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 2, 2004 #41 of 170
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Actually I remain optimistic. I don't think this will be "the issue". In polls, most people say they are opposed to it but my impression is they are really thinking "so what?". Nobody has made a convincing case of how there will be concrete implications for the average Joe and Jane if the average Joe and Joe or Jane and Jane want to marry. And normal looking middle aged folks exchanging vows on the steps of SF Courthouse is a much kinder, gentler image then the flaming gay-pride parade images we used to get.

    And people seem to be wising up to some other things too. The aftermath of the Iraq war has been pretty sobering. We've been lied to before but probably never so blatantly and there seems to be no remorse or apologies forthcoming. Bush just changed the subject to "evil Saddam". That's not working. So now he wants to change it to "evil gays". And people are seeing through it. I think the general response to Bush's call for a Constitutional Amendment, even from many conservatives, is "Hold on a minute, that's uncalled for.":nono: Unlike 20-30, even 10 years ago, most of us know gay people. Not just know we think they're gay, but know 100% for sure 'cause they'll come right out and tell you if you ask. And guess what? They're not monsters. They're sincere, hard-working, interesting to talk and joke with, nice people for the most part. Just like the rest of us. This marriage thing is just one last little bump in the road for them to be accepted in our society. And except for a hard-core few, this is now seen as a good thing.

    And oh, BTW, there is no "looming Social Security crisis" unless you consider 30-40 years from now as "looming". The SS trust is fully funded for at least that long with conservative(not conservative's) estimates for growth. It's another LIE so that the trust fund, currently safely locked away, can be turned over to Wall Street for them to play with. Yeah, that makes sense, the problem with Social Security is that no one's making obscene profits of it.:rolleyes::hair::mad:
     
  2. Mar 2, 2004 #42 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    There is absolutely no valid reason the AOC laws would need to be altered should gay marriages be recognized by the government. It would be nice should the AOC laws be standardized, but it isn't a requirement.

    It sounds like you support legalized heterosexual pedophilia, is that true? No matter how you spin it, having it legal for a 50yo man to have sex with or marry a 14yo girl is still pedophilia. It is still disgusting.
     
  3. Mar 2, 2004 #43 of 170
    freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    I am for any amendment that would ban a same sex marriage. People need to try different positions the same sex becomes boring and leads to divorce! :)
     
  4. Mar 2, 2004 #44 of 170
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    :lol: :hurah: :lol: :hurah: :grin: :D
     
  5. Mar 2, 2004 #45 of 170
    FritzM

    FritzM Legend

    120
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    In all this fray, how come no one's mentioned 2nd marraiges and the Catholic Church? They're "civil unions" that a (specific) religion doesn't recognize....
     
  6. Mar 2, 2004 #46 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Ssshhhhh!!! Not too loud, the conservatives don't like it when you mention inconvenient facts like that. :D
     
  7. Mar 2, 2004 #47 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    "In all this fray, how come no one's mentioned 2nd marraiges and the Catholic Church? They're "civil unions" that a (specific) religion doesn't recognize...."

    Many of us inside and outside the Catholic Churh believe second marriages are immoral. But they still fall within the very definition of marriage (see the Cambridge link above), whereas homosexual unions can't be called marriage without redefining marriage - which is not something that should be done with such a sacred union. Government should get out of the marriage business, churches only. Marriage should be a religious institution, not a legal one. Make the government benefits seperate, and gays could be eligible for that, or for a marriage ceremony in some churches (I bet the United Church of Christ would marry them) that wouldn't be recognized by others.
     
  8. Mar 2, 2004 #48 of 170
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    First, dictionary definitions are not cast in stone. They change relatively frequently to reflect current usage. Therefore in about 10 years I expect you will see a very different definition in many dictionaries.

    Second, while I am sure you meant the comment about the United Church of Christ as a slam, the United Church of Christ would support me in a ceremony joining two people of the same sex. Whether I would do so is up to me, and my congregation. So far no one has asked me to do so, so I haven't had to address the issue. I am proud to be part of a denomination that trusts its pastors enough to let them make up their own minds on the issue.
     
  9. Mar 2, 2004 #49 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    "while I am sure you meant the comment about the United Church of Christ as a slam"

    I certainly did not Bogy, I just meant I knew they had homosexual ministers (I think it's the UCC), and therefore I assumed homosexual marriages would also be performed.

    PS, Bogy. I've known some gay people in my life. I've even met some Christian gays on the internet. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but that's between them and God - I'm not going to judge them. They just shouldn't be allowed to take a ceremony that's sacred between a couple naturally biologically capable of forming a family...
     
  10. Mar 2, 2004 #50 of 170
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    The Catholic Church does not recognize my marriage of 17 years (as of last Saturday) to my wife and the mother of my children.

    The church considers my children *******s.

    That's entirely within their rights to think so.

    And I'm entirely within my rights to tell them to stuff it. Remember, this is the church that just a few years ago admitted they were wrong for persecuting Galileo.

    Gays and lesbians want some of the 1400+ benefits that heterosexuals enjoy when married. And it doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilization in Europe where (in some countries) same sex marriage is legal and has been for some 15 years.
     
  11. Mar 2, 2004 #51 of 170
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Oh. How cute.. My words were censored.

    The asterisks above were referring to the technical term employed frequently as a pejorative in reference to children who's parents were never married.
     
  12. Mar 2, 2004 #52 of 170
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Glad to hear you didn't mean it as a slam. Sorry if I made an assumption. Yes, we do have a number of homosexual ministers. In our system it is up to each congregation if they want to make sexual orientation a factor in calling a pastor. No one can force a church to accept a pastor with which they wouldn't feel comfortable. So we not only have homosexuals, but also have female pastors, which many people are no more comfortable with than gays or lesbians. (First female in the ordained ministry, Rev. Antoinette Brown, Congregational Minister, a predecessor to the UCC, I believe in 1854.) Some day the rest of you will catch up with us. Most of you did in the area of slavery, eventually. We are used to leading the way.
     
  13. Mar 2, 2004 #53 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Actually Bogy, my denomination has female pastors too (though not the church I go to, I have met some of them from other churches in the state). We believe 100% in women in the same roles as men.

    I understand why you took my UCC comment negatively, but it wasn't :) My dad went to the UCC at least on occasion I know.
     
  14. Mar 2, 2004 #54 of 170
    freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    God must love to look down on us and get a good laugh. We let child molesters off the hook with slaps on the wrists. We lock shoplifters up for 30 years. And here we are talking about gay marriage. Give me a break. IMO homosexuality is wrong. A Man and a Woman have sex to make children. At least thats the way it is supposed to be. The parts are a natural fit. If we were meant to be in same sex relationships then we would have been made/evolved to be a sexual But we were not. Now don't get your panties in a bunch I am not anti gay or bigoted. I just don't agree with your lifestyle choice/wiring. My brother was gay and died of aids in 1998. He and his partner suffered terribly from the disease. They could not get married and understood this fact. They went to a lawyer and had living wills drawn up Power of Attorneys for each other and through that enjoyed much of the benefits of a married couple. Why this drum is being beaten so loudly I do not know. Don't complain about the inequity of the situation. Do something about it. There are ways for gay couples to protect themselves it is just not as easy as getting married. But until Gay marriages (if ever) are recognized doesn't it only make sense to protect your self and the one you love? I know of one couple who didn't. He was a helicopter pilot for a Miami news station and the other he was his life long mate. the helicopter pilot died in a crash covering a news story. They had no wills or power of attorneys in place and his mate in all his grieving got kicked out of his house( he wasn't on the mortgage) had no say in the burial and got cheated out of life insurance benefits buy his mates family. If they had done some planning then the after accident life would have been very different. But they didn't and he ended up on the street.
     
  15. Mar 3, 2004 #55 of 170
    AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    Makes me wonder why contraceptives are so popular...
     
  16. Mar 3, 2004 #56 of 170
    jrjcd

    jrjcd Arcane Movie Trivia King DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,806
    0
    Apr 23, 2002

    THAT'S a whole 'nother thread, methinks...lol
     
  17. Mar 3, 2004 #57 of 170
    freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    Makes me wonder why you left my next sentence out?




     
  18. Mar 3, 2004 #58 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    However, there are some things that no amount of legal paperwork can accomplish that "married" couples have simply by being married. And all that legal paperwork can be made about as useful as toilet paper should a family and the courts contest it. I've seen that happen. Here in Georgia the courts ruled that family/blood supercedes legal documents. A couple I was familiar with had drawn up every legal paper available, by the best attorneys in the area. They had been a couple for over 23 years, had a thriving business, a beautiful home, etc. One got sick (with cancer), and his mother, who had actually thrown him out of the house when he was 15yo because he was gay and had never spoken to him since, decided to come in and take over. She obtained a restraining order against the partner so he wasn't even allowed to visit him in the hospital, nor was he allowed to even attend the funeral, much less carry out the burial instructions that the deceased had wanted. The mother also got the will thrown out and she took sole posession of their house and had the business liquidated. The courts, all the way up to the State Supreme court, ruled that family came first, regardless of legal documents. Interestingly, had the gay couple been married, the partner would have been considered "family" and, according to the court rulings, would have prevailed. But because gay couples can't marry, they can't be considered "family" to each other. One person, with the full support of the entire legal system, completely overrided the entire 23 year committment these two people had. The grieving partner couldn't even be in the hospital room when the person he had loved for 23 years died, couldn't even attend his funeral or burial. And had to abandon the home they had built together, and even had to sell their business and give half of the proceeds to a stranger.

    So, don't go telling me that we (gay people) can already get all the benefits of marriage. You wrote, "Don't complain about the inequity of the situation. Do something about it." That is EXACTLY what we're doing.
     
  19. Mar 3, 2004 #59 of 170
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    BTW, the "parts" fit just fine in a gay relationship, too.

    For people who think gays "choose" their orientation, I propose a little experiment. Sexual arousal is an autonomic reflex, which I'm sure you will agree. You do not consciously decide to be aroused, it just happens when presented with the "correct" influence. But people who think gays "choose" their orientation must also think we can choose to be aroused, at will.

    So, can you make your heart beat faster, increase your respiration, increase sweat gland production, dilate your pupils, dilate the capilaries in your skin... all of these things and more, at will? Some seem to think that gay people can. When a heterosexual man sees an attractive woman, those things happen automatically. I can assure you that those things do NOT happen when a gay man sees a woman, regardless of how attractive she may be. But an attractive man garners the response, instead.

    That is something that is completely out of the conscious control, and is "hardwired". Why it happens remains unknown, but the fact that it does happen removes any doubt of whether it is a choice. It isn't.

    There are other interesting physical qualities, too. NOTE: I will make every effort to keep this as clinical as possible, but if you're easily offended by anatomical descriptions, look away. For instance, the male prostate gland. This little organ is quite uniquely designed, and the vast majority of people have very little knowledge of it or know anything about it. It is the only internal organ that has tactile nerve endings on its surface, just like the nerve endings on your skin. In fact, the nerves on the surface of the prostate gland are more concentrated than even those on the penis, and they run to the same area of the spinal column and brain as those from other erogenous zones. Now, why would an internal organ have such nerve endings? Why would it be such an intense erogenous originator? Let's look at the placement of the organ. It resides inside the male rectum, about 4 inches past the anal sphincter. Now, ask yourself why a tactile organ would be placed in such a location. Was it put there by satan? :) Hmmmm....

    Am I saying that all males should engage in anal intercourse? Absolutely not. I am simply saying that there is a very valid reason why some males choose to do so. And not all gay men practice anal sex. Some studies have suggested that anywhere from 35% to 65% do, my own informal experience is that about half do, half don't.

    Anyway, the point is that just because something doesn't seem "natural" to you does not mean that it isn't "natural" to someone else. It's all supposed to be private, anyway, so what someone else is doing in the privacy of their home really should not make a difference as to whether their relationship is considered valid or not.
     
  20. Mar 3, 2004 #60 of 170
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    "When a heterosexual man sees an attractive woman, those things happen automatically."

    No way, not just by seeing a woman. Over the course of a nice evening with the woman, getting to know her and talk to her and laugh with her, yes. But SEEING? Nope.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page