Printable View
OOC: Please drop the grammar/definition conflict and continue on topic. If you want to start a new thread regarding the use of the word 'racist', by all means, do so.
Thanks to everyone who's moved back to the topic. Bonus points to you.
Stay on topic, thanks.
So just because the sanctity of marriage has been "flushed down the crapper," does that mean that we should leave it there?Quote:
Originally posted by Giga Guess
Oh, and as for the "sanctity of marriage," that went down the crapper with Joe Millionaire, Brittney's quickie marriage, and about half a dozen other reality TV shows. Not to mention Anna Nicole Smith. I fail to see what we can do that hasn't been done or trumped by several straight marriages. And for the record most homosexuals, myself included, do not wish to step on the churches' toes. We simply wish to be recognized as a civil union. I truly fail to see the problem. (BTW, I don't have a problem with people who disagree with the concept. You are entitled to your opinion. It's a free country. However, people who act like I'm out to eat their children, or convert them into our fold offend me greatly.)
I have nothing against homosexuality. I just think that marriage should be restricted to being between a man and a woman.
I have nothing against blacks. I just think that certain seats in the bus should be restricted to whites only.
I think I made it almost halfway through page two of this thread before I just had to stop reading. I am very frightened by the amount of anti-same sex marriage sentiments I am reading. I'm absolutely terrified that there is actually an amendment in consideration on this.
If this passes, what is next? Gays/bisexuals not being allowed to be around het folk, for fear of "contamination"?
This is a very, very frightening prospect. And that's coming from a bisexual engaged to a man.
This situation is making me want to run off with a few of my lesbian/bi friends and fight for our rights. And I hate politics.
I need to go calm down. I sincerely hope this amendmant doesn't even come close to passing.
Lots of unconstitutional amendments have been made in the past. For that matter, even the original Constitution was unconstitutional in many regards. However, there's no need to panic. All unconstitutional acts are eventually repealed. Bush can get anything he wants because he's a Republican in a Republican dominated Congress, with a conservative minded panel of Supreme Court judges. This won't always be so. A few people's rights might be stepped on for a year or two, but things will get straightened out.
If this law comes to pass, it'll be a sad day, indeed. =X
I don't have anything against same sex marriages. And I'm a Christian. If some people are uncomfortable with it, then why pay attention to it? It's not like anyone forces homophobes to watch gay people getting married. To me, it's more of a question of basic rights being violated rather than violating the idea of what marriage should be. Marriage is two people choosing to make a lifelong commitment to one another, in my opinion. (And that's just my opinion. Not trying to say it's absolutely correct, or anything.)
Fine. Label me as a racist.Quote:
Originally posted by Nait
I have nothing against blacks. I just think that certain seats in the bus should be restricted to whites only.
"Look at me, everyone, I'm a racist and I hate all gays. I think they should all die and burn in hell. I think that they were the cause of AIDS. And heaven forbid that they should ever be married."
Is that what you want me to say? Is it really so bad that I want to preserve marriage as something ONLY between a man and a woman? If so, I'm obviously not wanted in this conversation. You can all have fun groupthinking yourselves happy.
DocFrance, I completely agree with you. So atleast you're not alone. I have no problem being labeled as a racist, it's not my problem. And just to ask...what does being racist have do with hating all gays? And they were the primary cause of AIDS. That's just a fact. Atleast guys were.
My feeling expressed via T-Shirt
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a286
So true, so true. TGC.
It's not fun until someone gets defensive, I tells ya. The problem is that too often someone jumps on their high horse after having posted that homosexual marriage is comparable to incest, bestiality, statutory rape, and even man-furniture love (thus reducing homosexuals to a sub-human level, and gay marriage advocates to degenerates), but can’t take a similar comment in return. It makes you think that the voting age should be raised to 30. Now THAT would be an amendment I’d vote for! :D
Back on the subject, an amendment to restrict something is, by definition, restricting something that the constitution allows in its present state. So, it’s eliminating a right that we already have, or should have, and everybody who respects freedom should protest this. I agree with the posters who said that that Bush is trying to follow the majority on this one, but I think it’s a bit more than that: Bush has some rabid supporters, and among them is a camp of people who believe that he was placed in the presidency by God Himself, and he can’t let these people down. He also can’t let down his non-religious supporters, who, judging by what they say at news forums, firmly think that he can do no wrong. These are his voters, and he can’t alienate them now, because the rest of the country hates him with the same passion that he is loved (this president has divided the country so effectively it’s amazing), so he’s holding on to them as best he can. The vice president convinced me of this, along with his lesbian daughter, by standing behind the president on an issue that is personally offensive to them. They just want to get re-elected, and since when has that been about doing the right thing?
Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
Fine. Label me as a racist.
"Look at me, everyone, I'm a racist and I hate all gays. I think they should all die and burn in hell. I think that they were the cause of AIDS. And heaven forbid that they should ever be married."
Is that what you want me to say? Is it really so bad that I want to preserve marriage as something ONLY between a man and a woman? If so, I'm obviously not wanted in this conversation. You can all have fun groupthinking yourselves happy.
Oh no, I'm not labeling you a racist. Only drawing parallells. In the end, homosexual marriage will be a fact, and conservative opinions like yours will be reduced to a footnote in history, just as it should be.
Fine. I'm standing up for myself now.
What difference does it make to me?
I am flatly against this movement by homosexuals to extend legal civil-law marriage to anyone BUT one man and one woman. Period.
Changing that to permit the legal marriage of same-sex couples, cloaking it under some wooly headed Constitutional ‘equal rights’ clause, is opening a pandora’s box the likes of which this society will never have seen.
You blithely assert that the legal state of marriage has ‘no basis except in religion’ is flat wrong. If you haven’t noticed it is far more fundamentally based in human Biology and Natural Law than EITHER religion OR civil law. While BOTH human institutions have historically recognized the importance of the State of Marriage for the perpetuation of the human species in other than anarchic conditions.
You even allude to your ambivalence about gay marriages because of the issue of ‘adoption’ of children. Then try to say that is a ‘separate issue.’ Oh no its not. Its ONE of the central issues in the matter, because the most fundamental characteristic of historical ‘marriage’ is that it presumes the birth of children fathered by the male partner in the ‘marriage’ and carried to term by the female partner, BOTH of whom then have the legal rights AND legal obligations of married parents over children who are not, until 18 to 21 years later are able, both practically and legally, able to take care of themselves and stand legally on their own as adults. The required time and conditions for the maturation of children is the Reality of Nature, NOT either a civil or religious law fact. But which BOTH have been compelled to deal with.
Coming out of the dim beginnings of human society – where men could and did promiscuously engage in sex, impelled by teresterone (with themselves, or women or other males) without significant consequences to themselves or their social grouping (tribe) but which sexual activity with girls after puberty or women - based on the laws of probability and biological reality, the women they had vaginal intercourse with could and did produce children – a major, life altering consequence for women which were hard pressed from the time of pregnancy to provide for, during pregnancy and after the birth of the child, which might be one of many. And a stupendously important series of events for 'new human lives.' Whose rights ALSO have to be considered.
Biology provided for the perpetuation of the species by production of babies through the sexual activities of one man and one woman. But it did NOT provide for their survival EXCEPT, in the first instance, the feeding of the baby, and its protection from others by the mother. And in the second, by relying on others in their family, group, or tribe. Sometimes, and in some cases, impelled by nature, men ‘fell in love’ with the woman, and became monogamous, and loved ‘his’ children. And provided for them, protected them, and instructed them, particularly the boys, in how to survive physically, and get along in this life. In others they were left to fend for themselves.
At some time, in human SOCIAL evolution, those groupings – tribes, families (related by blood, not law) – chose to hold the OTHER partner to the creation of new human life – the father – ‘accountable’ in a variety of ways for the consequences of his fatherhood, intended or not. And the tribe, particularly its older members who had survived longer than anyone else and had OBSERVED with their intelligence, tribal memories, and ability to communicate through language (which animals did not share) nature, humans, their behaviors AND the consequences of them So arose IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER the institution of ‘marriage’ which damned well was applied to ONE man and ONE woman. (and when the Mormons tried to extend it to Polygamy, the laws precluded it in the United States)
(a lot of people want to dismiss the Bible because it is presumed ONLY to convey religious 'truth.' Well, I find it damned interesting that it ALSO contains one hell of a lot of accumulated human wisdom and lessons about humans, AND 'acceptable' behaviors. Even if you are an aethiest, the Ten Commandments are as good a rule for living as any of the current touchie-feely Television Talk show 'advisors put out)
A WHOLE LONG SET OF LEGAL rights (including property, inheritance, and in more recent years medical and insurance benefits) and OBLIGATIONS (including welfare of children, child support, and tax benefits) among HUNDREDS of others have flown from that legal, religious, understanding of what 'marriage is' and is NOT.
And all these have been rooted in the real world relationships and DIFFERENCES between Men, Women, and Children they bring forth into this world.
Now the whole phenomenon of legal Civil Unions arose because Homosexuals want it both ways. Simply based on declarations or assumptions of ‘love’ for another of the same sex, they want ALL the benefits of legal Marriage which were originally based on all I pointed out above reserved for one man and one woman – whether they married for love, sex, convenience, property, or building a family descendency. THAT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE UNIQUE!!!!!!! And no OTHER set of human relationships, genetic or voluntary – man or woman and neighbor, aunt, uncle, teen nephew, niece, acquaintance, grandparents, greatgrandparasts, 3d cousins – is, or can be included by ‘marriage.’
Homosexuals, or ‘same sex partners’ want it all. And there is NO basis in law OR in this yammer about ‘Equal Rights’ for allowing same sex ‘couples’ to be legally MARRIED.
If homosexuals want to spend the next 100 years convincing every voter that, simply based on their ‘preferences’ for another person that society ought to legally recognize THAT ‘civil union’ AND all the Separate but Almost Equal Rights, ok let em try. But I resent the hell out of their hijacking Marriage.
But when you ask, what difference does it make to me, I’ll tell you. I, as a taxpayer do NOT want to pay more taxes simply because unmarried couples want to pay less. Or get Base Housing, or preferences in educational benefits. And I’ll be go to hell before I want a grandson or daughter of mine who decides he/she wants to couple with a same sex partner, ‘get married’ and dies, that MY inheritance to HIM/HER should go to his/her ‘same sex partners’ estate and whatever ‘family line the partner has!!!! If my progeny get married as one man and one woman, and I leave an estate to MY blood descendent, then I will certainly accept the rights of survivorship, INCLUDING children passing to the other MARRIED sex partner. But NOT to the partner in a Civil Union one!
A study of San Francisco homosexual scene turned THIS up. (Its in the LA Times)
“ The battle for gay marriage stems in part from the legal efforts of lesbians to retain custody of their children during the 1970s. At the time, gay men were more interested in issues of sexual freedom, Stewart said.
"I remember going around and trying to raise money, and the men would be, 'Why do we care about families? Families are used against us,' " Stewart said. "And then AIDS came along, and it changed everything."
Gay men found themselves barred from their partners' hospital rooms. When partners died, families swept in and took everything they had owned, leaving their lifetime lovers with nothing. Partners who left work to care for sick lovers were not entitled to government benefits.”
IF ANYONE who applies can be ‘married’ to anyone else of the same sex, then I contend the door is wide open to weird forms of polygamy, men ‘marrying’ other men twice or half their age - and since even civil law ‘marriage’ does NOT include a requirement for sexual intercourse between the one man and one woman, I can ‘Marry’ my daughters husband, or profess my ‘love’ to the airmen in my unit, and Marry one of them for cripes sake. Equal Rights my ass!
Its just the modern story of ALL RIGHTS but NO OBLIGATIONS. Sex without consequence, and THEN property rights, inheritance rights, burial rights, family lineage rights WITHOUT the gate guards of traditional legal MARRIAGE! Which at the very least has kept these things orderly enough to be dealt with via marriage laws.
The ORIGINS of ‘Marriage’ were NOT just under the assumption of lifelong ‘lovers’ but of a balancing of Rights and Obligations between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN who by civil marriage enter into a UNIQUE relationship, shared by no other man or woman. (as my youngest son was obliged to accept in China when he ‘married’ Ha Ning there, where the Communist Party had no provisions for ‘Religious Marriage)
So some of you on EoFF can get so open minded your brains fall out on these issues. But not me. I’ve at least gone beyond mantra chanting of “Equal Rights’ or of saying that Marriage is ONLY a Religious state, or a Civil Legal State, but a state entered into by one man and one woman for a thousand biological, practical, legal, religious, public morals, reasons going back into the beginning of human society.
Homosexuals can create their own legal world as far as I am concerned. They have NO INHERENT RIGHT TO MINE!
Can anyone, ANYONE give me any concrete, LEGAL reason why Homosexual Marriage should be prohibited. Do note that preserving the sancitity of marriage is an unnacceptable argument due to separation of church and state. Also, why does it matter? It's not as if you are being forced to recognize it personally. It merely allows homosexuals to be afforded the same rights as other married couples, something I believe in wholeheartedly.
I'd try to answer DocFance's last post, but I'm afraid I'm not alert enough right now. Perhaps another time.
DocFrance, quit trying to sound "smart" by using "big" words...it makes you look not-smart, especially if you don't know the full meaning of the "big" words you use in the context you are using them in.
As for your comments...that's full of hate. Why should YOU care if someone wants to marry the same sex? What Nait was trying to say was that discrimination against homosexuals is just as bad as racism, because it's hate against someone who had no control of their beginnings.
Hate is so irrational, it should only be applied to hate itself. I'm tired of all these religious linkings towards why homosexuals shouldn't have rights. Many religion can't be proved...and most of the teachings and findings are based on "God said so." Bullsh*t. Religion was created BEFORE science. It was used to help explain the phenomena around us at a time where we didn't have the tools to do so. You critcize us for being open minded? What if you were gay? Would you kill yourself? Would you go to a Church and "confess"? No, you wouldn't. I guarantee you wouldn't. You'd be a hypocrite.
You base your opinions on the actions of those before you. Much like I have. But your opinions are flawed(in my opinion) DocFrance, and I'll tell you why in one word: Hate. If your beliefs have hate in them in anyway shape or form against an individual that has done no harm to you, then your beliefs are, shall we say, garbage. You say marriage was originally intended between a man and a woman, but that's from a Christian point of view. Many other religions have marriage as simply a "union" without any implications of a man or a woman. So quit being biased.
And your anti-gay setiments makes you no better than a member of the KKK. You can go back to 1960 and remember how many groups discriminated against minorities. Now it's a footnote in history as Nait said...and soon, homosexuals will get the equal rights they deserve, and all this debate will soon be a footnote in history...just as your views will be.