。
Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8, and a question of love?
I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of Kieth Olbermann's social commentaries on Countdown. He comes across as quite liberal, but at the same time I've seen him make some very candid, and very harsh comments about people on the left as well as on the right.
This is a question about marriage. I am not homosexual, but I hold no personal philosophy of superiority as a heterosexual male. I instead simply see that we are all citizens of the world, each trying to carve our own paths to happiness. The passage of Proposition 8 has prompted many questions everywhere, but I'd just like to know people's take on what Mr. Olbermann had to say.
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=1d93...
Personally, I believe it to be, at best, reprehensible, and at most, inconceivable, that the heterosexual populus of this nation feels justified in considering the marriage of two same-sex individuals as destroying the sanctity of marriage. Is marriage truly sacred, when 50% end without "till death do us part" actually coming in? Is it possible that we are being unfair in making sure that same-sex couples are unable to celebrate their love in the same manner in which heterosexual couples do?
Yes, I understand that the marriage of a man and a woman is dictated in the Bible, but it also says quite explicitly in the New Testament "Love your neighbor as yourself." In other words, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I have to agree with Mr. Olbermann here. What if heterosexual couples were no longer allowed to marry?
Just something to think about...
This isn't a question of right or wrong...It's a question of love, and what empowers us with the authority to dictate who can or cannot express that love, and exchange symbols of that love in the eye of the state? Remember, before answering, that we are to recognize, and be dictated by, separation of church and state.
Also remember to be respectful of others, as this is a sensitive issue in society. One could argue this is the racism of our generation, and I would agree.
tincoatr:
I want to make note of something. I do not claim that homosexuality is a condition based on hereditary foundations. When I parallel racism and homosexuality, I am speaking in terms of civil rights struggles, and the fact that ti is simply a group fighting for theirs.
I apologize for any misunderstanding there
Also to tincoatr:
There are states which recognize couples and people who have lived together for a specific period of time. It is referred to as a "common law marriage", and while not guaranteed every right and privilege a legally married couple are given, most are included.
And many of the individuals I have heard speaking about this proposition don't care about rights of survivorship. They simply want their relationships recognized in exactly the same light that a heterosexual relationship would be.
dewdrop:
I apologize if I offended you in any manner. My dad and I have actually argued the same semantics that you address. I don't think they're looking for a minister to agree to marry them. They're looking for the state to recognize their freedom to be wed. Whether you wish to distinguish "marriage" from the other is a choice you make personally, and I do understand it. But I have also been trying to figure out what the difference is between marriage and "marrying".
I guess what it does come down to is:
Marriage is a sacrament (or in the very least a sacred act) of a religious institution, but it is also a legal bond between two individuals, in which the state recognizes that relationship officially. I do not question the religious stance. That is something individual churches should decide upon. I do, however, question the legislative stance, which is the one this question is most intended to address.
6 個解答
- 1 十年前最愛解答
Marriage is not recognized by any sort of human biology what so ever. Marriage is simply one more way we bond ourselves to each other. It is only given value in religious notions. And these notions are of course guided by the trend of the time.
Despite the fact, like you stated that this sacred institution is not observed fully for half the time, there is still the idea of this sacredness belonging between only a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with rightness, righteousness, and sacredness.
It is only that something needs to be common to a large enough group and be allowed only for it, for the group to feel like the city upon a hill and like being those from the promised land. It has got to do with the feeling of MINE.
When in this world we are so right and righteous that everything is equal. No large group that matters has a tradition strong enough that it is not shared with the other groups.
In this case, the large group, the heterosexuals, have the marriage which is for them and for them only. And gay people may not have this because it is simply not right and righteous. After all our religious institutions forbid it for them. So why not?
The other reason is that in the old times, marriage was considered to be the only way to have legitimate children. Now the customs are indeed changing. It is acceptable to have test tube babies, surrogate mothers, and even shockingly, children of unwed mothers. Marriage is no longer the only acceptable way to have children. Since marriage has outlived the reasons behind it, it is time to change the reasons. Homosexuals have longer lasting marriages than heterosexuals. Maybe they will serve as role leaders for heterosexuals. They have children just as 'normal' as heterosexuals, and in some cases even better.
I am not old enough to vote, I would have voted yes to gay marraige, simply because marriage does not BELONG to only a man and a woman together, regardless what the Bible said, when most people in this country do not practice most of what the Bible says. In this age of equality, why take this equality away?
- Truth is elusiveLv 71 十年前
"One could argue this is the racism of our generation". This statement is simply wrong. Racism is hatred based on race. Gay marriage has nothing to do with race. Race is trait that a person is born with while being gay is a choice people make. It may be a response to conditioning or environment but it is still a choice.
Gay marriage isn't about love and marriage but about benefits. Those for marriage almost always site the desire to have the benefits of marriage such as tax deductions, insurance benefits, and right of survivor-ship. These benefits are the point where it will impact everyone else. Expanding these rights to a new group will cost every person more money in taxes or increased cost of insurance.
The next question that has to be asked is what group will demand these benefits nest. People ask how it will affect the "sanctity of marriage". The answer is that, if gay marriage is given legality and the benefits of marriage, why shouldn't people that live together without being married demand to have the same benefits? They are after all "in a committed relationship" too.
Allowing gay marriage does affect everyone and it will have an affect on the "traditional" marriage.
- dewdropLv 51 十年前
I do believe in separation of church and state. Marriage is a sacrament of the church in Christianity. Other religions also treat marriage as sacred. I have no problem with homosexuals living together and having the legal status of married couples but I cannot use the term marriage for them. Why is that so difficult to understand? I believe in their legal rights and if they can find a minister who wants to perform a service to make them "feel" married, well, I guess they can do that. But no way will I ever consider a gay couple married.
I have never been asked to vote on it one way or the other but if I had been in California, I would have voted with the majority.
Does this mean that I lack love for the homosexual community? No it does not. I have a neice who is homosexual and I love her dearly. I have had friends and coworkers who are homosexual and I have not despised them for their lifestyle. I resent being told that because I hold a certain view on an issue that I am racist and do not love my fellow man.
Oh, and I watch Olberman, too.
- 5 年前
I don't understand why Americans are so concerned with other peoples business!!!! The economy is in the toilet and people are still meddling in the private lives of others. Its not a matter of love. Straight people get married and aren't in love. Its a matter of EQUAL RIGHTS!! Gays should have ALL the same rights as other people. Marriage is not a religious thing anymore, you have to get a LICENSE from the STATE to get married. You can get married in a courthouse! This is no longer a religious thing. It's not fair. Unreligious people get married. Theres no ban on that. Gays are being denied something, and that is not fair. They do not have equal rights. And that is pretty messed up.
- MSU69Lv 61 十年前
His words made me feel proud as a gay man. Let's find way to rid our hates and prejudices. Remember the the song from South Pacific. "You've got to be taught to hate and fear to hate all the people your relatives hate.
- 匿名1 十年前
Well, of course you are correct.