7 States And Counting

[Pah]

Yeah, but most of what I've seen has involved asking the OP if they want it moved, and if they agree, it is moved. In this case, when asked the OP indicated that it wasn't supposed to be a debate. At that point, the Mods should have taken over, IMHO.

I won't argue with that.

On the flip side, keeping this as a discussion would have involved a tremendous amout of editing to perserve the good content in this thread. Looking back at it, I don't know that this was possible.

 

[SoyLeche]

On the flip side, keeping this as a discussion would have involved a tremendous amout of editing to perserve the good content in this thread. Looking back at it, I don't know that this was possible.

Then the thread should have been closed.

 

[Ciscokid]

Seven states voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage yesterday: Tennessee, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Only Arizona ousted a similar bill.

Comments?

I'm not sure why, but I'm sort of surprised Colorado is listed.

 

[Mike182]

Originally, marriage does not come from any particular religion. There is no known human culture or society that does not practice some form or another of marriage. That's very strong evidence that marriage, in one form or another, is instinctual to humans. Hence, marriage is as old as our species, and part of human nature, rather than the innovation of one religion or another.

even if we accept that marriage belongs to set religions, and marriage is a contract between a man, a woman and God, civil unions are contractual agreements between a number of people and the state - nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with God.... so why are civil unions still opposed by those wanting to retain "traditional marriage" when they have nothing to do with marriage?

 

[Sunstone]

Then the thread should have been closed.

In general, we don't permanently close threads simply because they have evolved from a discussion into a debate. Either we edit the thread to remove the debate, or we move the thread to a debate section. In this case, the thread was moved because almost none of the posts in it were discussion.

 

[SoyLeche]

In general, we don't permanently close threads simply because they have evolved from a discussion into a debate. Either we edit the thread to remove the debate, or we move the thread to a debate section. In this case, the thread was moved because almost none of the posts in it were discussion.

Well, since Admins and Mods have been involved in the thread since the beginning...

That's all I'm going to say about it. I'm not trying to say how the forum should be run - I think you guys do a great job most of the time .

 

[Green Gaia]

Then the thread should have been closed.

IMO the thread should have never have been started, and was only created to throw salt on the wounds of those of us hurt by the outcome. But if we had closed the thread some would be screaming "censorship!!" We just can't win....

 

[SoyLeche]

IMO the thread should have never have been started, and was only created to throw salt on the wounds of those of us hurt by the outcome. But if we had closed the thread some would be screaming "censorship!!" We just can't win....

I know, I said I wouldn't say anything else, but...

"only created to throw salt on the wounds of those of us hurt by the outcome" - can't that also be said of the threads that were started to celebrate the Democrat's victory over the Republicans this time around? The difference is in degree, not substance.

I have learned that this forum leans very far to the left. I'm okay with that. It has little to do with how it is moderated - just the demographic makeup of the members. There are just some topics that I won't get into, and we're all happier for it. It should be noted, however, that it is only really possible to have a "discussion" about homosexuality on this topic if the general feel of the thread is in favor of it. If a thread is started by someone that has anything even slightly against homosexuality, it will very quickly evolve into a debate.

I think that the Mods need to be aware of this fact so they can watch any such thread very carefully, nipping debate in the bud early on if the thread is in a discussion area. I know that this is difficult (and may well be impossible), but I feel it is a better approach than what happened in this thread.

 

[Green Gaia]

I know, I said I wouldn't say anything else, but...

"only created to throw salt on the wounds of those of us hurt by the outcome" - can't that also be said of the threads that were started to celebrate the Democrat's victory over the Republicans this time around?

The difference is Republican's lives weren't on the ballot to be voted on by the general public. This was personal. The other was just politics.

I think that the Mods need to be aware of this fact so they can watch any such thread very carefully, nipping debate in the bud early on if the thread is in a discussion area. I know that this is difficult (and may well be impossible), but I feel it is a better approach than what happened in this thread.

You're right. It's my fault. I cannot stand to see discrimination, injustice, and hatred celebrated and that clouded my judgement.

 

[MaddLlama]

As an aspiring social scientist, this "traditional marriage" argument really gets to me. It makes no sense. AT ALL. There is no such thing as a "traditional marriage", and any SS worth thier salt, and that's what they'll tell you. In history, the most common form of marriage is one man with many women, so if we're going by what happens most often in history as "traditional" then polygamy would be the traditional form of marriage.
There is no one form of marriage that is guaranteed to fail, and no one form that's guaranteed to succeed. Furthermore, no society has ever had a successful marriage system based on the notion of romantic love, which is probably why the divorce rate is so high.
The term "traidional marriage values" is nothing more than a buzzword. It doesn't mean anything, much less what every anti-homosexual politician says it does. The arguments presented for these traditional values and against more progressive ideas flies in the face of real social science. Frankly I don't see how anybody who actually does a small amount of research in the field on this subject could even fathom agreeing with them.

 

[lilithu]

I know, I said I wouldn't say anything else, but...

"only created to throw salt on the wounds of those of us hurt by the outcome" - can't that also be said of the threads that were started to celebrate the Democrat's victory over the Republicans this time around? The difference is in degree, not substance.

IMO the threads that celebrated the Dems victory were not created to hurt those unhappy with the results. They were an expression of excitment and joy. Along the same lines, I personally did not feel that this thread was started to hurt those unhappy with the marriage amendment results. I honestly believe that FGS was simply happy with those results and wanted to talk about them.

That said, on the "Dem celebration" threads when there were people who posted about their unhappiness with the results (and there were such posts) neither I (nor anyone else that I recall) argued with them about it. As I said before, if you don't want a debate, don't argue when someone else posts a contrary opinion.

I know that it is easier said than done, especially given how invested many people are in these issues, but it would be wise for everyone not to take what others say personally. One can point out how someone else's beliefs and actions impact painfully upon you, but that's not the same as assuming that they're doing it with the direct intent to hurt you.

 

[MaddLlama]

FGS, can you explain to me exactly how it would affect your life if gay couples can get married? Thousands of people from every state get marriage licenses from thier state/county governments every day, and my day to day life doesn't change in the slightest. I don't see how allowing same sex couples the privledge of going to the county courthouse to get the same paperwork approved would suddenly make all marriages everywhere effect how I live.
The only way marriage effects the way I live is when I have to go to one.

If you mean it would effect your life because then you'd be upset that the government doesn't subscribe to your personal values....well....there's an easy solution to that: suck it up. We all have to deal with that. Civil rights are greater than personal and religious values, especially when those values have no real bearing on the subject - it is your personal religious opinion that gay people are wrong, but there is no logical or secular reason why that value should be imposed on the government and onto every citizen in the state, or the country. You simply don't have the right to create legistlature just so that more people will think like you. Whether you like it or not, the government in the US is a secular one, therefore any legislature must be supported by secular arguments and last I checked "because the Bible says so" is not one.

So, how exactly does it effect your life?

 

[SoyLeche]

The difference is Republican's lives weren't on the ballot to be voted on by the general public. This was personal. The other was just politics.

Oh, I agree. But, as I said - the difference is one of degree. In this case it was a bigger, more painful wound getting salt thrown in. I don't see that as being to purpose of the thread though.