Butterfly Rewards - earn free credits and redeem for good causes - learn more!
my care2
make a difference

community & fun

shares

share your passions, stories, inspirations, and more

Should Heterosexuals think about why they legislate ( Gay ) Marriage when they have abused and are destroying it themselves.
Apr 18, 2007

Luke 6:42
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

The majority of people are heterosexual.  Unfortunately many people in the U.S. think that "majority rule" means the majority has the RIGHT to OPPRESS the minority. If that were the case, and our law makers and courts did not step in, we may still have slavery today and women would still not be allowed to own land or vote.  

Like so many that are in the majority, it is easy for them to make new laws and rules that have no affect on them.  That is what Heterosexuals are doing when they write legislation or vote on laws governing gay marriage.  It doesn't change anything for them.  They do not have to change their behavior.  They do not have to look at their own moral make up.  They just dictate what other people should or shouldn't do.   

Consider just the two following facts:

According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund, women are more likely to be killed by their husband or intimate male partner than by a stranger. 

According to The Bureau of Justice statistics, children under 5 years of age are more likely to be killed by their own (heterosexual) parents and caregivers than by a stranger. 

This is just the tip of an awful and violent iceberg. Heterosexuals, though, point their finger away from themselves and blame the disintegration of their cherished institution on people who do not have and never had any affect on their behavior. 

Please consider reading and signing the linked petition so it can be sent to government officials and community leaders and help inspire informed discussion of this hypocrasy. 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/3
03570789

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Wednesday April 18, 2007, 6:00 pm
Tags: [add/edit tags]

Group Discussions start a discussion
Comments
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Compose your comment and submit:

Lucky Children Astorgues (104) 		Tuesday April 17, 2007, 1:49 pm
Observ ourselves first honestly. What is important : to ourselves or like the society wants to name us ?
It is new for my generation, but, I respect. I cosider human in totality and I think must be obliged to justified his intimity. Tolérance, Tolérance ! My respect to all of you whatever you be (I apologise for my approximate english). Have good days.

Xam W. (3) 		Tuesday April 17, 2007, 5:54 pm
The main reason I switched from being a Republican to Democrat is exactly what you point out. Republicans believe Majority Rule means they have the right to oppress the Minority. Democrats believe the majority has the obligation to represent and listen to the minority.

Joyce M. (12) 		Wednesday April 18, 2007, 5:52 pm
Thanks for replying to this topic.

There's really two things being pointed out here and both are for the purpose of making us think from a different point of view.

The first is, can a majority group of people sincerely and fairly make laws to govern a minority when the majority group will never be affected by those laws? Is that oppresion? The second is, how does it feel to have someone outside of the group you identify with telling you what you can or can not do?

Does it make us as Heterosexuals scared to think gays as a group could tell us we can't do something we want to do because we aren't in their group. Well, that's how gays were brought up to feel every day of their lives. Heterosexuals will always be the majority and gays will always be the minority. That's the way it has been for all of history and that's the way it will stay. With that in mind it seems obvious that popular votes about "gay marriage" will never be fair unless we as the group "Heterosexuals" can think of how the legislation will affect others not just that it won't affect us.

"What ever; I'll vote for it (or against it) becuase it won't change my life, it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't affect me, and I'll be voting with the majority." In spite of how it affects the people it is aimed at.

Obviously the "banning of the group 'Heterosexuals'" from doing anything can't happen. But, the proposition that a group (gays) would make a law telling Heterosexuals what they can't do (make legislation governing marriage until Heterosexulas take responsibility for there own immoral and violent behavior) will make us think from the gays point of view. That is; how can Heterosexuals tell gays they can't get married because it is immoral when the majority of Heterosexuals themselves have taken part in some form of immoral behavior involving marriage (that being divorce, violence, domestic and child abuse or just having a less than sanctimonious marriage.)

I hope this petition will bring up and continue discussion from that point of view.


Sir Jack Peterson KOSD (0) 		Saturday April 21, 2007, 8:21 am
I am a hetro male. I am not against gay marriage per se, but let me ask you this...
if we allow marriage based on sexual orientation, you get to marry, and that's fair. But does the bisexual get a husband and a wife? What about child sexual predators?? Children are their orientation. How about Bigamists?? What about Poligimists? What about those who's orientation is toward animals?
We have equal protection under the law, but if we change it to be inclusive of one group, we have to include everyone.
I'm not trying to make you mad, and I am not making fun of you, or being hostile. I have gay friends. I just have a differing view and would like you to justify your opinions.

Past Member (0) 		Sunday June 3, 2007, 10:21 pm
Unlike many other communities, ours is a very diverse one. I think its extrigent that religion be kept out of our political statements. I`m sure there is a God. But we don`t all acknowledge the same God, if one acknowledges a diety at all. On the flip side, Organized Religion has spent a lot of time and money into destructing our attempts at being productive citizens. I hope we as well realize the need to keep our politics and our religious needs seperate.

Ambika Jord (33) 		Tuesday September 4, 2007, 5:23 pm
As far as I am for contractual marriage at all, I am for same-sex marriage. One of the arguments I hear all the time is that marriage was created between men and women for the creation of children. Well, firstly I hate to break this to everyone, but you don't need to be married to create children. Secondly, the world is already suffering over-population effects, so you'd think people would welcome those who are not going to actually add to the burden. In response to a couple of the other comments, I was born bi, but that doesn't imply needing both a woman and a man in my life. It means I am capable of being attracted to and falling in love with certain individuals regardless of their biological sex. I'm always a tad confused by statements of the need to keep politics and religion separate. For a start, when you are talking religion (as opposed to spirituality) it relates to just another form of power. Secondly, both are about values. If you take your values seriously, then that will overlap to all areas of your life. It is not something you can take up in one area and ignore in another. People necessarily choose politicians who match their own personal values to the greatest degree, wherever they are taken from. And yes, ironic that heterosexual marriage is so subject to divorce, extra-marital affairs, abuse of women and children, but holds itself up as something sacred.
Keeping people who want to legally commit to being with another individual in love, for the long-term, from doing that, is just another form of oppression in support of the dominant group's values - remembering that contractual (legal) marriage only came into being in the late 1700s, and prior to that, cohabitation constituted marriage, and anyone could do it!

Scott Jay Miller (32) 		Sunday October 18, 2009, 5:51 am
Great add. But not everyone is appreciative of Luke or his word. Organized religion has little to do with enhancing the quality of life for Gays. I don`t see how this post is appropriate for an Ellen fan based group.

Author

Joyce M.
Author Tools:
Compose New Share
female, age 45, married
Cleveland, OH, USA
JOYCE'S SHARES
Aug
20
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Here's some guitars of mine.  I think guitars are a work of art so even if I can't play them I like to show off their workmanship. *violin*
Apr
14
(0 comments  |  discussions )
You can use one of these photos for the group's title pic.
Apr
10
(9 comments  |  discussions  | 37 responses )
Hereosexuals have obviously destroyed the sanctity of marriage since the begining of histroy. With this in mind should marriage between a man and a woman be illegal?


ads keep care2 free
SHARES FROM JOYCE'S NETWORK
May
5
by pete O.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
How can we help stop Terrorism/Resistance ? In order to bring about a change first we have to assess what it is we wish to change and then establish what we want the change to be. So to this we have to define terrorism. Correctly we would say that...
by pete O.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
  How can we help stop Terrorism/Resistance ? In order to bring about a change first we have to assess what it is we wish to change and then establish what we want the change to be. So to this we have to define terrorism. Correctly we woul...
Nov
17
by pete O.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Collective Informed Rewarding   I offer this small essay in the hope that a new approach to peace can be tested It may be considered naïve for a person who has no connection to the troubles only that it haunt him so. I could go further ...
Oct
5
(1 comments  |  discussions )
US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent this could cause a war, could evan kill innocent people,could be the most dangerous act the US will ...
Oct
4
(0 comments  |  discussions )


ads keep care2 free
MORE MEMBER BLOGS
Nov 26
Blog: Mistakes that Beginners Make When Betting on Horses by Past Member .
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — When you bet on sports, there is a chance that you will win big and a chance that you will lose what you bet. That is obvious. But as any seasoned gambler will tell you, sports betting is much more about strategy than about dumb luck. Many beginning ... more
Blog: Rugby's Bid for the 2016 Olympics by Past Member .
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — 1924 was a sad year for the sport of rugby in that it was the last year that the sport was played in the Olympics. The 1924 Games in Paris saw the United States rugby team win the last Olympic gold rugby medal. Now, rugby is back on the scene and is b... more
Blog: Why Intelligent Betting Matters in Horse Racing by Past Member .
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — Though there are many nuances and strategies when it comes to the game of horse betting, when it comes down to it there really are two ways to bet on horse races. You can, like most punters, bet on a whim by choosing a horse because you like its name,... more
Blog: How to Reprogram Your Self-Image, Podcast Part VIII by Yanni M.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — Life Mastery's Friday Weekly Podcast: "How to Reprogram Your Self-Image, Podcast Part VIII"(length 05:45 minutes) Subscribe to Feed Below: more
Blog: Thanksgiving Thoughts: Be Grateful for What We Have by Derek M.
(0 comments  |  0 discussions ) — After sharing a great meal with my family on Thanksgiving Day, I sat out by the fire on our back patio, thinking of what I was grateful for this year. I pondered the fact that our giving of thanks quickly becomes just the prelude to the extremely comm... more
 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.
Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved