Gay Marriage - Merged [Archive]

Protosschick99

02-21-2004, 2:50 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/samesex.marriage/index.html

Remember those mass-marriages in San Francisco on Valentine's Day? :) Our favorite movie-star-turned-governor now says they don't count. Discuss.Thank the Lord they don't count! We don't need none of that in this state :p Same sex marriages are repulsive and sad to say, sinful. I pray for those ppl who are going the wrong way :(

(And most likely what I have said will step on some toes but ya know what? I don't care :) I'm a God pleaser not a ppl pleaser :D)

I'm not familiar with the "good book", is there any passage that specifically condemns homosexuality?
Romans 1:27 - "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."

Lev 18:22 - "do not practice homosexuality, it is a detestable sin"

Lev 20:13[i] "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act are guilty of a capitol offense."

1 cor 6:9-10 "Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God."

It straight up says homosexuality is a sin.

MacG

02-21-2004, 2:53 AM

Thank the Lord they don't count! We don't need none of that in this state :p Same sex marriages are repulsive and sad to say, sinful. I pray for those ppl who are going the wrong way :(

(And most likely what I have said will step on some toes but ya know what? I don't care :) I'm a God pleaser not a ppl pleaser :D)
Screw your god, because people have their rights. God don't punish you if others stray from your so call path. So why do you have to hate?

Protosschick99

02-21-2004, 2:58 AM

Hey man, I never said that I hated.

Btw, how DARE you speak of MY God that way! He is Almighty, omnipotent, powerful, always there, wonderful, loving, and a PERFECT GOD! I pray that you'll be blessed in the Name of Jesus! :D

Anywayz, according to you ppl have rights but ya know what? There are also laws ya know. And it says in the Bible to follow the laws of the land that you live in--And right now it says that same sex marriages are not legal. So I think ppl should just suck it up and leave it alone. :p That's just my opinion though.

Demon_Child

02-21-2004, 3:07 AM

Ok now, don't make me lay down the law on all of you if you don't keep the flaming down to a minimum. If you want to discuss religion and homosexuality in a more intellectual level, then I suggest that you take it to the Intellectual Roundtable, otherwise I will be forced to end this thread HERE AND NOW.

Protosschick99

02-21-2004, 3:09 AM

I'm not flaming in any way chick, comon now. Have you seen one remark saying, "You [insert evil name calling word here]!!" ? :(

Demon_Child

02-21-2004, 3:15 AM

If I wasn't doing my job, PC, then this thread can and will be reaching a newer low. When I see a thread going in the wrong direction, then I will have to lay down some strict, but fair rules. This, unfortunately applies to everyone. :(

Protosschick99

02-21-2004, 3:57 AM

Alrighty, I understand. :) Hey, at least you are doing your job unlike some ppl who's names or organization that I shall not mention, lolz :p

MacG

02-21-2004, 5:56 AM

Yeah, I am in a U.S Government politics class right now and this is one of the topics covered in discussion. There are some people out with some crazy opinions, like the one I stated earlier.

I don't see how letting gays marry affects any of us. Their arguement is basicly once they let gays marry, we all will become gay or something. Or if they let gays marry, might as well let us marry our pets. Which don't make sense.

This nation is not commanded by the bible. Therefore, there is nothing unconsitutional about same sex marriages. They should have the rights as regular couples.

Infested_Al

02-21-2004, 7:43 AM

i didnt know u were a christian protosschick, thats cool.

remember guys, its not the message thats wrong, its the people who think they need to enforce the message.

and dont forget, not all people who dislike fags are christian, there are a lot of NON christian haters too.

Staind

02-21-2004, 9:56 AM

Screw your god, because people have their rights. God don't punish you if others stray from your so call path. So why do you have to hate?
Actually he does, since sinning is unavoidable we are punished for our sins but if we trust in the Lord, repent and attempt to master them then we're OK. But, sinning when you know it's wrong, and then carrying it out for your life time with no effort to overcome it can be seen as a rejection of God, unless you repent. (as seen with homosexuality).

Homosexual marriage is NOT a right. Just because people want something doesn't mean it's a right, you're overusing the word too much. Marriage is based from Christian ideas and fundamentals. It's a part of the Christian Religion, so why should homosexuals have the "right" to be married under a Religion that condemns their lifestyle?

Why gay marriage is not a right:

Since the United States was founded by Religious leaders with Religious intent: (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams). Using this as a basis, we know that prostitution is morally wrong and is therefore not a right: A Right is “Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).
a. tradition: Homosexual marriage has not been accepted in Christian faith since it's creation, and homosexuals in general have not been accepted until recently.
b. nature: Since the basis of the US Constitution is Christian Religion, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and is not right. Plus, one could argue in human naturality that we weren't meant to be homosexual as it serves no useful purpose.
c. law: Homosexual marriage has never really been openly accepted in the eyes of the law.

So please, stop misusing the word "rights". :P

MacG

02-21-2004, 3:48 PM

Marriage is based from Christian ideas and fundamentals. It's a part of the Christian Religion, so why should homosexuals have the "right" to be married under a Religion that condemns their lifestyle?
Marriage not based only from Christian Ideas. Not everyone goes to a Church to get marry you know? Some gays/lesbians are married for 50 years+. Longer then most "Christian" marriages. They don't need Church Blessings. All they want is a Marriage License from the government. So they can visit their love one in the hospital, or have their belongings given to them when one dies, or have tax beneifits. Man, yall just tripping.

Infested_Al

02-21-2004, 5:42 PM

maybe your the one tripping dawg

homie wise up yo

OboeGuru

02-21-2004, 11:58 PM

Okay y'all here's the One Reason to Rule Them All why homosexuals should have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals: THEY CAN'T FSCKING HELP IT!!!

n the ongoing effort to determine whether sexual orientation is hard-wired, University of Chicago scientists have used high-tech imaging to confirm that the hypothalamus - the sex center in the brain - functions differently in gay men than in heterosexual men.

The University of Chicago's Howard Moltz, professor emeritus in psychology, headed the team showing that sexual orientation in men appears to be connected with brain metabolism. The report was presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans by Leann Kinnunen, a University of Chicago psychology graduate.

Using positron emission tomography (PET) to monitor the neurochemical function of the hypothalamus in eight exclusively heterosexual men and eight exclusively homosexual men, Moltz found a significantly greater level of activity in straight men compared with gays. The hypothalamus is thought to regulate sexual response and behavior, according to animal studies. "Whether this neurochemical difference is the cause of, or a consequence of, or something that accompanies this kind of heterosexuality and homosexuality is yet to be determined," Moltz said. "But it's the strongest research I know to suggest that it might be hard-wired."

How the hypothalamus functions in lesbian and straight females was not studied, but it is likely that they have patterns of activity that are similar to those of males, Moltz said. "I would expect that a neurochemical difference would show up in lesbians as it did in our exclusively homosexual or heterosexual men," said Moltz, who said he plans to conduct similar studies with women.

Meyer-Bahlburg said the importance of the research was in the use of new technology that provided clear-cut differences. "The results are stunning because these are very extreme groups, and he finds these pervasive differences that are lighting up on his brain scans that involve a large part of the known sexual circuitry that we know from animals," he said.

Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine psychiatrist, said the findings need to be replicated, but that even then they may reflect the current functioning of the brain and not pinpoint the cause of homosexuality. "The important point in terms of the cause of homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, is that it isn't due to choice," he said. "None of us as little children sat down and said to ourselves, `When I grow up do I want to be attracted to men or to women?' We simply discover in growing up who it is we're attracted to," Berlin said.

Numerous studies in animals show that the hypothalamus mediates sexual arousal and sexual behavior, but its role in human sexuality has been little studied. And although the hypothalamus may play an important role in human sexual response, other parts of the brain, especially the thought-processing neocortex, are likely to also exert considerable influence.

Gay men were selected for brain scans if they said they had never been aroused by a woman, and straight men were chosen if they said they had never been aroused by a man. "This report fits in with an increasing body of data suggesting that sexual orientation has a biological basis," said Simon LeVay. In 1991, while at the University of California, San Diego, LeVay found in autopsy studies that the front section of the hypothalamus of heterosexual men was larger than that of heterosexual women and that the size in gay men was also small, nearly the same size as females. Another team of scientists last year reported that rams that copulated with other rams had a smaller hypothalamus than rams that copulated with ewes.

Moltz said other studies on living subjects failed to show significant differences in brain function between gays and straights probably because their samples included men whose sexual preferences included both males and females.

Dr. William Gilmer, a Houston neurologist and past president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, said that there is a growing understanding that "gay and straight brains are wired differently. Sexual orientation is no more a choice for a GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) person than a straight one."

"This study adds more evidence to the common belief of both gay and straight people that their basic sexual orientation is something they were born with," Gilmer said. "Most gay and straight people know what they think is attractive from their earliest sexual feelings, and those basic feelings don't change much through their lives."

Also, although our Constitution was founded on the principles of the Bible, that does not mean that those same principles hold true today. Much of the Constitution has changed in meaning so much that it can hardly be said that its current interpretation follows the laws of Christianity, which should NOT be the reason for anything. The only reason that no rights have been given to homosexuals throughout history is that every single leader in our history has been some denomination of Christian. It's about time we had an atheist or an agnostic callign the shots, Religious affiliation is the worst bias that plagues our society today, and it's about time something was done about it.

Duddits

02-22-2004, 12:11 AM

This nation is not commanded by the bible. Therefore, there is nothing unconsitutional about same sex marriages. They should have the rights as regular couples.Also, although our Constitution was founded on the principles of the Bible, that does not mean that those same principles hold true today. Much of the Constitution has changed in meaning so much that it can hardly be said that its current interpretation follows the laws of Christianity, which should NOT be the reason for anything. The only reason that no rights have been given to homosexuals throughout history is that every single leader in our history has been some denomination of Christian. It's about time we had an atheist or an agnostic callign the shots, Religious affiliation is the worst bias that plagues our society today, and it's about time something was done about it.
I pledge alligence
To the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic
For which it stands
One Nation
Under God
Indivisival
With liberty justice for all

OboeGuru

02-22-2004, 12:28 AM

Duddits

02-22-2004, 10:55 AM

Religous oppression?! Where are you getting this crap at? Last time I chck that 'outdated document' there was something written in their about freedom of religion. Just a question: would you mind giving me an estimate of the number of people who has immigrated here because of real religous opperession. Can't? I didn't think so because I can't either. Freedom of religion was why this country came to be, why it started.

Yes, I believe the Pledge of Alligence was written 'back in the day', but why then, if we are so oppressed here, are people still saying. We have 4 Jews and 1 Buddist in our first period class when we all say the pledge of alligence. I don't hear their clarity of speech faulter in the slightest when we get to 'Under God'.

Staind

02-22-2004, 12:42 PM

I've never really understood how you can build principles on the ideas based around a religion and then suddenly take it away and except these same principles to remain constant.

Fenguin

02-22-2004, 3:04 PM

So what? When was that written...oh back in the day when we still believed religious law was important. It's still there because of the religious oppression. It proves nothing. There are plenty of people who have tried to get that removed from the pledge, too. Religious oppression strikes again by telling them that they can't.

Another thing, the Constitution was supposed to be rewritten every generation or so to reflect the changing views of society. We're being ruled by an outdated document, you can't follow everything in the Constitution word-for-word. Um... that was only TJ. And everyone kicked TJ's ass because the idea was so impractical. That's why we have amendments! [both informal and formal]. So why don't we have an amendment to amend the God parts? Because we don't need nor want the hassle of making one!

OboeGuru

02-22-2004, 6:33 PM

Yes, I believe the Pledge of Alligence was written 'back in the day', but why then, if we are so oppressed here, are people still saying. We have 4 Jews and 1 Buddist in our first period class when we all say the pledge of alligence. I don't hear their clarity of speech faulter in the slightest when we get to 'Under God'.Probably because it was hammered into their head as children, but there I'm assuming that they've lived here all their life. Like if I said the pledge, I'd probably unconsciously say "under God" just out of the habit of saying it that way as a child. I would have to consciously remember to not say it. Jews believe in the same God as Christians (basically), so that's a pointless argument. "God" is a generic term anyways, a Buddhist would probably be saying it with the mindset of reffering to Buddha as "God."

And though TJ's idea may have been impractical, it's certainly one of the better ideas I've heard from those times.

Duddits

02-22-2004, 7:20 PM

Probably because it was hammered into their head as children, but there I'm assuming that they've lived here all their life. Like if I said the pledge, I'd probably unconsciously say "under God" just out of the habit of saying it that way as a child. I would have to consciously remember to not say it. Jews believe in the same God as Christians (basically), so that's a pointless argument. "God" is a generic term anyways, a Buddhist would probably be saying it with the mindset of reffering to Buddha as "God."
Hamered into their head by their Jewish and Buhddist parents? Yea. If they had any problems with it, the parents wouldn't have hammered it in. I know this because I know the people I'm talking about here.

BTW, the Buhddist used to live in Korea or China, I forget.

OboeGuru

02-22-2004, 7:22 PM

I meant hammered-in by the American school system, sorry, forgot to specify.

RoP

02-22-2004, 7:25 PM

How is it hammered in? Only little kids (whose opinions don't count for much at this point in their lives) say the pledge without thinking.

lots of people don't stand up during the pledge... people have other ways of getting ideas (besides school). isn't that crazy?

---

on topic: i just don't think it's right... physiologically or psychologically.

OboeGuru

02-22-2004, 7:36 PM

i just don't think it's right... physiologically or psychologically.
That's because your mind isn't wired to accomodate homosexuality. Think outside your mind's restrictions.

Fenguin

02-22-2004, 7:54 PM

I think that the question is more of a comparision between an intellectual and a moral viewpoint.
If one thinks about homosexuality with a purely scientific, unbiased and unsocialized point of view, it will seem OK; who's to say that male-female marriages are right and male-male/female-female marriages are wrong just because one of them is more common? Sometimes, the deviation from the mode may have a better reason to exist than the mode itself. Even though our organs were not made to accomodate homosexuality, it may just be because of many years of evolution with male-female marriages being the mode has caused our organs to become what they are now. However, if homosexuality was the mode a long time ago, who knows what could have happened to our organs? Obviously, they would not have developed to what they are today, since reproduction had to occur if we were to not die out. Perhaps males and females would even become separate species, or one of them could have ceased to exist. Another argument as to why homosexuality should be allowed is a matter of personal and private rights; people have a right to privacy, and should be allowed to do what they wish.
Then, we get to the moral and social issues. The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, and most of the world's population [and religions] view homosexuality as "not right" and even somewhat sickening. Many would not choose to live near a homosexual couple if they had a choice. In addition, many people view marriage as a union between a male and a female, so homosexuality is out of the question for them. They argue that since marriage is even defined by dictionaries that way, one can't possibly let homosexual couples marry. They also argue that homosexual couples cannot reproduce, so humans were not meant to be that way.
Since some people are more science-based and some people are more morality-based, and people's personal viewpoints/values are almost unchangeable, we cannot possibly try to argue and persuade people about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It's a matter of personal preference, based on the person's background and morals.

Duddits

02-22-2004, 7:59 PM

The beginning of that was quite disturbing Fenguin...

OboeGuru

02-22-2004, 8:09 PM

The only thing is that the popular opinion of homosexuality is more or less the bandwagon effect. Had homosexuality not been defined as a sin, it would most likely be wholly accepted in our society. THe dictionaries were (most likely) written and/or edited by biased individuals to say that specific definition of marriage. Religion biases people far too much on this subject.

Fenguin

02-22-2004, 8:12 PM

What can I say? Until recently, any deviation from the mode was treated with disrespect and even hatred. And since homosexuality was the minority, most people thought that it was wrong, so they more or less excluded it from definitions and such. However, don't start dissing religion; this is not the place for that.

OboeGuru

02-22-2004, 8:19 PM

I'm not dissing religion, I'm merely pointing out its influence on this subject. You can't deny that religion has everything to do with this topic.

MacG

02-23-2004, 1:25 AM

Scauthra

02-23-2004, 1:57 AM

*holds up a sign that everyone is shocked to read*

Yeah, the truth comes out. Cool huh?

RoP

02-23-2004, 8:58 AM

America was started on the pretense of religion guiding us.
THe Contitution has innumerable links to the Bible.

Infested_Al

02-23-2004, 9:16 AM

Unless someone put out the proof that Christianity governs this nation, Homosexual marriages should not be illegal. It doesn't matter if it conflicts with Christianity. Why the hell you care about someone marrying someone they love? It does no harm to you at all. I have to admit I was hater until I realize this doesn't affect me at all. Why should I blindly restrict their rights when I have these rights already? If I have the right to marry the one I love, they should also.

doesnt effect you mac? have fun paying more tax.

not to mention, if they pass this, soon people will be marrying their pets, their family etc. after all, why does it matter, i mean these people LOVE(ahahahha what a stupid made up emotion) their significant other. i mean fuck, why dont i just get up and marry this container of ice cream, i love its deliciousness and it releases the same chemicals into my body that person to person love would.

so yah, everyone help support me in marrying my ice cream GOGOG

Nuts

02-23-2004, 9:43 AM

Moved to IR as this pertains to issues of a more serious nature.

Some thoughts to ponder:

A majority of Americans are open to the idea of civil unions, yet disapprove of marriage. The reason for this being a corruption of the institution of marriage. Since marriage is a right bestowed by the people, to the people, should they not have a say in the definition of such a union? Civil Unions will provide the same benefits to homosexuals as marriage does to heteros, yet the religious sector won't feel trampled upon.

Additionally, the definition of marriage is quite clear in both our everyday vernacular and our legal system. In the event that homosexuals wish to marry under current laws, it is they that have the burden of proof. The situation is clear, the law is clear, the only difference is that homosexuals dislike or refuse to accept current law. This does not warrant a change in the law, nor does it make the law unconstitutional in and of itself. If homosexuals wish to join in union under the moniker of marriage, then they need to go through the proper channels, sign a petition, get it circulated and approved for legislation, and take it to the people for approval. Aye, but there's a rub. They won't do this, because they realize that the people will not approve, therefore they have resorted to corrupting certain politicians or installing certain political figures that are sympathetic to their cause. These figures (i.e. the MA Supreme Court) have taken the liberty to redefine the definition of marriage for the simple fact that it offends their personal feelings.

This my friends is the truly unconstitutional aspect of the ordeal. Legislation from the bench is totally unacceptable and should be met with swift consequences. They have disguised their ruling under "unconstitutional" grounds, well if this is the case, they do not require the legislation to create a new law. Yet they have proceeded to hand an edict to the MA legislature which is unheard of. This begs the question, does the MA Supreme Court feel that uncertain about their ruling, that they must rely on the legislature to reinforce their decision. Makes you go hrmmmmm.

Fenguin

02-23-2004, 5:14 PM

Since when did we have to get other people's permission to get married? Most of the time, you don't. I think it's about time we redefined marriage: it's a huge violation of liberty if we don't let some people get married and we let others get married. Since in most cases, you can't choose to be homosexual, and the love for the same gender was built into your subconscious mind at about the same time a heterosexual gets the love for the other gender, any restriction on what you can do with this love is purely a violation of a natural right: liberty. Liberty to do what one wants. I wouldn't say homosexual marriage is a threat to security, so why is it being oppressed?
In addition, I would like to know how homosexual-supporting politicians are "corrupted". Just because they stand for something that isn't right in some people's eyes means that they're evil? In addition, if a politician begins to believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed, I wouldn't say that they've been "corrupted" by homosexual-supporters.
I would also like to ask what you mean by "offends their personal feelings." If they believe that oppressing homosexuals is unjust, of course it would offend their personal feelings. In addition, the only reason we don't want to redefine marriage to include homosexuality is because it would offend our feelings. So neither side has the advantage here. Also, how many words have become redefined over the years? Countless numbers. We even made our own vernacular here, replacing countless words, before we seceded from Great Britain.
America has evolved for the better over the years: getting rid of slavery, letting women vote, allowing interracial marriages, etc. We have given freedom to many types of people: African Americans, women, immigrants, noncitizens, etc. For most of these, we had to fight: Americans based their minds on old prejudices and traditions. But all of them have changed. Let me ask you a question: should women have been allowed to work? Should they have been allowed to vote? I assume that you will say "yes". However, years ago, when they were still being debated, people argued that women shouldn't have rights because they're not, well, men. This is the case here too: people argue that homosexuals shouldn't have a right because they're not "normal" or "the same as most of society". It appears that we are picking on minorities again.
Morally, of course, homosexuality is defined as evil by many people. However, if we allow them to get married, what effect will that have on us? We aren't more righteous just for denying people their rights. If they want to get married, they can! It doesn't hurt us any, and it will strengthen America's unity if homosexuals feel like the equals of heterosexuals, and not biased against or oppressed.

Nuts

02-24-2004, 7:38 AM

Since when did we have to get other people's permission to get married?

Last time I checked, you had to obtain permission from the government for recognition of your marriage. In fact, there are many licenses in which you are required to obtain permission; hunting, driving, business, etc. Why is marriage any different?

I think it's about time we redefined marriage: it's a huge violation of liberty if we don't let some people get married and we let others get married.

And the difference between civil unions and marriage is what? Where is the violation of liberty, in a name? A strong majority of Americans are against gay marriage, yet about half would consider equal rights civil unions. Why such resistance?

Since in most cases, you can't choose to be homosexual, and the love for the same gender was built into your subconscious mind at about the same time a heterosexual gets the love for the other gender, any restriction on what you can do with this love is purely a violation of a natural right: liberty.

I won't debate the merits of homosexuality, that's not my business. But let me ask you, is it against civil liberties to limit someone from marrying two women? How about marrying your mother? And as I said in another forum (as unpopular as the idea may be), are we to permit paedophilia as well? After all, some religious sects of the Mormon church practice this on a regular basis. Are their liberties being persecuted as well? At what point do you say no to the idea of liberty, where do we draw the proverbial line in the sand?

I wouldn't say homosexual marriage is a threat to security, so why is it being oppressed?

For the simple fact that same sex unions are no more marriage than polygamy, incest or paedophilia.

In addition, I would like to know how homosexual-supporting politicians are "corrupted".

Because they are circumventing the law of the land by legislating from the bench. They have evaded legal troubles by using their only trump card, unconstitutionality. Even further, they are mandating that the legislature modify current laws, which is interesting considering that the Supreme Court has no right to hand out edicts to the legislature.

Just because they stand for something that isn't right in some people's eyes means that they're evil?

Standing for something is different than using loopholes to circumvent the law.

I would also like to ask what you mean by "offends their personal feelings." If they believe that oppressing homosexuals is unjust, of course it would offend their personal feelings.

Personal feelings should not matter in a Supreme Court, their job is to make decisions based on their interpretation of the law of the land, nothing more.

In addition, the only reason we don't want to redefine marriage to include homosexuality is because it would offend our feelings. So neither side has the advantage here.

Wrong. The Supreme Court is not entitled to their feelings, only the law. The people are entitled to demand whatever they wish so long as they have a majority.

Also, how many words have become redefined over the years? Countless numbers. We even made our own vernacular here, replacing countless words, before we seceded from Great Britain.

Then the burden of proof lies with the homosexuals, not us. Let them lobby Congress for an amendment, let the Congress approve the amendment by two thirds, let the people vote onsaid amendment.... but alas, it will never happen, because the public won't allow it to happen. So instead they have found alternative measures to get laws changed, which is simply wrong.

America has evolved for the better over the years: getting rid of slavery, letting women vote, allowing interracial marriages, etc. We have given freedom to many types of people: African Americans, women, immigrants, noncitizens, etc. For most of these, we had to fight: Americans based their minds on old prejudices and traditions. But all of them have changed. Let me ask you a question: should women have been allowed to work? Should they have been allowed to vote? I assume that you will say "yes". However, years ago, when they were still being debated, people argued that women shouldn't have rights because they're not, well, men. This is the case here too: people argue that homosexuals shouldn't have a right because they're not "normal" or "the same as most of society". It appears that we are picking on minorities again.

We're not dicussing rights here, we're dicussing classification. We label people every day, white, black hispanic, male, female, senior citizen, minor, etc. So why are we so opposed to the classification of homosexual unions? Please tell me why they must be labeled the same as a heterosexual marriage? There is no logical reason. Civil unions will afford the same benefits and "liberties" as marriage, but simply a different name. Perhaps homosexuals should come up with a flowery name for their union, perhaps adjoinment?

Infested_Al

02-24-2004, 8:48 AM

hmm i can see why your a serious discussion regular nuts :)

gj

dunchy

02-24-2004, 9:48 AM

President Bush will announce he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the White House said. Announcement expected shortly. Details to come.

www.cnn.com

Just thought I'd report it.

Infested_Al

02-24-2004, 12:03 PM

and kerry says he opposes same sex marriages but supports civil unions

...

Protosschick99

02-24-2004, 12:08 PM

i didnt know u were a christian protosschick, thats cool.Are you serious? lolz, I only have "John 3:16", "Divine Favor of God", and "Future Missionary to Thailand and Peru!!" all up in my sig, lolz.

remember guys, its not the message thats wrong, its the people who think they need to enforce the message.

and dont forget, not all people who dislike fags are christian, there are a lot of NON christian haters too.

I never said I hated gays! Can you ppl get that? Stop stereo-typing me because I'm Christian! I know a lot of gay ppl at school and I kick it with them, but I don't condemn them! It's not my place. More than anything I embrace them as a friend.

Just because I walk with the Lord does not mean that I hate anybody who is gay, that's not me. More than anything I pray for them. Please everyone, try to understand, I DO NOT hate gay/lesbians. I just wanna get that point across. :)

doesnt effect you mac? have fun paying more tax.

not to mention, if they pass this, soon people will be marrying their pets, their family etc. after all, why does it matter, i mean these people LOVE(ahahahha what a stupid made up emotion) their significant other. i mean fuck, why dont i just get up and marry this container of ice cream, i love its deliciousness and it releases the same chemicals into my body that person to person love would.

so yah, everyone help support me in marrying my ice cream GOGOG
lolz! Yeah, I think I'll marry warboards. I mean, I love this place--So why not?

Infested_Al

02-24-2004, 12:33 PM

no i wasnt bashing u chick when i said message isnt wrong its the medium, i just meant when u see these people with signs and whatnot dont automatically think all christians are like this

no offense to u

Protosschick99

02-24-2004, 3:03 PM

Oh moted, my bad *embarassed*

I apologize Al homie :p

Fenguin

02-24-2004, 4:40 PM

Last time I checked, you had to obtain permission from the government for recognition of your marriage. In fact, there are many licenses in which you are required to obtain permission; hunting, driving, business, etc. Why is marriage any different?
You specifically said that it had to be "taken to the people" for approval. Last time I heard, "people" does not mean "government".

And the difference between civil unions and marriage is what? Where is the violation of liberty, in a name? A strong majority of Americans are against gay marriage, yet about half would consider equal rights civil unions. Why such resistance?
See the last paragraph.

I won't debate the merits of homosexuality, that's not my business. But let me ask you, is it against civil liberties to limit someone from marrying two women? How about marrying your mother? And as I said in another forum (as unpopular as the idea may be), are we to permit paedophilia as well? After all, some religious sects of the Mormon church practice this on a regular basis. Are their liberties being persecuted as well? At what point do you say no to the idea of liberty, where do we draw the proverbial line in the sand?
Look at it this way. I already showed that homosexuality, if given time to evolve as a dominant union, would lead to us evolving in a much different way. Why do we not allow incest? Because it would augment genetic disorders and cause problems with mutations in the gene pool. Why do we not allow paedophilia? To avoid children being exploited. What about polygamy? It's the personal rights of the wives. Favoritism will definitely occur, which leads to one wife enjoying more benefits than the other wife. The treatment of the wives can't possibly be equal. That, of course, is an intrusion on personal rights. Why should one woman enjoy worse treatment than the other woman?

For the simple fact that same sex unions are no more marriage than polygamy, incest or paedophilia.
See above.

Because they are circumventing the law of the land by legislating from the bench. They have evaded legal troubles by using their only trump card, unconstitutionality. Even further, they are mandating that the legislature modify current laws, which is interesting considering that the Supreme Court has no right to hand out edicts to the legislature.
So you're stereotyping all homosexual supporters as corrupted and "circumventing the law"? Are you saying that none of them do it only because they view oppression of homosexuals as unconstitutional? I admit, some of them only do it for votes and high regard, but what about the others?
And the Supreme Court can force other branches to do things. Ever heard of a Writ of Mandamus? It's all part of checks and balances.

Standing for something is different than using loopholes to circumvent the law.
See above.

Personal feelings should not matter in a Supreme Court, their job is to make decisions based on their interpretation of the law of the land, nothing more.
Not the law of the land. The Constitution. All other laws do not matter to the Supreme Court. They can declare all the laws of the land unconstitutional if they wish.

Wrong. The Supreme Court is not entitled to their feelings, only the law. The people are entitled to demand whatever they wish so long as they have a majority.
Here's how it goes: 1) the people demand for a law against homosexuals, 2) the legislature passes it, 3) the courts declare it unconstitutional, so the law is dead. Any appeal would have to go to a higher court, where regional extremism wouldn't play as major of a role.

Then the burden of proof lies with the homosexuals, not us. Let them lobby Congress for an amendment, let the Congress approve the amendment by two thirds, let the people vote onsaid amendment.... but alas, it will never happen, because the public won't allow it to happen. So instead they have found alternative measures to get laws changed, which is simply wrong.
They're not trying for an amendment. They are trying to get an "informal amendment", which is not corrupt in any way, shape, or form. And what are these "alternative measures" that you speak of? They can be compared to the "peaceful riots" of Martin Luther King, Jr. Do you label those "simply wrong"?

We're not dicussing rights here, we're dicussing classification. We label people every day, white, black hispanic, male, female, senior citizen, minor, etc. So why are we so opposed to the classification of homosexual unions? Please tell me why they must be labeled the same as a heterosexual marriage? There is no logical reason. Civil unions will afford the same benefits and "liberties" as marriage, but simply a different name. Perhaps homosexuals should come up with a flowery name for their union, perhaps adjoinment?
Because "marriage" commands much more respect than any other word meaning that. Legally, they may be the same thing, but in the eyes of people, they are completely different.

Nuts

02-25-2004, 8:18 AM

You specifically said that it had to be "taken to the people" for approval. Last time I heard, "people" does not mean "government".

Then you sir do not know the meaning of a government, as our government is comprised of citizens of the U.S., not some dictatorial panel of lawmakers. These are representatives, which by it's very definintion means government by proxy. "We" are the government, and vice-versa.

Look at it this way. I already showed that homosexuality, if given time to evolve as a dominant union, would lead to us evolving in a much different way. Why do we not allow incest? Because it would augment genetic disorders and cause problems with mutations in the gene pool.

Even though having children is an option? What right do you have to intrude on the lives of others for the simple fact that it is bilogically possible to conceive? The fact is, you don't, yet you force your morals upon incestual partners, but don't agree when the same is done against homosexuals?

Why do we not allow paedophilia? To avoid children being exploited.

Yet many sects of the Mormon religion practice paedophilia on an everyday basis, and consider the act completely natural and normal, not to mention supported by the cornerstones of their religion. So in the case, you seek to deny the right of marriage for reasons that are of your own "personal" beliefs. Do you have any evidence that shows Mormon child brides are injured or exploited as you say?

What about polygamy? It's the personal rights of the wives. Favoritism will definitely occur, which leads to one wife enjoying more benefits than the other wife. The treatment of the wives can't possibly be equal. That, of course, is an intrusion on personal rights. Why should one woman enjoy worse treatment than the other woman?

You can't be serious, can you? Perhaps hetero marriage should be outlawed for those very reasons. I know many guys who have taken a second place to their children, dogs, friends, etc. But alas, this has no basis in reality to deny the rights of marriage does it? Your interpretation of personal rights is horribly skewed.

So you're stereotyping all homosexual supporters as corrupted and "circumventing the law"? Please show me where I have said this, or did you infer it? I said that those who are working behind the scenes to maipulate the law are corrupted, (i.e. incorrect, containing errors in their ways).

Are you saying that none of them do it only because they view oppression of homosexuals as unconstitutional? I admit, some of them only do it for votes and high regard, but what about the others?

No matter what the reason, circumvention of the law is not permissable. There will always be people who believe that they have been wronged, and you're essentially suggesting that it's ok to circumvent the law as long as their motives are pure. That's wrong and you know it.

And the Supreme Court can force other branches to do things. Ever heard of a Writ of Mandamus? It's all part of checks and balances.

Yes, I have, and you obviously don't know the meaning. Writ of Mandamus is a forcible act by which a higher court will mandate "current law" to a lower court or official. This has nothing to do with the creation or alteration of current laws. Ergo, this is not a viable solution to your quandry.

Not the law of the land. The Constitution. All other laws do not matter to the Supreme Court. They can declare all the laws of the land unconstitutional if they wish.

Law of the land = Constitution + local/state law and ordinance. A Supreme court, whether it be state or federal, must incorporate all laws in their decisions. If they fail to incorporate these laws, then they have failed to uphold the constitution according to the tenth amendment. You act as if the Supreme Court has no responsibility to other branches of government. Checks and Balances only work because it requires all three work in unison.

Here's how it goes: 1) the people demand for a law against homosexuals, 2) the legislature passes it, 3) the courts declare it unconstitutional, so the law is dead. Any appeal would have to go to a higher court, where regional extremism wouldn't play as major of a role.

You are correct, but I fail to see how this refutes my prior statement.

They're not trying for an amendment. They are trying to get an "informal amendment", which is not corrupt in any way, shape, or form. And what are these "alternative measures" that you speak of? They can be compared to the "peaceful riots" of Martin Luther King, Jr. Do you label those "simply wrong"?

Informal amendment is a misnomer. You cannot simply change the meaning of a law of amendment unless there is a major shift in interpretation. The alternative measure I speak of are unknowns, but there is certainly no precedent for what has occurred in the MA Supreme Courts.

Fenguin

02-25-2004, 5:52 PM

Then you sir do not know the meaning of a government, as our government is comprised of citizens of the U.S., not some dictatorial panel of lawmakers. These are representatives, which by it's very definintion means government by proxy. "We" are the government, and vice-versa.
I do not consider our "government" to be truly representative of our wishes. Did we want to invade Iraq? Did our senior citizens want Bush's heavy blows on Medicare? Did our teachers want Bush's blows on education? No. Even though it's impossible to satisfy everyone, the government could at least try to reach a compromise. Ever wonder why so many people now believe that the Constitution is now completely screwed up?

Even though having children is an option? What right do you have to intrude on the lives of others for the simple fact that it is bilogically possible to conceive? The fact is, you don't, yet you force your morals upon incestual partners, but don't agree when the same is done against homosexuals?
What morals? It has been scientifically proven that incest leads to terrible genetic disorders.

Yet many sects of the Mormon religion practice paedophilia on an everyday basis, and consider the act completely natural and normal, not to mention supported by the cornerstones of their religion. So in the case, you seek to deny the right of marriage for reasons that are of your own "personal" beliefs. Do you have any evidence that shows Mormon child brides are injured or exploited as you say?
They had a very narrow choice in who they wanted to marry. This choice was usually just between a few suitors. In addition, many marriages were decided when the children were too young to understand. An invasion of liberty.

Your interpretation of personal rights is horribly skewed.
So we're resorting to personal attacks now?

Please show me where I have said this, or did you infer it? I said that those who are working behind the scenes to maipulate the law are corrupted, (i.e. incorrect, containing errors in their ways).
You said: "They won't do this, because they realize that the people will not approve, therefore they have resorted to corrupting certain politicians or installing certain political figures that are sympathetic to their cause." By saying this, you stated that 1) the government isn't the people [since the "people will not approve", so they "install certain political figures"], 2)

No matter what the reason, circumvention of the law is not permissable. There will always be people who believe that they have been wronged, and you're essentially suggesting that it's ok to circumvent the law as long as their motives are pure. That's wrong and you know it.
How am I suggesting that? You assumed that all homosexual-supporting politicians were corrupt; I said that some might be, but others weren't.
Also, what's wrong with homosexual supporters petitioning their local government to allow them rights? Why is that "corrupting" the officials in any way? Look at the First Amendment.

Yes, I have, and you obviously don't know the meaning. Writ of Mandamus is a forcible act by which a higher court will mandate "current law" to a lower court or official. This has nothing to do with the creation or alteration of current laws. Ergo, this is not a viable solution to your quandry.
When did I say anything about the "creation or alteration of current laws"? I never did. But with a Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Courts can prevent Congressmen and even the President from unconstitutionally denying people rights.

Law of the land = Constitution + local/state law and ordinance. A Supreme court, whether it be state or federal, must incorporate all laws in their decisions. If they fail to incorporate these laws, then they have failed to uphold the constitution according to the tenth amendment. You act as if the Supreme Court has no responsibility to other branches of government. Checks and Balances only work because it requires all three work in unison.
Checks and Balances is a misnomer. There is no real balance in the government: Congress has most of the power, and the Supreme Court can't be touched except for drastic action .
Supreme Courts do not have to incorporate all laws either. They can declare laws unconstitutional, as in the example of Marbury vs Madision, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. If a court decides that a law is unconstitutional, the law will be nullified.

Informal amendment is a misnomer. You cannot simply change the meaning of a law of amendment unless there is a major shift in interpretation. The alternative measure I speak of are unknowns, but there is certainly no precedent for what has occurred in the MA Supreme Courts.
No. "Informal amendment" is not a misnomer. And why would you want to change the meaning of a "law of amendment"? I'm talking about the Constitution. Why do I say "informal amendment"? Because the Constitution is a [i]living document; it changes regardless of the scarcity of formal amendments. First of all, the most obvious way of informally amending the Constitution is by judicial review. More ways include the advent of executive agreements, executive orders, the formation of the Cabinet, Congressional interpretation of the Commerce clause, etc. All of these were not defined in the Constitution, but they weren't formal amendments to the Constitution either.

But all these arguments are besides the point. You still have not said why homosexuals cannot be allowed to marry, completely ignoring my last statement in my previous post. If homosexual "Civil Unions" are treated as respectfully and importantly as marriage, why are homosexuals complaining? Because "marriage" is much more powerful than "civil union" in the eyes of the people. From CNN: <<As married couples, same-sex partners would have more rights than in "civil unions.">> Do you not agree with this statement?
In addition, arguing that if we legalize homosexuality, then we also have to legalize polygamy, incest, etc. is like saying if you clean up a classroom, then you have to clean up the whole school. Why didn't we grant everyone the right to vote at the same time? Why did we have to wait 200 years before everyone got the right to vote? Because those issues, like homosexuality vs. polygamy, can be considered legally unrelated. If we help one person, why do we have to help everyone? Homosexuals have a valid excuse to get married, and there is no objective argument against them getting married; I'd like to see something like that for polygamy and incest.
Also, don't get me wrong: I don't support what they did to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Lobbying, in my opinion, is OK, but not when they interrupt or bias court proceedings. Mob rule sucks. But that's outside the point: we're discussing why it should or shouldn't be legalized, not how one of their lobbies was dumb.

Nuts

02-25-2004, 9:05 PM

I do not consider our "government" to be truly representative of our wishes. Did we want to invade Iraq? Did our senior citizens want Bush's heavy blows on Medicare? Did our teachers want Bush's blows on education? No. Even though it's impossible to satisfy everyone, the government could at least try to reach a compromise. Ever wonder why so many people now believe that the Constitution is now completely screwed up?

Yes, the majority of the country supported our actions, along with a majority of Congress. I would say that's about as representative as it gets. And Bush handed seniors their precious drug benefit, what the hell type of blows are you talking about? Been watching too many moveon.org commercials? And you're the first I've heard that thinks the Constitution is "screwed up."

What morals? It has been scientifically proven that incest leads to terrible genetic disorders.

Really? Science has proven that birth control fails 100% of the time during incestual relationships? Are condomns and birth control methods somehow unapplicable towards incest? This is indeed amazing news!

They had a very narrow choice in who they wanted to marry. This choice was usually just between a few suitors. In addition, many marriages were decided when the children were too young to understand. An invasion of liberty.

So you're saying that even in arranged marriages where the children are willing participants, this is an invasion of liberty? You're telling me that an 18 year old bride has some amazing gift of maturity that 16 and 17 year olds fail to possess? This magical age of maturity is something I must investigate further.

So we're resorting to personal attacks now?

Main Entry: 1skew
Pronunciation: 'skyü
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to escape, skew, from Old North French escuer to shun, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German sciuhen to frighten off -- more at SHY
intransitive senses
1 : to take an oblique course
2 : to look askance
transitive senses
1 : to make, set, or cut on the skew
2 : to distort especially from a true value or symmetrical form <skewed statistical data>

I see no possible way that this can be construed as an attack, personal or otherwise. Now if I had called "you" skewed, then yes, that could have been construed as personal.

You said: "They won't do this, because they realize that the people will not approve, therefore they have resorted to corrupting certain politicians or installing certain political figures that are sympathetic to their cause." By saying this, you stated that 1) the government isn't the people [since the "people will not approve", so they "install certain political figures"], 2)

I'm afraid you have made your own conclusions there friend. Nothing posted above makes any such assumptions. The government is of the people and by the people, this is a fact. Your mischaracterization of this isn't my burden.

How am I suggesting that? You assumed that all homosexual-supporting politicians were corrupt;

No, I said no such thing. You inferred that from my post, nothing more.

Also, what's wrong with homosexual supporters petitioning their local government to allow them rights? Why is that "corrupting" the officials in any way? Look at the First Amendment.

Nothing is wrong with this, in and of itself. So long as they stick to the law and don't circumvent. Stop trying to make this look like a civil rights demonstration. They are manipulating the law, not petitioning it.

When did I say anything about the "creation or alteration of current laws"? I never did. But with a Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Courts can prevent Congressmen and even the President from unconstitutionally denying people rights.

And denial of gay marriage is NOT unconstitutional, otherwise there would be no need to have it rewritten. The Supreme Court has the right to say "gay marriage is protected under the right of marriage, end of story" yet they did no such thing. Which indicates to me that they are on unsure footing.

Checks and Balances is a misnomer. There is no real balance in the government: Congress has most of the power, and the Supreme Court can't be touched except for drastic action [impeaching, etc].

Drastic or not, it's still a safe-guard.

Supreme Courts do not have to incorporate all laws either. They can declare laws unconstitutional, as in the example of Marbury vs Madision, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. If a court decides that a law is unconstitutional, the law will be nullified.

That makes little sense, they either strike the law as unconstitutional, or they apply it to their decision, they don't simply run around labeling laws as unconstitutional at a whim. You make it sound commonplace.

[font=trebuchet ms]No. "Informal amendment" is not a misnomer. And why would you want to change the meaning of a "law of amendment"?

No, there is no such thing as an informal amendment. Find anything that supports this in legal findings or case law.

I'm talking about the Constitution. Why do I say "informal amendment"? Because the Constitution is a living document; it changes regardless of the scarcity of formal amendments.

Living document means it has the ability to be altered, that's great, but I fail to see how this supports your case.

[font=trebuchet ms]But all these arguments are besides the point. You still have not said why homosexuals cannot be allowed to marry, completely ignoring my last statement in my previous post. If homosexual "Civil Unions" are treated as respectfully and importantly as marriage, why are homosexuals complaining? Because "marriage" is much more powerful than "civil union" in the eyes of the people.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this is simply untrue. Of course marriage is more important to hetero people obviously, this is the basis for the argument. Leave the institution as it has stood for thousands of years.

From CNN: <<As married couples, same-sex partners would have more rights than in "civil unions.">> Do you not agree with this statement?

I wholeheartedly disagree. Semantics are not rights.

In addition, arguing that if we legalize homosexuality, then we also have to legalize polygamy, incest, etc. is like saying if you clean up a classroom, then you have to clean up the whole school. Why didn't we grant everyone the right to vote at the same time? Why did we have to wait 200 years before everyone got the right to vote? Because those issues, like homosexuality vs. polygamy, can be considered legally unrelated. If we help one person, why do we have to help everyone? Homosexuals have a valid excuse to get married, and there is no objective argument against them getting married; I'd like to see something like that for polygamy and incest.

No, I'm saying that the same logic can be used to support those relations as can be used for same sex marriages. Your morality won't allow you to consider those as options, and yet you have difficulty applying those morals to homosexual marriage.

Battlecruiser

02-25-2004, 9:24 PM

so I am guessing nuts is pro homosexuality and fenguin is anti homosexuality right?

Fenguin

02-25-2004, 9:38 PM

Yes, the majority of the country supported our actions, along with a majority of Congress. I would say that's about as representative as it gets. And Bush handed seniors their precious drug benefit, what the hell type of blows are you talking about? Been watching too many moveon.org commercials? And you're the first I've heard that thinks the Constitution is "screwed up."
But when we started complaining, did the government take troops out? Nope. :(
Oh, and the drug benefit is considered a scam by some people. The big text said "blah blah seniors get discounts", but the fine print says that: 1) discounts are a "goal", not a requirement, 2) the share of savings is determined not by the government, but by private corporations, and 3) it doesn't require savings; it only encourages them. I'm not even going to ask what moveon.org is.
And everyone knows that the Constitution is "screwed up." The founding fathers would be turning in their grave if they could see how much the Federal government manipulated the Constitution's various clauses to give themselves that much power... >.< Look at Wickard vs. Filburn. Eek.

Really? Science has proven that birth control fails 100% of the time during incestual relationships? Are condomns and birth control methods somehow unapplicable towards incest? This is indeed amazing news!
Does birth control work 100% of the time? And with all this debate over abortion rights... :eek:

So you're saying that even in arranged marriages where the children are willing participants, this is an invasion of liberty? You're telling me that an 18 year old bride has some amazing gift of maturity that 16 and 17 year olds fail to possess? This magical age of maturity is something I must investigate further.
Bah. Who says I defined "child" as "under 18"? :ninja:

I see no possible way that this can be construed as an attack, personal or otherwise. Now if I had called "you" skewed, then yes, that could have been construed as personal.
Coo.

I'm afraid you have made your own conclusions there friend. Nothing posted above makes any such assumptions. The government is of the people and by the people, this is a fact. Your mischaracterization of this isn't my burden.

No, I said no such thing. You inferred that from my post, nothing more.

Nothing is wrong with this, in and of itself. So long as they stick to the law and don't circumvent. Stop trying to make this look like a civil rights demonstration. They are manipulating the law, not petitioning it.
Doubly coo.

And denial of gay marriage is NOT unconstitutional, otherwise there would be no need to have it rewritten. The Supreme Court has the right to say "gay marriage is protected under the right of marriage, end of story" yet they did no such thing. Which indicates to me that they are on unsure footing.
Which is why we're still arguing about it. ;)

Drastic or not, it's still a safe-guard.
Or is it pretending that they can check the Supreme Court? I seriously doubt any judge would do anything harsh enough to warrant impeachment. And they can't just impeach judges because they don't like them. Even worse, Supreme Court judges serve for life.

That makes little sense, they either strike the law as unconstitutional, or they apply it to their decision, they don't simply run around labeling laws as unconstitutional at a whim. You make it sound commonplace.
The Supreme Court usually does not use state laws in their decisions, since they can only hear cases that have to do with ambassadors or between states.

No, there is no such thing as an informal amendment. Find anything that supports this in legal findings or case law.
What do you call reinterpretation of the Constitution? Making new federal offices not listed in the Constitution? The beginning of executive orders? All of these don't formally amend the Constitution, but can be considered changes to the Constitution. They're not formally called "informal amendments", but they can be considered so.

Living document means it has the ability to be altered, that's great, but I fail to see how this supports your case.
It may not. "Living document" just sounded cool.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this is simply untrue. Of course marriage is more important to hetero people obviously, this is the basis for the argument. Leave the institution as it has stood for thousands of years.
Why? What if it was corrupt for thousands of years? Or poorly defined? Look at society's treatment of women. Women were considered lesser than men for thousands of years. So why did we change it?

No, I'm saying that the same logic can be used to support those relations as can be used for same sex marriages. Your morality won't allow you to consider those as options, and yet you have difficulty applying those morals to homosexual marriage.
Morality does not factor in my decision. I do not consider these other options because they play absolutely no part in the decision to allow or disallow homosexual marriage.

Wait a second... do you support homosexual marriages or not? </blunt question>

EDIT:
so I am guessing nuts is pro homosexuality and fenguin is anti homosexuality right?
I think it's the other way around. ;)

MacG

02-25-2004, 9:48 PM

Omg, didn't visit this thread for 3 days and you guys did a disecting fest. I'm disoriented by all these quoting. Can you guys summarize your points/arguments, because I'm about to throw up.
Edit: If there was a throw up smilie, I would insert here.

Battlecruiser

02-25-2004, 9:56 PM

I think it's the other way around. ;)

ahh ok. all the quoting confused me

Nuts

02-26-2004, 7:26 AM

In a nutshell: (no pun intended)

I disagree with the concept of homosexual marriage. I support civil unions since this arrangement provides equal rights yet allows heterosexuals the sanctity of the union of marriage. Classifications exist, they always have and always will, but for some reason homosexuals believe they should be classified exactly has heterosexual marriage, which is simply a misnomer. It's akin to a black man asking to be labeled as white because he's been denied the liberty of the white establishment. Call a spade a spade.

As for the Supreme Court of MA, they have made a greivous error. They have mandated that the lower courts redefine marriage. This is clearly not in their jurasdiction. As we all agree, the Supreme Courts have the ability to strike down laws as unconstitutional, yet they chose not to do this, why? Instead they offered an opinion giving the legislature 180 days to rewrite the marriage laws. Personally, this sounds suspiciously like deflection of responsibility.

All in all, I'm going to refrain from posting much more on this, as it's down to semantics. But Fenguin, you're a well informed person whom has provided a nice challenge on this issue. I respect that greatly.

Fenguin

02-26-2004, 3:12 PM

Fenguin says:

I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to do what they please. ;) And their union should be called "marriage", not "civil union" or other stuff.

In my opinion, if homosexuals are prevented from marrying, it will be a violation of their liberty.

Also, "Civil union" just does not cut it, since a "civil union" does not get as many rights as marriage. For example, if one partner has life insurance and dies, if they are married, the other partner will get the money. However, in a civil union, the other partner will not get the money unless there is a written will. In addition, a "civil union" does not count as a family, so they people will not get family benefits, such as tax reductions due to children.

Finally, to create a new word for homosexual marriage, and then add that to all existing legal documents regarding marriage, will be too much of hassle. Changing the legal meaning of "marriage" would be much simpler. :)

Thanks Nuts :) You also seem super well-informed, and it was a great pleasure debating this topic with you. :)

MacG

03-16-2004, 4:37 AM

Nuts

03-16-2004, 5:52 AM

I know the only reason why gays can't marry is because of religion... I read this on a friends site.

Did God give us free will? If he did, then isn't it ok for gay people to be married? But if he did not, then doesn't that mean he wanted to have gay people?

Leading question, move to strike.

You're making a presupposition that simply isn't true. It is the institution or plainly the definintion of marriage that is the core of this debate. A majority of Americans would support gay unions so long as they are labeled differently, hence the definition would remain intact and unaltered for hetero unions. It is impossible to marry two people of the same sex without altering the sanctity of marriage for millions of married couples. Besides, civil unions afford similar, if not the same benefits as do marriage, so in reality, the burden of proof lies with the same sex couple to prove why their union should be labeled as marriage and not some other equally suitable term.

If a group of people wish to make change in America, they need to work towards amending the constitution(s) to fit their agenda. Unfortunately, no legislature in their right mind will pass such amendments without serious repercussions from the public, whom have made their opinion abundantly clear, civil unions are fine, but we draw the line at marriage.

You should also note that as an atheist, I have no religious determination behind my stance on this issue. So before anyone even begins to try that angle, don't.

Carnage

03-16-2004, 6:31 AM

It is impossible to marry two people of the same sex without altering the sanctity of marriage.

Sanctity of marriage.
Sanctity of marriage!
SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE!!!

No matter how many times I hear this so-called all perfect reason to ban gay marriage, it still knocks my socks off!

Go see what the divorce rate is in this country and remind me again about the sanctity of marriage! :mad:

Nuts

03-16-2004, 6:54 AM

It doesn't change the value for those who remain married like myself. Or for that matter, those who divorce under reputable circumstances and re-marry. Given, the divorce rate is astronomical, that doesn't devalue the institution, but instead should serve as a judegment on the inviduals whom marry in haste or worse yet, those that marry out of obligation only to find that there is no love.

Jedi_Templar

03-16-2004, 7:04 AM

Yes, homosexuality is a sin. However, so is oggling at women, and I'm sure we're all guilty of that.

To single out gays is hurtful as a society and to gays.

Granted, I don't care if they can get legal union (married by a justice of the peace), I just don't want them to get married in a religious institution that specifically says that homosexuality is, basically, wrong.

But, then again, when was the last time anybody payed attention to the Bible? Bush certainly hasn't, because it specifically says in there "Thou Shalt Not Steal", which is what he did in Florida.

But back to homosexuality- it's hypocritical to point out their sin, since we are all sinful. "Before you can remove the speck from your neighbors eye, remove the plank from your eyes". Leave two consenting adults alone! They know what crap they are getting into.

Bush is using this whole gay marriage thing to distract us, the American populous, from the massive debt (we're in the hole seven trillion dollars), how badly the war in Iraq has been going, and that we still haven't captured Osama bin Ladin. We could have probably gotten him with a SEAL mission in Afghanistan, but no, Bush comes rockin' in there like a friggin cowboy. WOOHOO!!!

My stance on gay marriage- legal union, but not religious union. That's my two cents.

Carnage

03-16-2004, 7:04 AM

Nuts

03-16-2004, 7:11 AM

But, then again, when was the last time anybody payed attention to the Bible? Bush certainly hasn't, because it specifically says in there "Thou Shalt Not Steal", which is what he did in Florida.

Off topic and untrue. Start a new thread and I'll be happy to prove you wrong.

But back to homosexuality- it's hypocritical to point out their sin, since we are all sinful. "Before you can remove the speck from your neighbors eye, remove the plank from your eyes". Leave two consenting adults alone! They know what crap they are getting into.

I don't believe this has anything to do with consent, it has to do with a legal union, note the word, legal. It would impermissable to allow a union that defies the law, and the status quo of the legal system states that marriage consists of a man and a woman, period. Don't like it? Work towards changing it, but until then, all arguments are moot.

Bush is using this whole gay marriage thing to distract us, the American populous, from the massive debt (we're in the hole seven trillion dollars), how badly the war in Iraq has been going, and that we still haven't captured Osama bin Ladin. We could have probably gotten him with a SEAL mission in Afghanistan, but no, Bush comes rockin' in there like a friggin cowboy. WOOHOO!!!

How about we stay on topic here.

But, why shouldn't divorce be considered a threat to the sanctity of marriage?

I believe it is, but only pertaining to those whom divorce. Although this would be much more difficult to prove, but bottom line, divorced or not, they are still men and women. Which fits the definition of marriage regardless of the promiscuity.

Edit: Anyone can argue or justify gay marriage from a moral point of view, but that's not good enough to justify a manipulation of the law. If the legislatures were to amend the state constitutions to permit same sex marriage tommorrow, I wouldn't be happy, but I would accept it. I hope the clarifies my position a bit better.

Carnage

03-16-2004, 7:19 AM

I believe it is, but only pertaining to those whom divorce. Although this would be much more difficult to prove, but bottom line, divorced or not, they are still men and women. Which fits the definition of marriage regardless of the promiscuity.

You're absolutely right, but with al- Aw. I gotta go to school. L8r. :\

Nuts

03-16-2004, 8:15 AM

Merged.

hammocksleeper

03-16-2004, 4:43 PM

Here is an editorial posted in the Wall Street Journal (as well as my local paper) that I think is an excellent read. It may seem long, but if you have any opinion on the matter at all I urge you to read it in its entirety.

The article is here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735 and also below.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience," he explained, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Those judges are here in Massachusetts, of course, where the state is cutting back on programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two earners and are not raising children. What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children. Now, in the wake of the Massachusetts case, local officials in other parts of the nation have begun to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of state law.

A common initial reaction to these local measures has been: "Why should I care whether same-sex couples can get married?" "How will that affect me or my family?" "Why not just live and let live?" But as people began to take stock of the implications of granting special treatment to one group of citizens, the need for a federal marriage amendment has become increasingly clear. As President Bush said yesterday, "The voice of the people must be heard."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment. Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.

The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?

If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law. That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

Finally, there is the flagrant disregard shown by judges and local officials for the rights of citizens to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work and raise our children. Many Americans--however they feel about same-sex marriage--are rightly alarmed that local officials are defying state law, and that four judges in one state took it upon themselves to make the kind of decision that our Constitution says belongs to us, the people, and to our elected representatives. As one State House wag in Massachusetts put it, "We used to have government of the people, by the people and for the people, now we're getting government by four people!"

Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way--through full public deliberation in the light of day, not by four people behind closed doors. That deliberation can and must be conducted, as President Bush stated, "in a manner worthy of our country--without bitterness or anger."

Ms. Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard.

Jedi_Templar

03-16-2004, 6:19 PM

But, why shouldn't divorce be considered a threat to the sanctity of marriage?

If the same percentage of divorce rates in marriages applied to the percentage of priests proven guilty of child abuse, would it not affect the sanctity of the priesthood?

And before you answer that, consider how far many people's already low opinion of priesthood and dedicating one's life to a religious belief has dropped since the first confirmation.

Oh so very true.

UPDATE: You know, Templar. There have been other elections in which the president with the popular vote lost because his opponent got the electoral vote.
Yeah, I know. The electoral college really needs to be done away with.

You know why there is an electoral college? The Founding Fathers felt that the common people were too stupid to elect a president democratically, so they added all sorts of safety features to prevent the wrong person to be president (obviously, the electoral college backfired during the 2000 election). While most of the safeguards have been done away with, the electoral college remains. If (wait, what am I saying? when) John Kerry becomes president, I hope the first act is to get rid of the electoral college.

I was also referring to the election coming down on the choosing of the nine Supreme Court justices, all friends of Bush's father, all conservative, and that the state in question was governed by Bush's brother. The whole thing friggin stank of corruption.