Bush Bans Gay Marriage

George Bush today announced that he would be seeking a constitutional amendment, to block gay marriage. He stated that he wanted to preserve marriage in its current state.

I know that there's another forum topic about Homosexuals and whether they should be able to get married, but I want to discuss the actual reasons behind his decision. Because, frankly, I'm outraged. I don't understand this-I equate this comment with racism-it's disgusting.
I have heard ramblings about how he is using this to put the Democrats in a tight spot over this subject during the upcoming Presidential Election. I was under the impression that the Republican Party was between right wing and centre-right. This is a fascist policy.

I don't see how this puts him in a good position against the democrats. Surely there is support for gay marriage in America?

edit: I'm a Liberal Democrat supporter (they're a British Centre Left party).

We'll take this to world events then, just to make the difference clear.

Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?

I severely doubt it'll fly; it'll take the support of what, like 80% of the legislature to pass? I don't agree with it though.

As far as I'm concerned, gay people should have the same civil rights as everyone else. If Christianity or any other religion refuses to recognize those as marriage, that's their right, but it shouldn't be the place of the government to deny that to people.

bleh.

It has a good chance of passing, I think.

For the record, the majority of people in this country do not want to legalize gay marriage. It didn't pass in California, and we're one of the more liberal states.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't even really understand the concept of a marriage license on a certain level. Why is the government allowed to have any form of control over something that is a traditionally religious affair? I mean, when it boils down to it isn't marriage just another ceremony like baptism? The bond and connection are already there, it's just making it official, right? So if two people already know they're going to spend the rest of their lives together, why does the government have anything to do with it? When did marriage change from being proof of an incredible love between two people to a national finance tool? I think we have to look at the lack of morals it's taken for America to monetarily corrupt the most sacred "institution" known to man before we look at the so called lack of morals homosexuals obviously brandish if they love one another this much.

There are tax benefits to being married, as well as property issues and child custody. Whether or not gay people just want these things or that they also want to be recognized in their unions I cannot answer.

Unclesimpson35: Gay marriage is, to me, no worse than making a white lie. It's just....I don't see what the crisis is.

Just said that in an IM convo, right when I was viewing this thread. And I would say more, but Manny covered it. *nod*

there's actually a tax penalty for being married.

Anyway, it's not racism but it is bigotry. If nothing else it is showing a preference for "Christian values" in our Constitution, which is not good. I think the majority of America may be against this currently but it'll change. It's the same as civil rights for women or blacks or other minorities. Allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do, and it will happen eventually. This amendment is just the backlash, but you can't fight progress, at least not successfully.

I don't agree with gay marriages, but that doesn't mean I won't allow gay couples the same priviledges as straight couples. If gay marriages are recognized by the government, that's still cool, even though I disagree with the idea of gay marriage. Gay couples do need to be recognized by every states though.

This is ridiculous. The government has absolutely no business defining who can and can't marry. It's fine with me if the Catholic church doesn't want to marry a couple of the same sex, but the government should treat people equally.

I don't think it has a very good chance of passing. A constitutional amendment requires a 3/4 majority to pass, and that's tough to get. I believe I saw a poll somewhere that said 50% of Americans think gay people should have the right to marry. (Although even I'll admit that those numbers seem pretty high.) Of course, the people wouldn't be voting on the amendment directly, so that makes things a little bit trickier.

Problem is, though, if it does pass it'll be really tough to repeal.

This also puts pressure on Democrats to take a stance on the issue one way or another. Gay marriage has been an issue lately, but it hasn't been much of an election issue. Perhaps Bush is looking to make it one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Proto
Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?

---

werd.

I think he meant to say "homosexualist" or something.

If a man is allowed to marry another man, who is to say that a man can't also marry his sister, an eight-year-old girl, a cow, or even his favorite chair?

there's a difference between a man marrying a man and a man marrying a chair.

the only reason Bush is making this an issue is because he wants to use fear to divide the american people before the election. he also wants to throw a bone to the hard-line conservatives.

OK, but what about sister and the eight-year-old girl? By this logic, you could say that because incest is usually forbidden by religious tenets - just like homosexuality - that any goverernment laws forbidding incest should be thrown out?

And what does fear have to do with this?

Is anything new being said in this thread, or is it just a rehash of the old one?

The other one was about gay marriages, this would be about Bush considering an admendment to ban gay marriages

Yeah I know, but all I'm seeing are the same arguments.

Anyway, if Bush bans it, he'll have a lot of protests on his hands. Maybe the country isnt ready for gay marriages yet. Progress takes a lot of times. How long did the African American population have to wait before they had their rights, even after the Emancipation Proclimation set them free?

This doesn't have anything to do with the topic (I don't really have much of an opinion on the topic), but Abominatrix, here's a quick timeline:

1607-first slaves transported to America
1865-13th Amendment (freed slaves)
1865-14th Amendment (gave black males citizenship)
1866-15th Amendment (gave black males right to vote)

Now technically I guess that's 259 years?

I knew it was something like that.

So, it took almost 300 years for blacks to gain their equal rights. Which they fully and completly deserve. Hopefully, one day, homosexuals will gain the same. Their fight seems to be going a bit faster (at least, since homosexuality became more 'accepted' by the mainstream), and while Bush has no right to do this, he may just win. It'll be a long long fight.

DocFrance makes a good point. If gays get equal rights, so should chairs.

Because chairs really deserve the same rights as thinking, feeling human beings.

Well okay then incestous 8-year-old deserve the same rights.

No eight year old has the right to marry. I dont see why allowing one law equates people to go "Oh, so that means people should be allow to do this, this and this!" hell, since we're giving women and blacks equal rights, my dog should have equal rights too!

I think dogs ARE equal to humans, but that's another debate altogether.

Well, why shouldn't a man be able to marry his sister? It's basically the same argument. In fact, I could even call anyone who thinks otherwise a narrow-minded bigot for attempting to halt the march of progress in this country based on Freedom - I've seen people do the same to those who oppose gay marriages. So, I'm asking you - if a man can marry another man, who is to say that a man can't marry his sister?

Oh, and Bush has every right in the world to propose that amendment. He is the president, and proposing amendments is usally something presidents are allowed to do.

So if Bush proposed an amendment to send all the nations Irish-American population to internment camps to make them grow potatoes, he'd be well within his rights as the president, right?

I havent attempted to halt the 'march of progress' of anyone. I dont care who marries who. It isnt my business if a man marries his sister. And when it becomes such a problem that many people are in love with their kin and wish to marry them, then it will become a constitutional issue. As yet, that situation doesnt exist, now does it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Proto
Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?

---

No. It makes him just as bad as a racist.

Because that's still discrimination, and discrimination has no target.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
Well, why shouldn't a man be able to marry his sister? It's basically the same argument. In fact, I could even call anyone who thinks otherwise a narrow-minded bigot for attempting to halt the march of progress in this country based on Freedom - I've seen people do the same to those who oppose gay marriages. So, I'm asking you - if a man can marry another man, who is to say that a man can't marry his sister?

Oh, and Bush has every right in the world to propose that amendment. He is the president, and proposing amendments is usally something presidents are allowed to do.

---

There's ethical reasons involved...but ethical, schmetical...it doesn't bother me if one marries within their own family.

Biologically, it's a serious problem. Many people don't realize that the rate of genetic problems increases over 10 fold if one marries(and eventually) and has a baby. So that's why same family marriages are problems...but if some couple wishes to do that, I have no choice but to step away.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
OK, but what about sister and the eight-year-old girl? By this logic, you could say that because incest is usually forbidden by religious tenets - just like homosexuality - that any goverernment laws forbidding incest should be thrown out?

And what does fear have to do with this?

---

There's a difference. Homosexual acts between consenting adults don't harm anyone, whereas sex with minors or relatives is extremely damaging to those involved.

incest is bad because it heightens the risk for genetic defects. homosexuality doesn't heighten the risk for anything genetic at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by eestlinc
incest is bad because it heightens the risk for genetic defects. homosexuality doesn't heighten the risk for anything genetic at all.

---

Yes, but if it's between two consenting adults, who are you to decide that they can't do it, even with the risks of genetic defects? It is a free country, after all.

I'm not stopping them.

Too bad the US isn't a free country. Cause then homosexuals could marry. :D

A truly free country would be anarchy, really :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guu
A truly free country would be anarchy, really :p

---

Quiet, you. :D

But anarchies are no fun. They lead to dictatorships, cause you know someone's going to do it. :D

As I've said before, Bush is merely representing the way that the vast majority of Americans feel, including a high number of democrats. This country is too young to be ready for legal gay marriage yet. You can't blame the guy for representing the vast majority.

The fact that someone as conservative as Bush is, is endorsing this kind of amendment is something I find odd. Republicans are traditionally the ones who scream "state's rights!" (think of past environmental regulations). And amending the constitution is definitely NOT something that a conservative would do, especially on a transitory social issue such as this one. He labels himself "compassionate", yet is trying to push for discrimination in the Constitution. It's a weird mess of contradictions.

And, since we're re-venting our feelings on gay marriage here, I'm with eestlinc. Marry whomever you want. If you want to marry your sister, then there's something wrong with you, but that doesn't mean I can stop you.

Well, I think, that the main reason Bush is doing this, is to divide voters. He vents a strong opinion about this, and now he stands out. Not only the media, but Bush himself is making quite a big circus out of this. Probably to make his name heard more often. He's now pretty sure that the majority of people who are against gay marriages vote for him by defualt. Which is quite a lot. It really doesn't matter what side he chooses in this matter, he's only doing this to stand out in the crowd with something which will be talked about a lot.

I doubt he is doing this out of principles. I think he's doing this for votes alone.

There is nothing wrong with marrying your sister. However, I take it that you mean a young girl, right? In that case, marriage is illegal because she would be a minor.

Whoever made the marrying chairs joke-that's bad taste. Man can love each other. So can women. Deal with it.

I said that I equate that comment with racism (i.e. it's just as bad). I wasn't saying that Bush was a racist.

Being married is not a Christian tradition, even though you may see it like that. There are many other cultures that have had unions of two people that far predate Christian traditions.

Unless you are married to your partner, you are seen by the government as a 'long term partner'. This is an important legal distinction. Long term partners have no right to bury there partner, and if the person dies suddenly, the money goes to the family (both of these are true in many countries and states).

This is not a law that can be changed-it would be a Constitutional Amendment. If the vote passes, that is very hard to revert. If it does pass, it may take several generations of people to set it back.
When you put it in the constitution it is seen as an important part of your day-to-day culture. Do you want your country to be shamed by putting discrimination on your constitution? I can't think of any other democratic country that would ever consider a law of that kind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
There is nothing wrong with marrying your sister. However, I take it that you mean a young girl, right? In that case, marriage is illegal because she would be a minor.

---

No, I'm talking about two legal, consenting adults who are brother and sister. If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, why can't a brother marry his sister? If you ask me, that's discrimination. Why should anyone think that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else?

So far as the thread topic, I think Bush is representing the majority on this issue, and I think the majority is wrong. I don't think an Amendment would pass, if anyone even has the guts to actually go through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
No, I'm talking about two legal, consenting adults who are brother and sister. If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, why can't a brother marry his sister? If you ask me, that's discrimination. Why should anyone think that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else?

---

They can marry - there's no law against it (that I know of).

edit: In fact, two did marry in the UK. They were both adopted, but went to two differnet parents. They later met and fell in love. Then they found out they were brother and sister. Sometime after that they got married.

I think people in love should be able to get married no matter what color, religion, sex, etc they are. Love is love and those in love should be able to express their love in the spiritual, physical, mental, and govermental fashion just like anyone else.

TTFN,
Lion's Angel
:mog: :choc:

Quote:

---

Whoever made the marrying chairs joke-that's bad taste.

---

Well, SORRY. :rolleyes: :p

Anyway, if this one passes, then it's democratic and whatnot - but in my opinion, it would also reflect very badly on America and the American people.

I STILL don't see the problem. Yes, to some people, men marrying other men might seem nasty, or may contradict their own religious or personal beliefs. But what does that have to do with anything? The state's laws are not about what you like, or about what religion apporves of - it's about what is harmful and what isn't. Gay people marrying each other is not harmful - hell, they can't even re-produce! :D

Indeed, it's not personally harmful to anyone. But the problem with defining marriage as no longer between just a man and a woman, as a right.... is that Bob can march up and say he wants to marry Betty and Susie, and if they tell him he can't do that, it's discrimination -- he can't be denied his right.

Where can you draw the line? If gays have the right to marry (FYI, I'm perfectly alright with civil unions), why the heck not polygamists? Don't they have the right, too? I'm afraid minorities might keep pushing... and in the process cheapen the sacred union of marriage.

It's true that the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage to be legalized.... not yet, anyway. What the mayor of San Francisco did was in blatant disregard of 2/3 of people's votes..

Okay, this is probably way off topic, but when i read the bit about marrying chairs and sisters i had to have my peace.

i can totally understand the argument here. If a man can marry another man, and a woman another woman, thus breaking down the traditional family setup, then what's to protect the family at large? Why bind ourselves from our own relations when we aren't protecting another family role, namely that of the parents as mother and father? But to me, this sort of restriction misses the essence of the family, which is to function as such. The family unit isn't merely the people who comprise it, but a cohesive interaction that goes far beyond those incedentals.

The family is one of the most central social units of human culture. In general. i can see why people want to protect it, because it's one of the concepts that's kept human beings, on the whole, going since we started having kids. Even in the secular sense, it's sacred territory. Father, mother, children. And that all branches out into bigger and bigger sets of cousin and aunt and niece and etcetera to form the giant family trees we always have to visit on the holidays. i will argue, though, that the family is not a religious unit, but a social one. Ethical human law, not religion, is its primary defense.

The children of any family are, traditionally, physically related. That's had its challenges in the past, what with concubines and adultery and other such issues, but that was the expectation. The rule, even. That's since been changed, what with adoptions and carrier mothers and such, because suddenly not all children were necessarily related - at least not fully - to their particular parents. One's "child" became more an absract issue, dependent on who operated as primary caregiver rather than who physically birthed or genetically contributed to the child. People operated as parents, rather than simply being parents. But the shape of the family still functioned, still did its duty. We don't look at an adopted child and say "that's Kate's kid, in the care of Sarah." No. It's Sarah's kid. Mother and child still take the same role.

The parents of the family are, traditionally, male and female, because the male and the female can biologically have the kids to start the family. We don't want to break that down; that's destroying the rules that govern family. But now we can see where things seem problematic, because weren't we just making families full of kids that aren't actually the family's physical kids? Isn't that a destruction of traditional roles as well, an absolute flattening of our moral code? Obviously not. Adoption is generally accepted as a good thing, not a bad one. The idea that a kid absolutely must be born of two particular parents and then say within that family for their entire life almost sounds ludicrous today; if a child is orphaned, or abused, or somehow isn't receiving the sort of care he needs, we're quick as hell to say they ought to be moved to another family. A place where that concept operates more cohesively. We've matured in our idea of "family," taking it from a literal, physical hierarchy to an operative concept. A true family isn't just one that exists physically, but one that upholds its form and functions as such.

In that process, we've seen that a family doesn't operate on incedentals. Biological oneness does not inherently make a family. No. Cohesive function as a family and fulfillment of its purpose does. And if that's the case, why do we defend so strongly the notion that two people who wish to start a family must have the ability to create that oneness? Family goes much deeper than that. Family is something that people create with each other. Yes, biology comes into the mix, but it's much more an ethical defense than a physical one that retains its properties. Whether it is a man or woman paired with another man or woman, those different genders are incedental. To say that a family must have a man and woman at its head is like demanding it to have one son and one daughter. Do we do that? Of course not; that sounds ludicrous. It is ludicrous.

Family is not primarily a literal format, of this specific person and that specific person. It is about roles, and fulfilling those roles cohesively. We cannot destroy those roles, because they're inherent to our function as social beings. But something like gender is incedental. The question is whether or not that family functions as such, and to act as if a person's ability to parent is dependent on a partner of the opposite gender makes no sense. And there's a whole world out there of bachelor, divorced, or otherwise single parents who can attest to that, because they don't have partners at all and still manage just fine.

And thus, comparing the marriage of a man to another man is not even the same issue as that of a brother to a sister. The sorts of people who form a family do not matter; it is the family itself that matters. Thus, be a family composed of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, whatever, it is still contains people fulfilling the structure of the family unit, and that is what's important. Once someone is a brother, he is a brother. Once someone is a mother, she is a mother. Those are the lines we must defend. That is where true family integrity lies. It makes no difference that a person might have two fathers or two mothers; the importance is in having those roles. People do not inherently need both, becuase - like i mentioned before - there are plenty of single parent families that get along just fine. We need people who can operate in a family unit. Not strict regulation on how that unit needs to look.

Accordingly, it's foolish to claim that men marrying men and men marrying sisters are the same concept. The latter is concerned with the true ethics of the family format, whereas the latter is all about incedentals.


EDIT, to answer the post between the time i started writing and now: If you ask me, polygamy can't possibly have anything to do with love, which is also inherent to family function. i didn't mention that overtly in this post, but love is one of those inherent family factors that holds it together where physical issues don't.

Quote:

---

to answer the post between the time i started writing and now: If you ask me, polygamy can't possibly have anything to do with love, which is also inherent to family function. i didn't mention that overtly in this post, but love is one of those inherent family factors that holds it together where physical issues don't.

---

But who are you to say it isn't love? Ugh, I'm not trying to defend a polygamist, but I'm sure they'd argue with you on that one. So their value system is a bit different than most people's. If marriage is no longer defined anyway, you cannot deny their right.

Bush plans to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. Nice.

And marriage does not revolve around the ability to have children. Should couples who fail or choose not to procreate have their marriages annulled? Absolutely not. Marriage is about the union of two people. Because there is separation of Church and State, there should be no need to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' under the constitution because it should be protected by the church for those and only those that put their faith in the church. Marriage is defined differently by different religions - the Christian faith does not have a monopoly on the institution of marriage.

Finally, why should anyone have the right to impede the actions of two adults of sound mind to do as they see fit, provided their actions don't impede on the freedoms of others? Why should you care if a man wishes to marry another man? Why should you care if a man wants to marry his sister? To me, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Homosexual couples adopting is another issue entirely and it is an issue that I indeed have reservations about. However, because that has to do with family and not marriage, it is not part of this issue.

Actually, there is something quite wrong with marrying your sister. Your offspring has an amazingly high chance of being an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cid
As I've said before, Bush is merely representing the way that the vast majority of Americans feel, including a high number of democrats. This country is too young to be ready for legal gay marriage yet. You can't blame the guy for representing the vast majority.

---

That's a fair argument, given the nature of democracy, but President Bush's words suggest that he's motivated by his personal opinions and religious beliefs rather than the desire to respresent his people. If he wanted to represent the majority of the American people in a less confrontational way, he could simply refuse to give his backing to any bill that would expressly legalise same-sex marriage. He'd not be supporting it, but he wouldn't stop it from becoming law either. Presidential veto only goes so far. Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter with far-reaching consequences, and in the past has only been done when the powers that be decided that lives and/or freedom were at stake - the amendment ending slavery, or the prohibition amendments, for instance. Forbidding same-sex marriage would be forcibly alienating a whole division of society, possibly up to 10% of the population in some regions.

It's not gonna pass. George Sr tried to pass an amendment banning flag-burning, but it didn't go through.

Im sure flag burning is different then two gay people ''marrying'' eachother.:p But yea it is hard to pass an amendment when theres' been thousands in the past that havnt been passed. I agree that Marriage is between a man and a woman and always has. Marriage is a heterosexual term of a union between a man and a woman.

This will hopefully seal Bush's fate in the upcoming election. If he is re-elected, what is next to be banned, kids holding hands in public?

In all seriousness now, this outrages me to absolutely no end. Since when does God or any aspect of religion have any say in how a government should be run. Last I checked, the vast majority of the Western world are democracies, not theocracies. Bush was indeed elected, if you call it that, because of what he stood for and part of that was because he was a religious fellow. However, since when does a religion dictate our Constitution?

Granted, you can say that the US government was based in religion, specifically, the Ten Commandments, but nowhere on those commandments was marriage an issue or even mentioned. Shouldn't we love each other no matter what? It's about the person, not who that person is with that make up our relationship to them.

"Protect the sancticty of marriage."
Why don't them ban something that actually violates this? Such as banning anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs from getting married, a la waking up married in Las Vegas after night on the town. Or how about banning a marriage that is strictly so that a spouse can profit from the other spouse's income? How in blazes is gay marriage going to ruin society?

"Marriage is the most fundemental institution in a society"

Marriage? MARRIAGE?! Shouldn't law or a government be the MOST fundemental institution in a society?!

Interestingly, in the US Constitution, there is a little thing called the 14th Amendment, which protects the fundemental rights of all citizens. Call me crazy, but wouldn't banning gay marriage be banning a fundemental right of choice? There is nothing that says being gay or a lesbian in America is a crime, why do we still treat it as such?

If Bush says that he would still back a civil union for gay couples, doesn't that show that he is willing to admit that they have rights too?

Our soicety has become SO bogged down in what words mean, and we've forgotten what it means to understand the words. Marriage in the strictest sense is the joining in union of two people. Yes, it might say husband and wife, but does it say man and woman? No, it does not. So, why can't a husband and wife be two men, or two women if sex has no real part in it?

I'm with Big D on this one in that this seems to be some sort of crusade against homosexuality as a whole, not because the majority of society wants it this way.

What's the harm here, really, what is the harm? Who are they hurting? Make amendments for reasons that can actually be justified with fact, not just dogma and personal beliefs please. Opinions, you can have, but amendments to the US Constitution are going to need more than that.

All of this is obviously above my head as I am just a simple person with my own opinions and thoughts. We're all people, first and foremost. Race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, that goes with each individual, and slowly we've begun to get away from prejudice and hatred towards those who are of groups different from ours. It took thousands of years to gain religious freedom and thousands more to gain racial freedom to the degree we have it now. Homosexuality has been around just as long as these other issues. Why is it any different or worse? We're all people, we should all love each other and why should it matter?

I firmly believe that when the current generation of teens gains standings in the next few years, we'll laugh at how ridiculous this all is.

Take care all.

Well, The Captain summed it up better than I would have. There's no way in hell that you can rationally justify this as anything other than prejudice, really. The so-called "sanctity" of marriage these days is such a ridiculous joke anyway:

Quote:

---

If you don't believe that monkeys are smarter than humans, here's a quote from Kuno-Ichi to prove you wrong:
Pedophiles can marry, 80 year olds can marry 18 year olds, murderers and ex-convicts can marry, different races can marry, different nationalities can marry, and to FURTHER prove how stupid these anti-gay marriage laws are, a gay can marry a lesbian.

---

Edit: Wait, wait, here's another really good post on the topic.

Quote:

---

If you don't believe that monkeys are smarter than humans, here's a quote from Bombshell to prove you wrong:
Honestly, it pisses me off to hear Bush and Arnold (I don't feel like spelling his last name) want to put a ban on them. It makes me sad for the people who have been together so long, just to have their dreams crushed.

It also pisses me off that in this country, you can get married on a spur-of-the-moment notice and get anulled 11 hours later. (Yes, I am referring to Miss Britney) In my honest opinion, that act stains what marriage means. =/ And this coming from a person with a completely Agnostic background.

*Sigh* In all honesty, if my best friend were gay, great. If he wants to marry a guy, I'll be there.

But to deny them the right to, is something that makes me want to go right up to Mr. Bush and shove my foot in his ass. =:<

Everyone sins. Being gay is one of them. Whooptie-frickin'-doo. If we put a ban on all sins, we wouldn't have a government. Because politicians LIE. And lying is a SIN. Lalala.

Sorry, I'm rather frustrated by all this. One of my biggest hopes was that my best friend, Dennis, would get married and I'd get to see him happy. And one man is responsible for 10% of the country's choice to marry a man or woman.

Instead of banning gay marriages, let's ban stupid people, instead. BE LIKE FOOL'S GOLD.

---

np

..I'm afraid it's not that simple. Letting gays get married isn't going to make America a utopia. People who want to allow it and then draw the line there aren't going to be able to -- if they have to turn down another minority, it's discrimination.

I'm not sure that Bush should be judged that his decision is based on his faith(he IS representing the majority of the people; and as president, I'm not sure it's his job to be passive to avoid confrontation). Throughout history, marriage has always been observed only between a man and a woman, and God didn't even have to be involved. Besides, doesn't everyone have values/opinions based on what they believe, religion or not?

And it's not as if all gays will be offended by the amendment (assuming it passes) -- I know one who doesn't like Bush but doesn't think gay marriage should be legalized, either.


EDIT: And because I disagree, apparently I'm prejudiced. I'm not in a good place here.... can I express my opinion without being demonized as either a crazy conservative or a rabid fundamentalist Christian?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrexsoul
EDIT: And because I disagree, apparently I'm prejudiced. I'm not in a good place here.... can I express my opinion without being demonized as either a crazy conservative or a rabid fundamentalist Christian?

---

Pretty much, no. Sometimes, these discussions turn into an exercise in groupthink, and dissenting opinions are sometimes considered "invalid."

Oh well, I still like arguing. It keeps this place exciting.

I'd consider it "valid" if there were better reasoning behind it. Saying the vast majority of people think it should be illegal means nothing; we might theoretically be a republic, but that's not the way our country works. I'm sure the vast majority of people don't really think it's a good idea to put away part of their paycheck each year for Social Security, either, but that's what happens. I'm sure a lot of people don't like the extra money that has to be expended for the Americans with Disabilities Act, either, but it happens and it does good for the minority without causing irreparable harm to the majority. The good of the many doesn't always outweight the good of the few, especially when the "good" of the many is something as minor as allowing them to continue to turn the other cheek and pretend that homosexuality doesn't exist and is unnatural. Sure, if you don't like something, you can go ignoring it for the rest of your life, but it's not an issue that is going to go away. At the most, you're just postponing the inevitable if you ban it, and it'll cause more harm than good in the long run, and probably in the short run as well.

We're a republic and have an electoral college because we don't want the vast majority of the people to have a say. If the people are too dumb to be allowed direct elections, then they're too dumb to have their oppinions taken seriously. We elect leaders because they're better than us at making decisions, and not to simply rubber-stamp any decision we desire. Bush shouldn't act in our will. He should act above it.

Ahh, it's not that we should pull the wool over our eyes; I'm all for civil unions, but I'm not too hot on the marriage thing, for reasons I've already stated.

Arguing IS nice... I appreciate this forum because it's a good environment for intelligent debate, unlike other places where people like to insult each other with low shots and stereotypes. So my side is outnumbered... I'll try to hold it up. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure I can refrain from damning people to hell or grumbling about those crazy liberals... :rolleyes:

Give it about a year. If Bush doesn't win the election, most people here will be complaining about the new president. I can almost guarantee it.

I still don't understand. Like I said, if you already know you're going to be together forever, why is the ceremony so important. And if you're a government and you're allowing homosexuals to be together in the first place, why not let them get married. Both sides of the argument are nonsensical to me.

I don't think marriage is supposed to be a right we are guaranteed by a government, it's just something we do because. If it's a statement of love and of a bond we're seeing it as, why does it matter if you make it all pretty by shelling out tons of cash? Then again, why should a ruling body have the authority to take that away? Both sides make a valid point in context with the other side, but on their own neither point makes much sense I don't think. Like I've said, this is very confusing. Maybe I'll understand when I'm married.

In my opinion, the bottom line is:

If a government decides that married couples should have advantages in any possible way, they should not restrict who is able to be married based on their sexual preference.

That's on par with saying "We will be be giving lower taxes to people who cuddles dogs. If you are allergic to dogs, that's your own bloody tough luck" or possibly even "We will be enslaving all black people" or maybe "If you are not Christian, you can't go on the unemployment benefit."

Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?

I think it sort of does makes him a racist. And using a bible as an excuse to hide it is ridiculous. I'm religious person, but I don't agree in everything that bible says.

Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamia
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:

---

Funerals are a thing of Christianity. Therefore, no one except devout non-homosexual etc. etc. Christians should die. :D

I am surprised that this has gone on for 3 whole pages. Now I am getting preped to hopefully just shut you all down...but first a couple of questions for ye!

Why is marriage so sacred? What is it refered to as the Sactatiy of Marriage?

We can't have polygamy...its just a tax loop hole.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamia
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:

---

Bulls***. Marriage is not about Christianity. Did you not read this thread? Did you not read the part were I stated that Christianity was not the first culture to have a union between two partners?

You read the title of the thread and perhaps my post. You then posted a stupid, hypocritical and shallow argument that showed no reason or logic.

Marriage is a legal document joining two people together. Almost every culture has some form of civil union, and that is the only thing that doesn't change.

You can go on ignoring the issue with blind trust, or you can look at the real issues and debate them with us. No one cares what you post, as long as it has a valid point, and you post doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamia
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:

---

Whoop, this person's right. Everyone who isn't a Christian, please leave America. Actually, if you ARE a Christian, you should really be in the Middle East, right? Or possibly the Vatican. Everyone who isn't Chinese, please refrain from using paper. Not Roman? I sure hope you don't have a calendar (which would have to be stone, let's not forget) featuring the words 'July' and 'August' - and god dammit, if you aren't from England, don't speak the bloody language. >=/

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
You read the title of the thread and perhaps my post. You then posted a stupid, hypocritical and shallow argument that showed no reason or logic.

---

I saw logic and reason in that post. It might not be what you agree with, but it certainly is logic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon You can go on ignoring the issue with blind trust, or you can look at the real issues and debate them with us. No one cares what you post, as long as it has a valid point, and you post doesn't.

---

So... you want to debate with people, but only those you agree with? Is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
I saw logic and reason in that post. It might not be what you agree with, but it certainly is logic.

So... you want to debate with people, but only those you agree with? Is that right?

---

That person basically said that marriage is Christian, and that therefore only Christian people should get married. Not only is that blind discrimination, but it also is racist. What kind of logic is that?

Gays aren't a separate race. Christians aren't a separate race. It's not racism. "Race"-ism. Discrimination, perhaps, but not racism. Thus, noone here is racist on account of their posts in this thread.

"Racist" is generally the most convenient term to use, considering that "sexual orientationist" sounds like crap.

The word "racism" is completely inaccurate in this context. Prejudice or discrimination is the term you want.

I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, I'm just saying it's more convenient. ;) Predjudiced would work too though, though it doesn't sound as accusatory.

Using words to imply something false (racism in this case) is some sort of fallacy, even if it's just being obfuscating.

Much like schoolkids falsely labeling things "gay" because they can't think of a more eloquent word.

Irony times five million.

Racism is just a branch off the tree of discrimination.

But like many of the "Young" generation, Wuppa made a good point in chat, mentioning that younger people are more willing to accept than the older population.

The majority of the population is like, 35 years and older...they make up like 65-70% of the population. But there are a select few who will teach their children that gay-marriage is wrong...I was told in class that it was wrong, but I grew up to accept that statement as discrimination.

But many of my friends who are atheists generally agree that what Bush is trying to do is idiotic. Those who generally are Christian are more likely to support this "ban." Notice that I said "more likely", not "all Christians".

As for homosexuals raising kids...who cares? No legitimate scientific study shows that homosexual parents have negative impacts on kids, nor does it promote them to being "gay" and such. All studies that were done show that homosexual parents can be just as good as heterosexual parents.

I don't know how others feel on the issue, but I know if someone is going to flame me, they had better use accurate insults.

OOC:

Actually, I'd rather there be no flaming of anyone, for any reason. If anyone disagrees with what another member says, then that's up to them and they're entitled to say so. However, no-one's entitled to attack other members for those reasons. Point to note: "I despise rabid fundamentalists who think that minorities should be shot" is not an attack on all Christians, or on people opposed to homosexual marriage. Likewise, it's not a personal flame to say "I've got no time for ultra-liberals who'd have us bown down and worship everyone who wants their differences to be given precedence." Those are merely statments of opinion. However, the minute that such a comment is directed at another person's post, it becomes a personal attack and this thread, as well as the flamer's Eyes on Each Other access, is in jeopardy. Keep it civil, keep it clean. We're here to debate and discuss, not argue and abuse. Thank you for your attention.

w00t.

I think it's kind of insulting that you put sexual-discrimination on the same level as racism and sexism. People can't help what nationality or gender they are born as, and until it's proven otherwiese, I do believe that people are able to choose their sexuality. But even in the unlikely event that they're not, sexuality isn't something you see as soon as you look at a person, like race and gender.

Also, I don't think it's a good defense to say that incestual marriages should be banned (and gay marriages not) because they produce defective children. Homosexual marriages produce no children at all, except through artifical insemination. And if an incestual couple really wanted healthy children, they could undergo the same procedure. So in the same light, if homosexual marriages are allowed, incestual marriages should be too. Love is love as you all say, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
I equate this comment with racism

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
No. It makes him just as bad as a racist.

Because that's still discrimination, and discrimination has no target.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
I said that I equate that comment with racism (i.e. it's just as bad). I wasn't saying that Bush was a racist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Garland
It's not racism. "Race"-ism

---

Garland, can you say Homer-ism? Thought not.

I didn't say he was racist. Then someone else explained it. Then I did too. You still don't understand.:mad:

It's pretty much been proven that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Think about it - given the vast majority of people who discriminate against homosexuals, who in their right mind would choose to be one unless it were natural for them? It's almost conclusively been linked to a genetic imbalance in chemicals of some sort, I believe. I don't know much about it beyond that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man
It's pretty much been proven that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Think about it - given the vast majority of people who discriminate against homosexuals, who in their right mind would choose to be one unless it were natural for them? It's almost conclusively been linked to a genetic imbalance in chemicals of some sort, I believe. I don't know much about it beyond that.

---

I wouldn't say it's "pretty much been proven" yet. There's evidence that this might indeed be true, but no solid facts. It's like the so-called "obesity gene."

Besides, there are plenty of other things we humans do despite the opinions of the majority.

True. The evidence is quite strong, in any case. And I don't much like the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" attitude anyway :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
If a man is allowed to marry another man, who is to say that a man can't also marry his sister, an eight-year-old girl, a cow, or even his favorite chair?

---

I find this VERY offensive. It simply falls back on the ideal that homosexuals are the same thing as pedophiles. First of all, an 8-Year-Old girl is not old enough to form a decision of this magnetude on her own. In my experience this excuse is just another way of people saying "It...it's just wrong...!" without seeming like a religious zealot who cannot think without reading the bible. I mean there is a massive difference between homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia.

I defy anyone to give me a reason why this is a bad thing without resorting to "morality" or the above argument. If one convincing argument is given, I'll never speak of this again.

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.)

Harmless Pigeon, that wasn't the line I was referring to. My correction of the term racist was in reference to your post where you said:

"That person basically said that marriage is Christian, and that therefore only Christian people should get married. Not only is that blind discrimination, but it also is racist. What kind of logic is that?"

Sorry for the confusion. I was only pointing out that his comment didn't make him racist. Sorry if you're upset or anything though. Didn't mean anything by it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man
It's pretty much been proven that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Think about it - given the vast majority of people who discriminate against homosexuals, who in their right mind would choose to be one unless it were natural for them? It's almost conclusively been linked to a genetic imbalance in chemicals of some sort, I believe. I don't know much about it beyond that.

---

It's not really a chemical imbalance, more like with some interior sagital area of the brain that tends to be wider in homosexuals...I forgot the full terminology...but it was an interesting read in a bio-statistics book.

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.

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.)

---

So just because the sanctity of marriage has been "flushed down the crapper," does that mean that we should leave it there?

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.)

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.

---

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.

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.

That post was very disturbing, DocFrance.

No legal basis? How about discrimination due to gender? That's the only reason they're not being allowed, because they're not the "right" gender. Biological basis has no place in the courtroom.

And actually, I can think of TONS of cultures that approve, and practice homosexuality. More than those who shun it. And biologically? That can already be disproved by saying that we don't follow our base instincts. We're beyond that.

A same sex couple is just like a heterosexual couple who won't/can't have children. The legalities between the couple and their adopted child would be the same as if it were any other married couple. The only difference would be the sex of one partner. Denying them any of these rights based on their sex is discrimination.

Marriage is a right, not a privilege only given to those who meet your own personal moral standard. No, you're definitely not a racist, but your attitudes are the same. Why does it matter about the gender of one partner? Do you think they can't truly love each other? Is that even a requirement of marriage? You can't possibly measure that, so that's out. Is it because they can't procreate? What about people who are impotent or infertile? Because they have the hardware that could've worked is irrelevant. So what if taxes change? Money is why you're limiting these people's rights? This is a tired, tired arguement, always made by closed minded people. It's the same thing they argued about when interracial couples started happening, which I should hope seems like a ridiculous one now. Yet, the same attitudes prevail. It's sad.

Marriage doesn't presume anything about children. I suppose maybe that's a tradition, and sure, if you want to continue that, that's fine. I don't see why it gives you the right to say who is fit to be a parent based on only gender. If the man were with a woman, he'd be a fit parent, but because he's with another man, he's not? What kind of logic is that? I don't understand it.

History is also not a very good point. That's so completely self centered. Your culture, one that shuns homosexuality, is better than those that embrace it? That's one of the ways that the union was formed. One. Just because it's the one in this country doesn't make it universally right, it doesn't make it legally valid at all, and it certainly doesn't make you any better than other cultures who developed differently, especially in such a slight difference, like gender.

I consider this a social evolution. The recognition that we shouldn't define people's lives for them. Women are no longer bound to be house wives, minorities aren't discriminated against, and homosexual marriage is being legalized. Already is in many places.

And the bible contains truth? It also contains some really awful, awful stuff. Yay, slavery. But let's not argue about that. Yes, it does have some words of wisdom. Again though, this is legally irrelevant.

Maybe marriage has always been between a man and a women in western society, but again, that's not universal.

"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.’"

Why? Please answer why without using any of the reasons I've discounted above. How is it not gender discrimination? I see why it's against your morals, but your morals aren't the issue here. Your morals don't have to apply to every other person's relationships. And they shouldn't. It's not your relationship, it's not your partner, it's not your family, it's not your life. Why is the gender of someone's partner ANY business of yours? You want to preserve the santity of marriage? Fine, marry a girl, raise a family. That doesn't mean that everyone in the world should follow in your footsteps, even if you think it would be better for them, or the world. You don't have any valid legal, or social reason for thinking that. And I mean actual negative implications.

I'd suggest that everybody actually read my post, instead of just skimming over it and deciding it was "conservative hogwash." Nowhere in there does it mention that the Bible is my basis for my argument (in fact, I'm an atheist), which is what you people keep saying about my arguments. From your responses, I get the impression that you didn't even read my post. Of course, no one is forcing you to read it, because, after all, my opinions are "filled with hate" and "closed-minded."

And you know what else? For the most part, all I see is people attacking me, when they should be attacking my argument, saying things like I belong in the KKK, or that I'm pretty much a racist.

EDIT: Actually, there are some people who actually attack my argument, but they're few and far between. Thank you, Emerald Aeris, I can actually respect your opinion now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
I'd suggest that everybody actually read my post, instead of just skimming over it and deciding it was "conservative hogwash." Nowhere in there does it mention that the Bible is my basis for my argument (in fact, I'm an atheist), which is what you people keep saying about my arguments. From your responses, I get the impression that you didn't even read my post. Of course, no one is forcing you to read it, because, after all, my opinions are "filled with hate" and "closed-minded."

And you know what else? For the most part, all I see is people attacking me, when they should be attacking my argument, saying things like I belong in the KKK, or that I'm pretty much a racist.

EDIT: Actually, there are some people who actually attack my argument, but they're few and far between. Thank you, Emerald Aeris, I can actually respect your opinion now.


"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. "

---

Then quit referring to "religious" reaons then...if you are actually an atheist. And I wish you would just answer Aeris' questions, since you tend to respect her opinion(even though it's almost the same opinion many of us have had throughout this post).

We actually read your posts...maybe it's just that you don't really understand or remember what you said and in the context you say it in. Because you keep referring to "religious states" and "religious reasons." If you really are an atheist, religion should have no valid part in your argument because it's something you don't believe in.

I'm not gonna say anything, but I'm with you DocFrance. Just know that my support is with you. I'd rather not get myself in an argument.

Marraige is just a title and a tax break now-a-days. A country with a 50% divorce rate shouldn't cry out on the sanctity of marraige. Let those who aren't divorced one or more times claim the high moral ground to make such statements. With 5 minute marraiges in Las Vegas casinos, and divorces equally fast, and marraiges that last hardly a year in many cases, where past presidents have honored the "sanctity of marraige" with mistresses and intern sex-play, what sanctity is there? Let'em marry. Noone cares that much anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
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.

---

Wow, that was kind of mean. I didn't see any misuse of big words in his post. Just because he doesn't agree with what you and the majority (of people at this forum) agree with doesn't make him "hateful." I don't agree with you either, am I hateful too?

A couple sections of his post were a little verbose, but for the most part it was fine.

Calling people hateful in this arguement isn't solely based on that you disagree. It's because you're denying gays rights simply because they're gay. Not that I agree that you're hateful. That's an awfully strong word. I would really like you nay-sayers to tell your arguement to a real gay couple, telling them they can't get married and see how they react. I've known people to be reduced to tears. How would you feel if people kept trying to make it so that you couldn't marry? Maybe you're not hateful, but I think that's pretty awful. I don't understand how you can want to do that to people, and how you don't see it as being exactly the same as when interracial couples were taboo.

Clarity on these points and my other big post would be nice. I understand why you would think it's wrong. What I don't understand is why you're forcing your beliefs on others, especially on something like who they're going to marry. As long as they're consenting adults, it shouldn't be an issue.

Well, seeing as I have no real governmental authority at all, you can't really say that I'm forcing my beliefs on others. I would never say to someone that they CAN'T get married, because I have no authority to make it that way. However, I would say that I don't WANT them to be, and I would do everything that is legal and within my power to make it that way, even in an uphill battle. If I lose, then so be it - I will accept the winning side. If I'm forcing my beliefs on others, than so is everyone else on this board.

Also, I'm not saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married just because they're gay. If two heterosexual men wanted to be married, I'd be against that as well.

I do not believe that marriage is right that is inalienable to every American citizen. Rather, I believe it is a privilege, and that certain requirements must be met in order to enjoy said privilege. It is my beleif (I repeat, BELIEF) that marriage should remain as a union between only a man and a woman.

I suppose you're right about the forcing beliefs thing, but the difference is that you're denying people rights by keeping the law the way it is, and that's not the case if the law was changed. I still stand by what I said.

And please, the hetero man/man thing is the same thing. It's the same idea. It's still discriminatory.

Ok, I see why you believe gays shouldn't marry, but what's the legal basis? I mean reasons that are legally valid. Reasons why illegalizd same sex marriages aren't gender discrimination.

Heterosexual unions don't lose anything if gay couples are allowed to marry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
Wow, that was kind of mean. I didn't see any misuse of big words in his post. Just because he doesn't agree with what you and the majority (of people at this forum) agree with doesn't make him "hateful." I don't agree with you either, am I hateful too?

---

Quit putting words into my mouth. If he doesn't agree with me, fine, doesn't mean I can't criticize him without legitimate reasoning.

Besides...why not stay on topic for a change? Quit trying to point out what YOU think is "hateful" and actually reply to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
Ok, I see why you believe gays shouldn't marry, but what's the legal basis? I mean reasons that are legally valid. Reasons why illegalizd same sex marriages aren't gender discrimination.

---

Henostly, I don't really have any legal basis for my beliefs. They're just my beliefs, and that's that. I don't have to back up my beliefs. Of course, if I don't back up my beliefs, I'm not going to convince you of them. But really, what is? No amount of arguing is going to suddenly going to convince you that gays should not be allowed to marry, nor is it going to convince me that they should be allowed to marry.

Rather than have this argument remain in stalemate, with the two of us launching the same views at eachother over and over, I concede. My beliefs still hold strong, but I concede nonetheless. Congratulations, you have the better argument.

Besides, this whole thing was making me more pissed off than normal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
Besides...why not stay on topic for a change? Quit trying to point out what YOU think is "hateful" and actually reply to the topic.

---

I did and no one replied to it, I assume because my points were all too valid to be argued. :love: I think YOU should stop being hateful now. :love: :love:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
I did and no one replied to it, I assume because my points were all too valid to be argued. :love: I think YOU should stop being hateful now. :love: :love:

---

It's not my fault no one took your seriously. And please...just stay on topic and quit nitpicking. That's probably why people won't respond to what you have to say.

If you want to stop hate, then why do you disagree about my argument for equal rights for homosexuals? Why do you disagree with my views that people who have no control of their will be denied rights? Why should you care why homosexuals should get married? They won't bother you unless you let them bother you.

I've always said rights are a privledge that are given until stripped away. Whether someone chooses to be a homosexual or not is not my concern because I don't let it. It's hate that causes discrimination against homosexuals and you should have some decency to reply to what people have to say in this topic instead of nitpicking what YOU THINK I said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
If you want to stop hate, then why do you disagree about my argument for equal rights for homosexuals?

---

Probably because *gasp* he has his own opinion! Believe it or not, your opinion isn't the only one that matters! Even though you keep chanting the "equal rights" mantra, nobody actually has to agree with you. Your logic really shows how close-minded you are. Ironic, hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
Also, I don't think it's a good defense to say that incestual marriages should be banned (and gay marriages not) because they produce defective children. Homosexual marriages produce no children at all, except through artifical insemination. And if an incestual couple really wanted healthy children, they could undergo the same procedure. So in the same light, if homosexual marriages are allowed, incestual marriages should be too. Love is love as you all say, right?

---

I took him seriously. I thought that this was a very good argument. Thanks, Tokki.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
Probably because *gasp* he has his own opinion! Believe it or not, your opinion isn't the only one that matters! Even though you keep chanting the "equal rights" mantra, nobody actually has to agree with you. Your logic really shows how close-minded you are. Ironic, hmm?

I took him seriously. I thought that this was a very good argument. Thanks, Tokki.

---

I never said people had to agree, but no one has a logical reason to ban equal rights from gays. Being biased against homosexuals makes you no better than a KKK member biased against color individuals because hate is all the same, no matter who it is against. I never said I was against incestral marriage either. What I said was that it should be taken into consideration because genetic defects increase 10 fold or so for babies that come from the same family line. That's a legitimate reason why people can ban incestral marriage(though I won't agree with it completely) because the life of a baby who could be potentially scarred for life isn't worth a few minutes of pleasure.

So like I said...you don't have to agree with me, much like I don't have to agree with you. I just think your idea of denying homosexual rights is flawed. If you were a homosexual, you'd probably kick yourself in the head for the comments you posted.

Well, my point (kinda) was that regardless of what you believe, there is no legal basis for it, thus it shouldn't be made a law. I believe a lot of things, but I don't think they should be a laws.

DocFrance: I don't think Dingo meant anyone had to agree with him by that comment. I think he meant that denying homosexuals rights is spreading the hateful attitudes, thus the opposite of what Tokki said, stopping hate. Ja? Ja. I don't how you interpreted it that way.

Tokki: No, I don't think incestual relationships should be banned. Or polygamies, for that matter. As long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of my business. On incest, the reason used is because there's a slightly high possibility of defects. Well, under that logic, I should never be allowed to marry (I have the lupus gene). The taboo against incest generally sums up to yeegh. Same with homosexuality, I think.

Dingo: The increase is not ten fold. Not even close. The ONLY difference is that IF one of the partners possesses a hereditary gene that's faulty, or one that codes for a disease, there's a better chance it could be passed on to the child. Because the parents are both from the same family line, there might not be a dominant proper gene to cancel the defective one. This is made even more unlikely because of the fact that the traits often need to be homologous in order to be expressed. These defects and diseases are almost always recessive. The main words here are: if, chance, might, etc. There's a chance the same situation could come up between two completely unrelated people. That's why there still are defects and such among unrelated couples.

I wouldn't say these guys are equal to KKK members. Same base attitude, but carried out a lot differently. Kinda. Seems like all the nay-sayers believe that homosexuality is a choice. Hm.

Aw, you guys sound so very angry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
Well, my point (kinda) was that regardless of what you believe, there is no legal basis for it, thus it shouldn't be made a law. I believe a lot of things, but I don't think they should be a laws.

DocFrance: I don't think Dingo meant anyone had to agree with him by that comment. I think he meant that denying homosexuals rights is spreading the hateful attitudes, thus the opposite of what Tokki said, stopping hate. Ja? Ja. I don't how you interpreted it that way.

Tokki: No, I don't think incestual relationships should be banned. Or polygamies, for that matter. As long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of my business. On incest, the reason used is because there's a slightly high possibility of defects. Well, under that logic, I should never be allowed to marry (I have the lupus gene). The taboo against incest generally sums up to yeegh. Same with homosexuality, I think.

Dingo: The increase is not ten fold. Not even close. The ONLY difference is that IF one of the partners possesses a hereditary gene that's faulty, or one that codes for a disease, there's a better chance it could be passed on to the child. Because the parents are both from the same family line, there might not be a dominant proper gene to cancel the defective one. This is made even more unlikely because of the fact that the traits often need to be homologous in order to be expressed. These defects and diseases are almost always recessive. The main words here are: if, chance, might, etc. There's a chance the same situation could come up between two completely unrelated people. That's why there still are defects and such among unrelated couples.

I wouldn't say these guys are equal to KKK members. Same base attitude, but carried out a lot differently. Kinda. Seems like all the nay-sayers believe that homosexuality is a choice. Hm.

Aw, you guys sound so very angry.

---

I didn't mean it was "10 fold", it was more like a figure of speech.

As for incest, I don't think it should be banned because there's a chance a "normal" baby would come out. Though that chance is decreased significantly, I don't think laws outlawing love is neccessary.

Even if homosexuality was a choice, it's none of my business to deny freedom of choice. I have 2 gay friends IRL and 1 gay friend online, and they all seem no different than any straight friends that I have. That's why I believe in equal treatment...because I've had a chance to know gays and realize that they are no different from any of us, much like an African is no different from an Indian.

But since some of you want to deny rights, why not put yourselves in their shoes? Imagine yourself as a homosexual and you would realize how difficult it is to live by life through a decision you made or a trait you were born with and realize that same sex marriage doesn't effect anyone unless they believe it will.

Throughout this entire debate I have yet to hear one, just ONE person say why we should have a right to forbid homosexual marriages.

DocFrance is trying to come up with a reason. I don't believe in homosexual marriages, but there really isn't a reason, besides what the Bible says. And, unfortunately, that damn first amendment keeps that from meaning anything.

Oh well. Why should I care about what goes on in a government that I have no voice in? Sure...an incompetent 40-year-old can vote, but a 15-year-old that wants to be involved with issues can't.

Dingo_Jellybean, you keep saying the same thing over without listening to what ANYONE else is saying. WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. In fact, we don't really have all that much against homosexuality. We just want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Whether you like it or not, that's our opinion and we're not going to take yours no matter how many times you repeat it so please don't say anything else if you have nothing new to say. :love:

Behold the Void, if Bush says it's illegal, then it is, because he was voted president in YOUR democracy. So there's you legal justification.

Emerald Aeris, that's something completely different. I'd vote for homosexual marriages if incestual marriages and polygamies were also legalized. Peple can't go "oh equal rights!!!!" then go only half way. So if marriage is going to be compeltely equal, then why not?

btw I'm a girl :(

Quote:

---

Behold the Void, if Bush says it's illegal, then it is, because he was voted president in YOUR democracy. So there's you legal justification

---

No, it isn't. Bush isn't the government, and the law is unconstitutional and Bush knows it. That's why he's trying to get an amendment, since an amendment cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

And trust me, I didn't vote for him. I will be old enough to vote in this election, however, and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that he does not remain in office.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, so tell me, if you did, why must you be flippant about this issue?

Its not his job to say something is illegal. That is the supreme court's decision.

I still don't see ANY good reason why we shouldn't let them get married. It doesn't make any sense to me. Sure the Bible is against it. Ok, just don't let them get married in your churches. Ok, you're trying to preserve the 'sanctity' of marriage? Sanctity means:

sanc·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-t)
n. pl. sanc·ti·ties
1.Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2.The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3.Something considered sacred.

Now, how does the sanctity of something determine its legal reason?

I don't want to seem rude here, but there is NO legal reason to ban it. Its all religious, and that is not allowed, so you're without an argument. Why you keep trying to get EVERYone to accept this and not just keep them out of the churches, which you DO have jurisdiction, is beyond me. And for the record, I am not trying to force anything on you. Like I said, you can ban non-whites from your churches for all I care, just don't try to ban this nationwide without a clear secular purpose.

One more thing. I don't believe in marriage in the first place. Does that mean I want to ban it. No, because I would be denying tax-paying citizens their rights.

Why is letting homosexuals get married detroying that? Why MUST it only be between a man and a woman? What does "preserving the sanctity" even mean? Is there any chance I'll get a relatively simple answer for these?

I consider marriage a love thing. People see it as permanence. I don't associate it with gender. I guess you do.

This entire topic is messed up. There' s no way we will convince anyone else to believe what we mean. So why argue about it?

Oh, never mind, I remember--because you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Garland
We're a republic and have an electoral college because we don't want the vast majority of the people to have a say. If the people are too dumb to be allowed direct elections, then they're too dumb to have their oppinions taken seriously. We elect leaders because they're better than us at making decisions, and not to simply rubber-stamp any decision we desire. Bush shouldn't act in our will. He should act above it.

---

That is complete and utter bull .

We have the electoral college, because it has been in place since the beginning of our government. There was no TV, radio, and nation-wide news media. For example, in an election, most southerners might not have a clue who a nothern candidate was. That system has perpetuated because no one's bothered trying to remove it, and because only three times in America's history has a President been elected without winning the popular vote, and then only by small margins. Plus, the electoral vote is based on the popular vote, just not in numbers alone(by states).

ANYWAY, just thought I should clear that up. I'll keep my opinion on the issue at hand to myself, for now(mainly because I really need to go to bed and don't have time to type out a lengthy reply).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Behold the Void
No, it isn't. Bush isn't the government, and the law is unconstitutional and Bush knows it. That's why he's trying to get an amendment, since an amendment cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

And trust me, I didn't vote for him. I will be old enough to vote in this election, however, and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that he does not remain in office.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, so tell me, if you did, why must you be flippant about this issue?

---

Oh course you didn't vote for him, you're 17 years old (according to your profile :love:), so really, you have no position to critisize him when you're not even at the age of consent yet. And by doing everything in your power, that means doing nothing except casting one vote, right? :)

I don't know too much about American politics, so I won't argue there. :) But homosexual marriages are illegalized now, aren't they? So there you have it. He does have SOME power, apparently.

I wouldn't say I'm "flippant" but it's not much of a debate if it's just 50 people against DocFrance. :) Plus I'm Christian. If you couldn't tell by now.

Actually, the electoral college was meant to make sure that the people didn't accidently vote the wrong person. It was supposed to give certain people the power to affect an election, should the election go in favor of someone deemed unsuitable. Laws have restricted this, making it much harder for the electoral college to play such a large roll, but doesn't really need to be there anyways.

It's not 50 people against DocFrance. It's 50 people against DocFrance and a half. I support his belief wholeheartedly, but I don't wanna argue about it because there's no point to it. And plus, I'm not gonna make a difference. I can't vote. I just find it funny to read responses and comment on them.

So many people posting so fast it's hard to keep up.

Quote:

---

Oh course you didn't vote for him, you're 17 years old (according to your profile :love:), so really, you have no position to critisize him when you're not even at the age of consent yet. And by doing everything in your power, that means doing nothing except casting one vote, right? :)

---

Age of Consent=16

And I believe I am in a position to criticize him, as his decisions are affecting the country I live in in what I believe to be a negative way.

Quote:

---

I don't know too much about American politics, so I won't argue there. :) But homosexual marriages are illegalized now, aren't they? So there you have it. He does have SOME power, apparently.

---

That's been changing. One state has already found the laws to be unconstitutional (as they are) and is now granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples. The situation is becming increasingly murky.

See I told you I don't know anything about American politics :( *goes to bed*

I against all marriages but only because im more nihilistic than ideological.

Anyways, for those whose who wish to participate, I like how some European countries do it. They dont give marriage licenses to anybody. Instead, they recognize civil unions for everybody regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The civil unions then entitle people to their legal benefits. Marriage is left to the churches but don't have any legal basis.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Behold the Void
Age of Consent=16

---

Huh? What type of consent are you referring to?

The only time I've ever heard the Age of Consent term used is in reference to whether you are old enough to decide whether you want to have sex, which is 16 in America.

*can't resist*

HOWEVER, you must be 18 in order to get a marriage license.

*goes to bed REALLY THIS TIME*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
Dingo_Jellybean, you keep saying the same thing over without listening to what ANYONE else is saying. WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. In fact, we don't really have all that much against homosexuality. We just want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Whether you like it or not, that's our opinion and we're not going to take yours no matter how many times you repeat it so please don't say anything else if you have nothing new to say. :love:

---

No, denying rights of other people is hate. Because hate is irrational, it has no justification...much like denying rights. When you deny someone the rights of marriage, that's a form of hate.

Sanctity of marriage, bull. The divorce rate is high enough as it is...you call that sanctity? People marry for the sake of being married these days. I'm also not forcing my opinions on you, regardless of what you think. I just think your views are flawed and biased.

But like I said, since none of you anti-gay-marriage bashers have answered...WHAT IF YOU WERE A HOMOSEXUAL? What you would truthfully do if you were denied the legal rights of marriage?

Dingo, you're not making very good points. People are denied rights for other reasons that hate. I'm denied the right to punch you. They just believe it's better off. Hate, like I said, is too strong a word.

As for them wanting to preserve marriage, I'm sure they'll argue that just because it's bad doesn't mean we should let it become worse.

And I'm sure they wouldn't care because they'd still have the same views. Obviously they believe preserving marriage is more important than hurting the couple's feelings/angering people.

Or maintaining the term "free" in "free country".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
In fact, we don't really have all that much against homosexuality. We just want to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

---

Well, I'm sorry, but that argument is instantly negated by the word sanctity. As I posted earlier, sanctity is defined as something that is holy or sacred. The first amendment says that government and any and all of its processes are separate from church and religion. So, by saying you are only trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage, is still trying to remove rights with a religious argument, and as I said before religion has NO place in our government. Also, don't give me that whole 'Ten Commandments' argument. The secular laws from them that we supposedly base our country around, were not original ideas. Remember the code of Hammurabi? that was before 3000 BCE. Whereas the exodus of the Jews from Egypt happened aroun 2500 BCE (believe) during the reign of Ramses II (I'm not sure of this, any corrections on who ruled during this period will be welcome). The only real difference between the laws from the code and the commandments are that there are far less. (I don't think the punishments were mentioned, I'll check my bible later.)

Actually, no, sactity can also apply to something very revered. Sacred doesn't necessarily mean religion. Am I the only person here who uses dictionary.com? Check your facts before you post, people.

However, in the context being used, sanctity has religious connotations. Something being sacred implies holiness, a religious concept in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
No, denying rights of other people is hate. Because hate is irrational, it has no justification...much like denying rights. When you deny someone the rights of marriage, that's a form of hate.

---

Unfortunately, hate being irrational does not imply anything irrational is hateful.

No. Obviously in the context it doesn't since they said they were atheists. C'mon now.

The word sanctity has religious connotations in and of itself, the word is a religious word. However, I'm not here to argue somantics, so I'll just leave this one alone.

http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

Finally.

Hahahah, good stuff.

Legal reasons that support anti-same-sex marriages? How about the laws that state that marriage is a union between a man and woman? They exist in various states, do they not? I'm not stating my belief again. That's sort of irrelevant in this cause. We're not talking about the merits of hetero/homosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages potentially can house abusive spouses, poor living conditions, abusive parents, other nonsense. So let's outlaw heterosexual marriages. Homosexual marriages is wrong because for whatever reason (I can't think of even one that isn't specific to homosexual marriages). So let's outlaw marriages altogether. Like a parent taking away the toy from squabbling children. I support that wholeheartedly. I really do.

Back to the matter. Since this is a legal matter, let's figure this out the legal way. If the anti-homosexual marriage advocates lose this time, they still have the right to fight it some more. I suppose this is a good thing, having the freedom to always counter what 'seems' to be unpopular. This is why I don't really support democracy -- it doesn't allow the minority to have an equal chance in making changes. Good for USA.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
Dingo, you're not making very good points. People are denied rights for other reasons that hate. I'm denied the right to punch you. They just believe it's better off. Hate, like I said, is too strong a word.

As for them wanting to preserve marriage, I'm sure they'll argue that just because it's bad doesn't mean we should let it become worse.

And I'm sure they wouldn't care because they'd still have the same views. Obviously they believe preserving marriage is more important than hurting the couple's feelings/angering people.

---

You keep saying people should refer to a dictionary, maybe you should do the same.

Hate: "b. To detest. 2. To feel dislike or distaste for."

They are detesting that homosexuals should have equal rights. And also, the dictionary isn't the end all, be all form of how a word should be used(I'm not accusing you of that, but how you've said people should refer to dictionaries is a bit clumsy, since words have connotative meanings).

Because what other reason can you give for denying homosexuals the same rights everyone else has?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guu
Unfortunately, hate being irrational does not imply anything irrational is hateful.

---

That's not the context I meant it in. As you saw after "much like", that doesn't imply that everything irrational is hateful.

Legally yes, there is a ban, but it is unconstitutional, plain and simple, for it denies a group their rights to marriage for, in essence, religious regions.

My god. You don't have anything new to say, do you.

I don't detest homosexuals, but I think homosexuality it wrong. It ahs nothing to do with the individuals, though. The saying is "hate the sin, not the sinner." So please. For the love of god. Get a new argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

Finally.

---

xD

Anyway, I'm truly divided on the issue of same-sex marriages. Part of me is in favor of allowing it immediately. I mean, two men are free to have a relationship together. How will a mere marriage effect things that dramatically?

On the other hand, however, you have to consider the consequences of this. Ramifications for this type of thing are almost inevitable. In other words, I can see where those writers for the Onion are coming from.

And yes(to whoever said it), I do believe many states have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. However, that wouldn't effect an amendement, if one were made.

Also, to all of you who are spouting, "it's unconstitutional" over and over again: yeah, we get the point. Do I think it's unconstitutional? I'm really not sure. I do know that's for the Supreme Court to decide...however, IF an amendment is made, then it's out of the Court's hands. Heh. The amendement procedure, however, is a difficult process. And if it passes, then it would definitely be the will of the people. That's what the US is all about isn't it? A government run for the people, by the people?

This thread has degenerated to the stage of endless repetitions and personal swipes, so I'm closing it. It might get re-opened later, it might not.

Have a nice day.

Actually Big D, I don't really see the personal swipes. Well, if you consider Dingo telling DocFrance that his views make him "like the kkk" then that would make some sense, but in all, the whole thread is just getting more interesting. I shall reopen this thread in hopes that this discussion of the topic will continue in a mature manner.

I hope you don't mind. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Proto
Actually Big D, I don't really see the personal swipes. Well, if you consider Dingo telling DocFrance that his views make him "like the kkk" then that would make some sense, but in all, the whole thread is just getting more interesting. I shall reopen this thread in hopes that this discussion of the topic will continue in a mature manner.

I hope you don't mind. :)

---

It's better you leave it closed. Closing the thread killed most of the debate anyways.

Dingo_Jellybean is a personal swipe!!! >:O



Ok, that came out wrong. <_<


EDIT:

I can't decide which one is more ambiguous, "swipe" or "swiper".

You're not "hating the sin," you're demanding that certain rights be denied the group because you feel they are sinners. It's no different than saying that, say, Catholics can't be married, because you have some problem with the Pope.


And Doc France is not like the KKK at all. Perhaps he is like Strom Thurmond, but not the KKK - I don't see the good doctor killing and terrorizing to prove his point.

No, we're not demanding anything. You asked our opinion and we told you it. You didn't like it. I really don't care. Deal with it.

This is in response to DocFrance's post a couple pages back (sorry to bring up an old post), but gays want to marry for other reasons than "just paying less taxes."

Here are some scenarios about rights they won't have if they don't get married.

1) A man's homosexual partner has been diagnosed with cancer and gets weaker every day. This man goes to visit his partner in the hospital in his dying days, but the nurse tells him, "Sorry, only spouse and direct family members."

2) Two women have been unable to get married (because of the law), but have been together 3 years. One of the women has an 5 year old from a previous marriage that ended in divorce. Six years pass and the child is now 11 and has learned to love both women as his/her parents. One day, his biological mother dies. But because they weren't married, the other woman the child has been nurtured by does not get custody.

Also, I'm going to post the same thing that I post everywhere else: A black can marry a white, a pedophile can marry an axe murderer, an 18 year old can marry a 90 year old, and to further prove how retarded these anti-gay marriage laws are, a GAY can marry a LESBIAN.

I had to be a mod-whore, in some form, but don't double post. We tend to kill people for doin' that.

No need to mod-whore. Just report the post. :P ~Proto

Im not religious, im an Atheist. I still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its just the way its been, and I think its the way it should stay. Its not my fight to get it revoked, so Im going to stay out of it.

Tokkiquil - if you had taken the position "I think gay marriage is wrong, but it does not affect me if it is legalized so I would have no real objection to it being illegal," your last statement would have been correct - that's merely an opinion, and by all means you should be able to voice it. But by arguing for the banning of gay marriages, you(this is a general you, not you specifically) are attempting to forcefully impose your opinion on others, in a matter that does not affect you.* I mean, would you argue all sins should be outlawed?

English needs more pronouns >=[

EDIT:

*Not that this is, in itself, wrong. It's human nature, but you should be aware you are doing it. Even as I say this, I am trying to impose MY opinion on you.

Funny, people waste their time on issuse like this while people are starving, dying in war, losing thier jobs, and all the government wants to do is give more tax money to the lobbyists. Ever wonder why the econmy hit rock-bottom? Because people in the 90s spent more time worrying about a stain on a dress, wheter or not eggs make you fat, and Calista Flockheart's weight. What a wonderful society we live in...