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 #21 of 170
    Charles Oliva

    Charles Oliva Godfather

    423
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Marriage is simply the basis that society uses for simplicity of the family unit and continuance of the species.

    In a traditional marriage:
    Jane A. meets John B.
    Jane and John decide to live as one thus becoming Mr. and Mrs. John A.
    Jane and John have a child, Jack A.
    Jack A. meets Jill C.
    and so on.

    In a Gay Marriage:
    Jane A. meets Jane B.
    Jane A. and Jane B. decide to live as one thus becoming "Ms. and Ms. Jane ?"
    Jane A. and Jane B. can't produce children.
    Jane A. and Jane B. pass away.
    End of Story.

    If we as a society decide that marriage is only a means of co-habiting in a "civil union", regardless of sex, than it must decide that traditional marriage as we define it, and many of the laws involving it, need to be repealed, rewritten or no longer exist.
     
  2. Mar 1, 2004 #22 of 170
    Stosh

    Stosh Godfather

    301
    0
    Dec 16, 2003
    Well, yeah, you do. Picking on a misuse of a single word in the message DOES NOT invalidate any of the points made in it. You didn't disprove or even discuss any fact or idea that was said in the post, you simply engaged in misdirection. Are you so perfect in your use of the English language that you feel entitled to throw stones?
     
  3. Mar 1, 2004 #23 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    That is exactly how it is in most European countries. The religious marriage is wholely seperate from the civil marriage. One does not coincide with the other, in most cases. If a couple wants to have a church wedding, they will still need to go through the civil process in order to have the marriage recognized by the government. There is no valid reason why it couldn't be that way here.
    True, but interracial marriage was just as illegal (in Mississippi it only became legal last year!) and was just as heatedly debated. For the majority of our country's existence, an interracial marriage was illegal. Some states forbid it even long after others changed. That resulted in the infamous Loving vs the Commonwealth of Virginia case before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, those "activist judges" ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia *MUST* recognize the interracial marriage granted by another state. Needless to say, the state of Virginia was not happy, and neither were most other southern states. Those "activist judges" stuck their nose where it wasn't wanted.

    Sometimes we need "activist judges" who will do what is right rather than just what the majority want. The judicial branch is there to keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority, just as it was designed.
     
  4. Mar 1, 2004 #24 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Huh? You must be smoking some whacky weed. Allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the government would require none of the things you mention. Empty rhetoric and exaggeration do you cause no good.
     
  5. Mar 1, 2004 #25 of 170
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Please see my previous post. And from it you might note that while yes, "there is nothing in the constitution thats says freedom FROM religon". There is also nothing in the Constitution that says freedom OF religion either.

    My interpretation, and generally the interpretation of the Supreme Court and most Constitutional scholars is that the what was intended was the government should not pass any laws favoring or disfavoring any religious belief, essentially, the government should remain neutral in this arena.

    There seems to be the notion that since a majority of Americans are Christians, it's OK to violate this neutrality in favor of Christianity. But the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were well aware that the majority of Americans were at the time, Christian also. In fact, Christians were a much larger majority when these documents were written and adopted. If the framers intended this neutrality could or should be violated by Christianity(or any other religion), why did they insert this language in the first place? Why didn't they establish an official state religion to avoid confusion over who would be allowed to violate this neutrality?

    I'm afraid the converse is true. The authors fully expected various religions to try and influence government and gain favor through passage of laws. And in their wisdom they were prophetically correct. Since the day the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, religious institutions have tried to gain favor from the government and advantage over other religions in spite of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
     
  6. Mar 1, 2004 #26 of 170
    Charles Oliva

    Charles Oliva Godfather

    423
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Okay, let's start with all 50 states laws concerning age to marry. In most states, it's 16. This age is mostly determined by a women ability to conceive children. But if a persons sex is no longer a determinate in marriage, thus childbearing a non-issue, then these laws are obsolete and will need to be rewritten. I'm not saying that these laws will be abolished, the right-wing argument that NAMBLA will go this route, but that all 50 states will have to revisit the law and adjust accordingly, and that's just for starters.
     
  7. Mar 1, 2004 #27 of 170
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    So that means childless couples are not considered "married"?.

    How about the lesbian or gay couple that adopts a child?
     
  8. Mar 1, 2004 #28 of 170
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Make marriage a church issue

    Sorry, but I think a number of us who were not married in a church will take issue with that.

    is very relevent since it's genetically NOT POSSIBLE for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to have kids.

    Genetically its very possible, although some science is involved. Research is underway whereby two ova from different women can be joined. The nuclear material is stripped away from one ova (already proven with cytoplasmic transfer and cloning technologies), and joined with the other (this is the tricky part... we can replace the internals, but mixing them is a different story). The result is a fertilized female egg indistinguishable from the "standard" method. This would not have any of the fears of cloning either, since the genetic material would come from gametes and not older cells.

    With cloning technology currently being researched, two men might soon have the same options. As long as some sort of stem cell is harvested that the men's DNA can be mingled within, the procedure should be simular. Of course they would still need a third party female "host", so its easier to just use her eggs, strip out the internal nucleus, and replace it with the men's combined. A child with DNA from three parents (father's mixed in nucleus, mothers in mitochondria, etc).

    Is this science fiction? Hardly. In 1997 children with two mothers and one father were born. (mother/father nucleus, another mother's egg with her own mitochondria). Heather has two mommies, and a daddy.
     
  9. Mar 1, 2004 #29 of 170
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    So guys, which is worse for society in general...

    Gay marriage or heterosexual divorce?

    It seems to me that the high rate of divorce in this country has led to many social problems. Why not an amendment to prohibit divorce?
     
  10. Mar 1, 2004 #30 of 170
    SpenceJT

    SpenceJT Legend

    145
    0
    Dec 27, 2002
    In the spirit of healthy debate, I take issue with the above statements. Like it or not people, these statements have little (if any) basis in "today's America".

    First of all your "Mr. and Mrs. John A." might have played well in the 50's, but many women in this day and age take issue with being labeled only as the "Mrs" of "Mr. and Mrs. John A.".

    This statement exudes a type of old-world thinking that is demeaning to women making them seemingly subjugated to men.

    Furthermore there are those of us who fall into what you have categorized as a "Traditional Marriage", but for one reason or another are unable to conceive biological children. What of us?

    Without the fantastic opportunity to adopt a child, we would have the same "end" as what you have classified as a "Gay Marriage".

    As far as I know, married couples, gay partners and non-married "single" individuals all have the ability to adopt children. Given this fact, don't all of these families have the same outcome as your "Traditional Marriage" for if they do not, are you not placing ALL families unable to bear biological children into your category as a "Gay Marriage"? In my opinion, this renders your category of "Gay Marriage" null and void.

    It is my opinion that this attempt to define marriage is born out of fear and ignorance by religious conservatives and homophobes. As I see it, they believe that making same sex marriage will eliminate what they see as "perversion" while in reality it will do NOTHING to stop the truly perverted who molest CHILDREN both male AND female!

    It is a sad fact there will always be sexual deviates in our society and this bill does nothing to curb them. This bill only serves to penalize same sex couples from realizing the same emotional and legal benefits afforded to those of us in who enjoy a loving relationship as "heterosexuals".

    The bottom line is that government should not be legislating a person's right to commit to another no matter what sex they are.

    As for the earlier statement that the definition of the word "Marriage"? I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but does any definition mention the word used in other forms such as a to combine two items (I.E. "a marriage of ideas", "a marriage between peanut butter and jelly", "a marriage of man and machine")? Regardless of the textbook definition, these phrases 'do' exist so in my book the term marriage is exactly that, the union of two into one.

    As you may guess, I have many close friends who happen to be gay. Many of these are "couples" who have been together longer than my wife and I have been married and yet are not eligible for the same benefits that my wife and I have. They do not have visitation rights when their partner hospitalized, in critical condition. They do not receive any death benefits to help cover funeral and burial expense. This law is mean sprited and hurtful to these individuals who only want equality. This is a colossal step backward in equality and an attempt to legislate discrimination. I strongly believe that history will see this, the way many of us look upon the history or slavery and segregation. It is simply NOT RIGHT.

    ...hey that's just my opinion so don't shoot the messenger. :(
     
  11. Mar 1, 2004 #31 of 170
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Are you British?

    Sorry, is this a new word? I can't find it in the dictionary.

    See? I can be just as petty as you. What is not petty and what cannot be so easily dismissed is the words in(and NOT in) the Constitution and Bill of Rights, although when confronted with them, that is what you try to do.

    Perhaps in my haste what I managed was a slip Freudian, another who saw through the folly of religion. What is "proscribed"{(of a government or other authority) to forbid something: YOUR definition:D} IN the Constitution and Bill of Rights IS government involvement with gods and religions!
     
  12. Mar 1, 2004 #32 of 170
    Charles Oliva

    Charles Oliva Godfather

    423
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    No, even if they don't have children they are following the pattern that society established.

    I was wondering when that question would come up. Yes, obviously they can adopt children. But part of who we are as a person and as a society comes from where we came from, a means of identity. Which again raises the issue, it we as a society decide that marriage is simply a means of two people calling themselves one and all other issues non-connected, including children, the basis of what traditional marriage is over.

    Personally, I think the government should accuately make marriage harder not easier to consumate. If all people in general, viewed marriage as a life long commitment not just a piece of paper to way around as status symbol(this goes for both hetro and gay couples) we all would be better off.
     
  13. Mar 1, 2004 #33 of 170
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Why not an amendment to prohibit divorce?

    A number of bills were proposed in the Georgia debate about making it harder to get a divorce, increasing penalties for adultery, etc. Strangely these failed to pass. Seems the folks who want the "pro marriage" amendment here really just want the "anti-gay" amendment.
     
  14. Mar 1, 2004 #34 of 170
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002

    Thanks, Danny. My point exactly. The continued progressive (dare I say "liberal") views of society are riding a freight train that won't be stopped or derailed. GWB can only make this amendment an issue with the over-30 crowd. Gay lifestyles continue to be more accepted among younger folks. In the very unlikely event that a amendment could come about, it would be repealed by the next generation.
     
  15. Mar 1, 2004 #35 of 170
    Stosh

    Stosh Godfather

    301
    0
    Dec 16, 2003
    Please, no generalizations. I'm on the dark side of 50, and I know LOTS of people my age and older who aren't just a bunch of right-wingers. And I know too many under-30's who are ultra-conservative.

    While younger people tend to become less liberal as they age, stereotypes such as you stated are rarely accurate.

    Now, if you'd said "over 60", I'd probably agree with you...until I reach that age! ;)
     
  16. Mar 1, 2004 #36 of 170
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    To the issue at hand:

    In general, whatever issues are not addressed by the Constitution are under purview of the individual states. Marriage would seem to fall into this catagory.

    My personal preference and belief is that "marriage" is a personal commitment between two individuals. And unless those individuals choose to codify it by written contract, oath or pledge(religious or otherwise), the state, or states, have no interest in this commitment, nor should they. There is a body of law however that DOES give states interest. Someone has suggested that some of this law would need to be changed. And I agree in the sense that it should be changed. The law should address individuals, not personal commitments. But this ain't going to happen, not in my lifetime anyway.

    So states may configure their definition of marriage however they wish. That is, as long as it doesn't conflict with their state constitution or other laws. This is the argument in Massachucetts and San Francisco. However, the "Full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution would imply that states recognize and honor the marriages performed in other states. I really don't see this as a big problem. Heterosexuals regularly cross state lines to avoid marriage statutes of their own states. Nevada has made this a growth industry! Do we need a Constitutional Amendment to address this contravention of state law?

    As for the religious aspects, I don't think anyone is suggesting, and it is almost certainly unconstitutional, that any particular religion should or could be forced to recognize marriage as defined by the states(or feds) or by another religion. In fact, I believe as it stands, some religions do NOT recognize marriages outside their own faith. Some religions may choose to recognize and perform same-sex marriages(as they do NOW), and other may choose not to. If you disagree with whatever position your particular religion takes, you are free to change. That is inherent to the very nature of religious freedom.

    Then there is the argument that this will somehow denigrate or cheapen or render meaningless, existing heterosexual marriages. But no one can explain exactly how or why this will happen. The argument almost always falls back to religious or "tradition" arguments. But ours is a secular government despite what some may wish. And again, no one can explain how changing the "tradition" of marriage will have a detrimental effect. The exact same arguments were put forth against the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, and interracial marriage. The last example especially shows there was no reason to be concerned, at least no valid reason.

    Lastly, there's the hypocrisy of condemning the perceived "promiscuous lifestyle" of homosexuals on the one hand, while on the other refusing to allow them the option of a personal commitment to another through the traditional method, marriage. I should think conservatives and the religious would be overjoyed to get homosexuals out of gay bars and bath houses and into loving and committed monogamous relationships. Unfortunately I have trouble understanding both conservatives and the religious.:scratch:
     
  17. Mar 1, 2004 #37 of 170
    SpenceJT

    SpenceJT Legend

    145
    0
    Dec 27, 2002
    I could not have said it better myself. Someday this legislation against gay marriage will be looked upon in the same way that most of society views such topics as racial issues of the 50's and 60's. I am sure that in the future, this proposed ban will be looked upon as being as wrong as "white only" restrooms & water fountains and making a minority sit in the back of the bus.

    I look forward to a day when people will be open minded enough to accept each other no matter their sexual orientation. My wife and I intend to raise our adoptive daughter with these ideals.
     
  18. Mar 1, 2004 #38 of 170
    MikeSoltis

    MikeSoltis Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    424
    0
    Aug 1, 2003
    I would like to take a moment to complement everyone on not having this turn into a flaming debacle (one of the worries I had when originally posing the question), and for offering some interesting points in this debate (seriously).
     
  19. Mar 1, 2004 #39 of 170
    JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    Amen! My 15 yr. old daughter tells me she's convinced that we will always find ways to discriminate against others. Let's find ways to tear walls down rather than build more up.
     
  20. Mar 2, 2004 #40 of 170
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Someone on another board put it best... He said "Here we are with a problem in Iraq with our soldiers dying, a fragile economic recovery with stubborn unemployment, health care issues, a looming Social Security crisis and our government is suddenly pointing in another direction and shouting 'LOOK! (GAYS)!'"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page