1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gay marriage amendment a bad idea

Discussion in 'The OT' started by MikeSoltis, Mar 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mar 1, 2004 #1 of 170
    MikeSoltis

    MikeSoltis Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    424
    0
    Aug 1, 2003
    First I would like to not incite a riot, and would not want inflammatory posts.

    Regardless of your PERSONAL views on the topic, I would like to know what is the NON-RELIGIOUS basis for opposition to gay marriage. It seems like the First Amendment (above) would take precedence here.

    I myself am more worried about the precedent such an amendment would set in incorporating what seems to be religious beliefs into our Constitution.
     
  2. Mar 1, 2004 #2 of 170
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,982
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    I guess you never read the constitution..God's name is all over it :grin:
     
  3. Mar 1, 2004 #3 of 170
    Mike500

    Mike500 Hall Of Fame

    1,340
    0
    May 10, 2002
    Having been trained in science, I know that gay and bi-sexual relationships occur not only in humans, but also in plants and animals.

    If two persons want to establish themselves in a civil union and want to subject themselves to all of the rights and responsibilities of that union, whatever they call it, it should be allowed.

    The religious right is hung up on the term "marriage" with all the interpersonal and religious emotional baggage that comes with it.

    Religion has no place in the Constitution.

    Civil "marriage" is a civil union. All civil rights and priviledges and responsibilities should apply.

    I am neither gay, lesbian, nor b-sexual. But, I believe in civil rights. We need to maintain separation of church and state.
     
  4. Mar 1, 2004 #4 of 170
    Un-nick

    Un-nick Guest

    The united states was established as a refuge for people who were being persecuted for their religous beliefs..Religion is the basis of the constitution...I do not believe that a government should manadate religous belief..but there is nothing in the constitution thats says freedom FROM religon
     
  5. Mar 1, 2004 #5 of 170
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I'm sure that the people who are promoting the marriage amendment will next push an amendment to make sure that all the widows, orphans, immigrants, and poor in the nation are guaranteed an income, since this is mentioned in the Bible much more often than any possible reference to homosexuality.
     
  6. Mar 1, 2004 #6 of 170
    sampatterson

    sampatterson Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    726
    0
    Aug 27, 2002
    Let'em marry. Why not work on something really harming our kids - drugs, violent crime, medical costs, etc. Not whether Rosie and her girlfriend can get married if they love each other. Much bigger fish to fry than this.
     
  7. Mar 1, 2004 #7 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Marriage is a social and religious institution between a MAN and a WOMAN. It's that simple, that's the way God/Buddha/Darwin/whoever clearly designed us. I have nothing against homosexual social unions, but it should not be called marriage for, what I personally see, as obvious reasons. Perhaps the Cambridge Dictionary can help us understand why:

    marriage [Show phonetics]
    noun [C or U]
    a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this:
    They had a long and happy marriage.
    She went to live abroad after the break-up of her marriage.
    She has two daughters by her first marriage.
    See also marital; marry.

    I have nothing against homosexuals having equal rights under the law. In fact, I think it's a good idea. "First they came for the...". But it shouldn't be called marriage because it's NOT marriage and is disrespectful to people who are married and are getting married since it devalues it's significance.
     
  8. Mar 1, 2004 #8 of 170
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    I would like to know what is the NON-RELIGIOUS basis for opposition to gay marriage.

    Probably the biggest reason to support an amendment is politics. It galvanizes your voters by further marginalizing a minority.

    Perhaps the Cambridge Dictionary can help us understand why

    Hmmm, I looked it up for myself... and was surprised to see that Cambridge listed only what you posted as the sole definition. Obviously its a defective dictionary, because marriages can exist between other things as well.

    Perhaps a look at what Oxford has to say is in order. It is after all the definitive source for the English language.
    because it's NOT marriage

    Only in your eyes. I think the folks who are doing the deed think differently.
     
  9. Mar 1, 2004 #9 of 170
    Stosh

    Stosh Godfather

    301
    0
    Dec 16, 2003
    That does not in any remote way answer the question posed, it just avoids it.

    One thing I don't understand - why do the people so fearfully and doggedly opposed to gay marriage see it as a "threat"? People, both hetero and gay, get married and go on with their lives as a couple. Where's the "threat"? Isn't the divorce rate among hetero couples around 50%? That seems to me to be much more destructive to the "institution" of marriage than gay marriage does. But far less is said about that.

    One thing I do understand - this is just an election-year ploy by Bush to get the support (votes) of the conservatives. As others have pointed out, we have far more pressing issues to worry about right now. Expending energy and resources on this seems a bit ridiculous.
     
  10. Mar 1, 2004 #10 of 170
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Bush's proposal doesn't have a chance of passing. Even some strict conservatives don't want to mess with the Constitution.

    The only other amendment passed that restricted freedom was the 18th (prohibition) and we all know how that one turned out!

    Like it or not, gay and lesbian issues have become a part of our culture.
     
  11. Mar 1, 2004 #11 of 170
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I agree in not messing with the Constitution and believe that the only reason that Bush would advocate this is because he knows that homosexual marriage is certainly high on the "create a law" list in some of the activist courts in this country. An amendment is the only way around this.
     
  12. Mar 1, 2004 #12 of 170
    Unlucky

    Unlucky Guest

    I personnally cant wait for the news media to go nuts when Michael Jackson sas-sheas down to alabama to marry a 15 year old boy(yes it is legale to marry a 15 year old girl)
     
  13. Mar 1, 2004 #13 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    "I agree in not messing with the Constitution and believe that the only reason that Bush would advocate this is because he knows that homosexual marriage is certainly high on the "create a law" list in some of the activist courts in this country. An amendment is the only way around this."

    Why? The amendment process was created to be used, and was in fact used 10 times before it even passed. Also, constitutional conventions were intended to be a regular event by our founding fathers. The constitution was MEANT to be a much more dynamic document than it is.

    "Only in your eyes."

    And the eyes of Cambridge University (one of the world's most respected universities), the Christian Church (for the most part), and biology...
     
  14. Mar 1, 2004 #14 of 170
    AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I doubt that anyone seriously believes the proposed amendment could pass given the hurdles involved, even those who want it. There are many more important issues than denying marriage to two people who want to unite. I don't sense a threat to me or anyone else by allowing people to do what they want in this area. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness says it all.
     
  15. Mar 1, 2004 #15 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Can athiests get married? Can a couple be married without any involvement of a church or other religious connotation? Are those marriages "just as legal" as one performed in a church by a minister? The answer to all three questions is YES. Whether or not a church recognizes a marriage is irrlevant because gay people are not asking that any or all churches do so. What is being asked is that the government, which grants certain CIVIL priviledges and benefits (1049 of them according to the GAO) to married couples. If the government is going to dole out special considerations to married couples, then it is only fair and right for them to be given to gay couples. It is also fair and right that a marriage for a gay couple be held to the same responsibilities, including the divorce laws.
    The problem with NOT calling it "marriage" is that it would create a second class of citizen. Other states, the federal government, some businesses, etc. would not recognize a "civil union" as the same as a "marriage". The "seperate but equal" thing did not work for racial equality and it would not work for orientation equality.
    I don't define my life by what one particular dictionary states. Do you?
    That's a very subjective stance. What else are you against that is "disrespectful" to you? I think your position is disrespectful of my relationship, but I am not asking that you be treated any differently or made a second-class citizen because of your views. My relationship is just as important and just as valid, to me, as I am sure yours is to you. But does you being in the majority give you the right to determine that my relationship isn't worthy of the same GOVERNMENTAL rules and benefits?

    I'm not blind, I do realize that the idea of gay people being married is unnerving to some people. Just like the idea of interracial marriages was a few decades ago, and still is to some people. But society is not, or should not be stagnant. It evolves and progresses as time marches onward, otherwise it dies. Our society has changed, sometimes slowly and sometimes rapidly, but it has always been changing. Some may think it for the worse, but many for the better. I don't ask for anything special, I just want to live my life as best as I possibly can given who I am and what I can accomplish for myself. No different than you, or anyone else. But don't handicap me simply because you don't like or don't understand my differences.
     
  16. Mar 1, 2004 #16 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I would advocate that the age of consent be equalized between genders. In most states it is (most set it at 16). But there are a few, and interestingly they're usually in the "Bible Belt", where the AOC for boys is 17 but the AOC for girls is 15 (or even 14 in one instance). Isn't that just legalized pedophilia? I think it is pretty disgusting that a 50yo man could legally marry a 15yo girl. :eek2:
     
  17. Mar 1, 2004 #17 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Cambridge University offers domestic partner benefits to their gay employees. :) Some Christian churches not only do not discriminate against gay people but actively condone their marriages. Of course, everyone says that "THEIR" church is the only correct one. Now with biology, do you really want to go there? Just because the biology is different does not make it "incorrect". I could go into really explicit detail, but I won't right now. Just know that there are certain things about nature, and even human anatomy, that the vast majority of people do not know about and is very relevant to the issue.
     
  18. Mar 1, 2004 #18 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    On your points:

    1 - Calling it anything other than marriage wouldn't work since it wouldn't be equal - fine. Outlaw government-sponsored marriages (atheists, etc) entirely. Personally that's what I'm in favour of. Make marriage a church issue and benefits for couples a seperate state issue on a national level. Marriage is sacred and shouldn't be said about just any two people (or things, I've even heard it refering to inanimate objects) together. It's a religious institution between a loving man and woman to care for each other and create and care for a family.

    2 - Interracial marriage is very different since one's still a male and the other is still a female. The difference is only in what they look like, not what they are. Your race is irrelevant, your gender (or I should say sex, gender is mental, sex is physical - hence transgender vs. transsexual) is very relevent since it's genetically NOT POSSIBLE for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to have kids. A black and a white can have kids.
     
  19. Mar 1, 2004 #19 of 170
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Unless your grin is sarcastic Juan, it is YOU who have obviously never read the Constitution. For about the thousandth time, The constitution DOES NOT contain the word "god" and only references "religion" twice, BOTH in an EXCLUSIONARY sense. First Article VI, Clause 3
    BTW, the option of "Affirmation" is included because an "Oath" implies the invocation of a diety(god). Here's the relevant "Websters".
    BOLD added.

    And the other of course is the First Amendment-
    In legal circles, this is even known as the Exclusionary Clause!
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

    So PLEASE, enlighten us. Exactly where in the Constitution is "God's name..all over it"?

    And also BTW, the ONLY oath of office(President) proscribed in the Constitution DOES NOT end with "so help me God."
    That is added by the elected candidates and probably the most agregious example of religious pandering.
     
  20. Mar 1, 2004 #20 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    "And also BTW, the ONLY oath of office(President) proscribed in the Constitution DOES NOT end with "so help me God.""

    Proscribed:

    proscribe [Show phonetics]
    verb [T] FORMAL
    (of a government or other authority) to forbid something:
    The Broadcasting Act allows ministers to proscribe any channel that offends against good taste and decency.
    The Athletics Federation have banned the runner from future races for using proscribed drugs.


    I don't think I need to say any more about your post :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page