|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by design:
In reality marriage cannot be "redifined" it can only be destroyed and rebuilt in a "new" image.
Is that "reality" or is that the subject of this debate - a lot of people wouldn't agree with you.
Quote:
If marriage is not one man & one woman then it could be any thing you want. It could be three men and two women or brother and sister. After all wouldn't these just simply be consenting adults?
How exactly would that work? I don't believe that gays are asking for the reversal of legislation against these things.
Quote:
Utah was allowed into the union based on them banning polygamy
Proving only that there is a precedent (at least in Utah) for changing the basic definition of marriage.
Quote:
Fundementally it is wrong because the Bible says it is regardless of what any of us think.
Not every citizen reads the same bible as you do, or even practices the same religion, or any religion - and that it is their right. If at some point in the future, non-Christians became the majority, would you then be okay with having their religious definitions prevail as it pertains to interpreting the constitution and making law?
Originally posted by design:
Is the real agenda here that they simply want to pay less taxes?
I believe that the real agenda is equal rights - and all the implications that come with equal rights, be they benefits or responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
This clown that I used to work with once said "Let gays get married then they can deal with the B.S. that every other married couple has to put up with too." I thought it was kinda funny.
Still didn't see an answer to my question about how gay marriages degrade the "scared" institution of marriage yet I don't see many ultra religious sacred marriage lovers boycotting or trying to stop all the stupid (but great ratings bringing) "reality" shows where people choose between love or money or a bunch of kids on a nationally televised show pick a wife for their dad etc. etc. etc. or the fact that pretty much every state now has a no fault divorce law.
I think the whole "sacred marriage institution" has been not-so-sacred in our society for quite some time and allowing gays to marry won't make it any worse. Besides, the only people that marriage really NEEDS to matter to is the 2 people involved. As long as you love your mate who gives a flying sack of monkey crap what anyone else does with their marriage? How does that REALLY degrade YOUR marriage?
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by design:
Is the real agenda here that they simply want to pay less taxes?
I believe that the real agenda is equal rights - and all the implications that come with equal rights, be they benefits or responsibilities.
That was my point, not that taxes were the most important part. Again people fail to see that these are two different institutions, one is of the state and one of the church. As it was said, how does a gay couple getting married hurt YOUR marriage? How does a marraige outside of the Church hurt the Church?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367 |
I'm concerned with more than what effects me directly. In a democratic society we have both the right and responsibility to work towards what is best for our country as a whole. The issue is not how it will effect my marriage but how it affects our country. I can't vote on laws only designed for my benifit. Many laws will never have a direct effect on me. They do however have indirect affects.
Those that support same-sex marriage should want it voted on by the general public. If they truly believe in freedom then let us vote on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115 |
Originally posted by Freakshow:
This clown that I used to work with once said "Let gays get married then they can deal with the B.S. that every other married couple has to put up with too." I thought it was kinda funny.
Funny quote, but actually it goes right to the heart of the issue. Gays want(and should have) all the rights and privileges(and headaches  ) of traditional marriage. These include insurance, inheritance, etc. The majority of Americans(despite the views of some ultra conservatives) have no problems with this, it is just how to achieve that goal. Redefine "traditional" marriage or legalize civil unions.
"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
First I believe the issue is a state and local politics issue rather then a national one. Second yes I understand it is more then just how it affects YOUR marraige, but how does gay marriage affect society? Why is there so much fear that Gays are going to take over or something, I just don't understand. I don't understand how this is going to make the US worse off. Fine don't call it marriage, call it something else. Europe has does this and they are fine. I don't know where the evidence exists to suggest that we will be worse off for allowing gay rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
First I believe the issue is a state and local politics issue rather then a national one. Second yes I understand it is more then just how it affects YOUR marraige, but how does gay marriage affect society? Why is there so much fear that Gays are going to take over or something, I just don't understand. I don't understand how this is going to make the US worse off. Fine don't call it marriage, call it something else. Europe has does this and they are fine. I don't know where the evidence exists to suggest that we will be worse off for allowing gay rights.
The whole debate is that the gay community does not want the term "Civil Union" but insist on the term marriage. They know that this will stir up deep emotions with the US Judeo-Christian majority and keep this issue front and center in the press. It would have been relatively easy to legalize civil unions on a state by state basis, because the majority of people in the US wouldn't find it offensive and an attack on their core religious beliefs.
"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
DING DING DING!
We have a winner folks!
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Oh yeah, I know the answer to my question. It's because a majority of Americans agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman! That is why so many democrats and social liberals crap their pants when an issue like this goes on the ballot! It's because they KNOW it will go a way other than theirs.
The majority of the South considered slavery an acceptable means of labor. It didn't make it right. Discrimination in any realm of American life is unacceptable.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by texasrealtor:
The whole debate is that the gay community does not want the term "Civil Union" but insist on the term marriage.
You don't cite any source on this so I'll assume this is your opinion. The fact is that "marriage" is the only term given to both the religious ceremony and the civil union - when you go to city hall, you apply for a "marriage" license, not a civil union license. I don't believe that gays are demanding anything in the way of terminology - if they expect to get the same rights, by definition they have to call it marriage. This debate is not about semantics IMO.
Quote:
They know that this will stir up deep emotions with the US Judeo-Christian majority and keep this issue front and center in the press.
As you allude to, the Judeo-Christian community does not speak with one voice on the issue of gay rights; and I challenge you to support that the view you attribute to them is the majority view. I suspect it is in fact a very vocal minority. The majority viewpoint is more likely to be ambivalence, as you point out later in your post.
Various religious factions are greatly divided on everything from the ordainment of gay ministers to the issue of gay marriage - and that is certainly for the various religions to sort out for themeselves - or not. But IMO a viewpoint based on personal religious belief (majority or not) should not have any standing with regards to the assertion of civil rights under the constitution as amended. IMO Bush as President should be promoting tolerance and the expansion of civil rights, not his own personal religious belief.
Quote:
It would have been relatively easy to legalize civil unions on a state by state basis, because the majority of people in the US wouldn't find it offensive and an attack on their core religious beliefs.
This statement at face value seems to contradict your prior one about the "Judeo Christian majority;" but I do believe it is more correct.
If you recall however what started this thread, it seems that the "no gay marriage" element is on the offensive and, in Oregon at least, is intent on using the state's constitution to preempt any other attempt by gays to achieve their objective; making no distinction between the civil and religious defintions of marriage in the process.
The practise of religious belief dictating human and civil rights is what drove the pilgrims to the boats. And although the current debate isn't directly analogous, the lessons learned are still valuable and should be headed.
|
|
|
|
|
