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:
Well, SORRY. :rolleyes:Whoever made the marrying chairs joke-that's bad taste.
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!
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
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.
(-o-)
-tie fighter
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.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.
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.
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.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.
It's not gonna pass. George Sr tried to pass an amendment banning flag-burning, but it didn't go through.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
Im sure flag burning is different then two gay people ''marrying'' eachother.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.
Last edited by Casey; 02-26-2004 at 12:28 AM.
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:
Edit: Wait, wait, here's another really good post on the topic.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.
npIf 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.
..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?
Last edited by Wrexsoul; 02-26-2004 at 02:12 AM.
Pretty much, no. Sometimes, these discussions turn into an exercise in groupthink, and dissenting opinions are sometimes considered "invalid."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?
Oh well, I still like arguing. It keeps this place exciting.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
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.
Posting Permissions
