BC_chick Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I looked around to see if anyone else has posted this topic yet but I didn't see it. My apologies if I missed it, but other than merely bringing up the topic I wanted to discuss a very specific significance of this endorsement. I have always found it interesting that morality is often a learned behaviour. Like most people I know, I seem to have similar views as my parents regarding hot-topic issues such as religion, abortion, racism, world politics and economic issues. However, like Barbara Bush, I break from my parents when it comes to gay-marriage. My parents are pro-civil-union but againt gay-marriage. I have argued that 'marriage' has evolved throughout the centuries and that I believe it is very arrogant of our generation to say that at this point in time we have perfected the idea and there shall be no more changes on the subject from here on in. Having said that, even though I am a staunch believer that gay-marriage is a civil rights issue I have been relunctant to compare it to the gross injustice that was imposed on blacks prior to the civil-rights of the 50's. I realise that with both issues one group is not entitled to the same rights as the other, I just don't find the right to marry to be comparable to the right to freedom or the right to vote. Upon hearing Barbara Bush's stance on gay-marriage, I realised that there is more similarity between the two civil-rights movements than I am willing to acknowledge. This not about how much better or worse one group had it compared to the other. Rather, the issue is about a universal morality that is inherently a part of the human psyche. This sense of right and wrong is what enables the new generation to break free from opinions of their parents even though 'morality' is more often than not merely learned behaviour from our parents. Of course, this is not to say all divisive issues are either univeral or subjective, I know many issues fall within the shades of grey. But there is something to be said about the any debate which concerns equality. IMHO, no matter how insignifant a component of inequality may seem, it's still a univeral truth that there is something wrong with the status-quo. The generation-gap merely reflects and reinforces this universal-truth about the imporantance of equality in *all* aspects of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Don't push your morality on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Don't push your morality on me. True, people really shouldn't push their morality on everyone by not allowing same sex marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Who said anything about pushing it on you guys, last I checked this is the Moral and Ethical Issues Forum where people post their views about moral and ethical issues. And good thing I ended things with IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) We receive some of our morality from our parents, but certainly not all of it. Society itself plays a huge role as well. Friends, educational institutions, the media etc. play a tremendous role, especially as youth begin to naturally rebel from the shackles of their parent's iron fist in their teenage years. Change/progress in society depends on people disagreeing on the morals/ethics or their parents. The fact that the young Ms. Barbara Bush has taken an opposite stance on gay marriage as her moronic father is wonderful sign in her development as a human being. The more she disagrees with her jackass of a father, the better off she'll be. Every decision i make in my life begins with the question: "what would George W. Bush do?". After i have the answer, i then do the exact opposite. It's the secret to happiness & success. Edited February 4, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Who said anything about pushing it on you guys, last I checked this is the Moral and Ethical Issues Forum where people post their views about moral and ethical issues. And good thing I ended things with IMHO. Because I clumsily worded my response to Shady, I think you might have misread me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Because I clumsily worded my response to Shady, I think you might have misread me. Right, I gotcha now that I reread your reponse. I concur, the irony of Shady preaching about pushing morality onto others was truly remarkable. Every decision i make in my life begins with the question: "what would George W. Bush do?". After i have the answer, i then do the exact opposite. It's the secret to happiness & success. Awesome! Edited February 4, 2011 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Right, I gotcha now that I reread your reponse. I concur, the irony of Shady preaching about pushing morality onto others was truly remarkable. Yeah. I mean, if people oppose same sex marriage, if that's their opinion, then fine. But to oppose it, and then say "don't moralize to me," is truly bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yeah. I mean, if people oppose same sex marriage, if that's their opinion, then fine. But to oppose it, and then say "don't moralize to me," is truly bizarre. Yep. Luckily nobody said that. Except maybe in your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 When I read the title, I for some reason assumed it was about Dubya's mother, not his daughter. I don't know much about Barbara Bush at all; I don't know if she has ambitions of being a public figure of any sort... all I really recall about her is that she was the "other" Bush girl, the one who wasn't in tabloids for alcohol-related misadventures. I do recall, however, that Laura Bush was supportive of gay marriage (and spoke out on behalf of gay teens who've been targets of bulling, as well). So I don't think it's accurate to portray Barbara's statement as a departure from her parents. She differs with her dad, takes after her mom. This not about how much better or worse one group had it compared to the other. Rather, the issue is about a universal morality that is inherently a part of the human psyche. Gay marriage generates an especially wide range of opinions because it has two axes (axises? axis? I dunno. an X and Y coordinate) that are not inherently linked. On the one hand, one's feelings about gay rights, and on the other, one's feelings about marriage. A person with very strong support for gay people in general might not support gay marriage in particular because he attaches a traditional meaning to the word marriage. A person with no particular interest in gay rights might take a "why not?" approach to gay marriage because he doesn't have any particular attachment to any specific definition of marriage either. I know an elderly woman who is gay who scoffs at the people demanding gay marriage, because she doesn't believe the significance of the word "marriage" is worth fighting over. "They could just call it 'pair-age' and be done with it," she said. My own attitude is similar... I'm strongly in favor of gays being treated equally, but have no attachment at all to the word "marriage" so I'm kind of at a loss as to why it's worth all the fuss. If "civil unions" had all of the rights and benefits of marriage, to me that's the important part. The word "marriage" has special significance to other people... that withered old fool Eureka who used to post here was very liberal in disposition, yet was strongly opposed to gay couples using the word "marriage", because he came from a generation where that word carried a special significance. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 This thread is missing something very important: the short video of Barbara Bush's endorsement of this marriage equality bill. I always thought she was better looking than her older sister Jenna, but damn, she could sell me on just about anything! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH7JPji2hp4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Yep. Luckily nobody said that. Except maybe in your mind. Your pedantry is not totally charming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) When I read the title, I for some reason assumed it was about Dubya's mother, not his daughter. I don't know much about Barbara Bush at all; I don't know if she has ambitions of being a public figure of any sort... all I really recall about her is that she was the "other" Bush girl, the one who wasn't in tabloids for alcohol-related misadventures. I do recall, however, that Laura Bush was supportive of gay marriage (and spoke out on behalf of gay teens who've been targets of bulling, as well). So I don't think it's accurate to portray Barbara's statement as a departure from her parents. She differs with her dad, takes after her mom. Gay marriage generates an especially wide range of opinions because it has two axes (axises? axis? I dunno. an X and Y coordinate) that are not inherently linked. On the one hand, one's feelings about gay rights, and on the other, one's feelings about marriage. A person with very strong support for gay people in general might not support gay marriage in particular because he attaches a traditional meaning to the word marriage. A person with no particular interest in gay rights might take a "why not?" approach to gay marriage because he doesn't have any particular attachment to any specific definition of marriage either. I know an elderly woman who is gay who scoffs at the people demanding gay marriage, because she doesn't believe the significance of the word "marriage" is worth fighting over. "They could just call it 'pair-age' and be done with it," she said. My own attitude is similar... I'm strongly in favor of gays being treated equally, but have no attachment at all to the word "marriage" so I'm kind of at a loss as to why it's worth all the fuss. If "civil unions" had all of the rights and benefits of marriage, to me that's the important part. The word "marriage" has special significance to other people... that withered old fool Eureka who used to post here was very liberal in disposition, yet was strongly opposed to gay couples using the word "marriage", because he came from a generation where that word carried a special significance. -k I too know a gay woman who couldn't care less. But the fact is, incontrovertibly, that a lot of gay people do care. Thye want to use the word "marriage" because it connotes a normalization of homosexual relationships within society. And no one owns words, either, so people mumbling vaguely about "tradition" should maybe get over it. the fact that it has, for many people, "special significance" is indeed aprt of the point: "I accept same sex civil unions...but it's not really the same, not really as meaningful, as a marriage between a man and a woman." On a related note, I've known plenty of heterosexual couples joined in a civil union; and they call themselves "married," and no one--and probably not the poster you mentioned--ever once has objected to the word. I've never heard the faintest controversy about it my entire life. Why not? Edited February 5, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 This thread is missing something very important: the short video of Barbara Bush's endorsement of this marriage equality bill. I always thought she was better looking than her older sister Jenna.... Jenna's not older, they're twins; and if you want to get technical, Barbara's the "older" twin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Don't push your morality on me. Nobodies trying to PUSH it on you Shady. You and your homosexual partner can still sneak around on the fringes and the enjoy the feeling of rebellion that comes with participating in unsanctioned activity. But maybe you guys might wanna settle down some day, own a home together and so on... have a stable monogamous relationship. Ya just never know! But dont worry. Society isnt going to pressure you to marry a homosexual! BTW... Congratulations. You just parroted the stupidest talking point in history. Edited February 5, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Jenna's not older, they're twins; and if you want to get technical, Barbara's the "older" twin. Now I recall hearing something about that before! Maybe Jenna looks older because she's rougher looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 So I don't think it's accurate to portray Barbara's statement as a departure from her parents. She differs with her dad, takes after her mom. Thanks for clarifying. Still, there is no denying that there is a direct correlation between age and support for same-sex marriage. Statistics have proven that time and time again (I didn't bother googling the exact numbers, but would be happy to if anyone wishes) so it's fair to say that many children are breaking away from their parents' POV on the sujbect. I know an elderly woman who is gay who scoffs at the people demanding gay marriage, because she doesn't believe the significance of the word "marriage" is worth fighting over. "They could just call it 'pair-age' and be done with it," she said. My own attitude is similar... I'm strongly in favor of gays being treated equally, but have no attachment at all to the word "marriage" so I'm kind of at a loss as to why it's worth all the fuss. If "civil unions" had all of the rights and benefits of marriage, to me that's the important part. Many women didn't see the fuss about the suffragette movement either, but in hindsight, the thought of denying the right to vote to 50% of the population seems absurd. My point is that a person's views on the meaning of marriage, on gays, on women, or on different races is subjective opinion which is open to debate. But a notion of equality, no matter how trivial that notion of equality may seem, is something that is inherent in us given that with enough time, the purpose behind every egalitarian social movement become virtually indisputable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Still, there is no denying that there is a direct correlation between age and support for same-sex marriage. Statistics have proven that time and time again (I didn't bother googling the exact numbers, but would be happy to if anyone wishes) so it's fair to say that many children are breaking away from their parents' POV on the sujbect. To get serious for a moment, there have been a string of young conservatives and children of top Republican politicians, who have taken sides against their parent's views on gay rights issues. A lot of polling data does demonstrate that opposition to gay marriage and gay rights in general is skewed by age, much more than political views, religion, gender, race, economic level, or any other significant marker. That makes the fight against gay rights a loosing cause for any social conservatives to plant their flags on. Even young evangelical Christians are turning away from them on all of this "defense of marriage" crap. As older generation dies off, extending equal rights to everyone regardless of sexual orientation will be considered as basic as equal rights for women and racial minorities. Be prepared in the coming years for conservative rightwingers to try to wrap themselves in this issue, just like they now pretend they always supported womens rights and minority rights also. My point is that a person's views on the meaning of marriage, on gays, on women, or on different races is subjective opinion which is open to debate. But a notion of equality, no matter how trivial that notion of equality may seem, is something that is inherent in us given that with enough time, the purpose behind every egalitarian social movement become virtually indisputable. Hopefully in the future, acceptance of equal rights will also mean a culture that accepts gays and lesbians on their own terms and stops trying to shame them, and force them underground, or to be banished to the gay ghettos that are part of every major city. It would be nice if someone who's gay could feel right at home in Peoria as much as they would in San Francisco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 My point is that a person's views on the meaning of marriage, on gays, on women, or on different races is subjective opinion which is open to debate. But a notion of equality, no matter how trivial that notion of equality may seem, is something that is inherent in us given that with enough time, the purpose behind every egalitarian social movement become virtually indisputable. I agree. As an analogy--not a direct one in every sense, but only to illustrate the phenomenon of changing opinions on a broad scale over time--you can't find anyone alive who despised Martin Luther King. Every single person always supported and admired him. Fascinating, considering that he was controversial, and profoundly hated by a lot of people. In another generation or two, we'll discover, mysteriously, that everybody always supported same sex marriage in 2010. That's my prediction, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Your pedantry is not totally charming. Don't use big words around The Professor... It could get messy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Don't use big words around The Professor... It could get messy... He can use the dictionary. Unless, of course, he listens to Bob, who tells us that "the dictionary is wrong" (all the major ones), because he alone understands proper definitions of words. (ie "goy.") Edited February 5, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 He can use the dictionary. Unless, of course, he listens to Bob, who tells us that "the dictionary is wrong" (all the major ones), because he alone understands proper definitions of words. (ie "goy.") Of course..."Goy" is not perjorative... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Of course..."Goy" is not perjorative... I hadn't thought it was. I thought you were mistaken. But according to every major dictionary (Oxford English, Oxford Canadian, American Websters, and most online dictionaries, etc) is it "often used disparagingly." So you were right. But Bob "doesn't need a dictionary" to tell him what words mean, nosiree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) I hadn't thought it was. I thought you were mistaken. But according to every major dictionary (Oxford English, Oxford Canadian, American Websters, and most online dictionaries, etc) is it "often used disparagingly." So you were right. But Bob "doesn't need a dictionary" to tell him what words mean, nosiree. I don't want to toot my own horn,but,I knew I was right... I've got an "in",as it were,because my cousins are Jewish... By the way,I'm not "shocked" that an "Israel Uber Alles" guy like Bobby,who seems to think in Beginite terms,thinks he's a member of some master race of Ubermenschian Jews... I'm also not surprised that he would try to cover that uo by saying it deos'nt really mean what it means... Every cowardly bigot uses that "It was'nt really meant to insult anyone" or "It was just a joke" cop out when they get found out... Begin was a bigot and so is Bob...Begin basically admitted it to Carter...Bob tries to soft pedal it... 'Nuff Said... Edited February 5, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Fascinating, considering that he was controversial, and profoundly hated by a lot of people. In another generation or two, we'll discover, mysteriously, that everybody always supported same sex marriage in 2010. That's my prediction, anyway. That's exactly how abortion is going as well. Soon we'll all look back and won't believe how barbaric our society was. That seems to be the trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.