|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
I qualified harm because there are a lot of severely short-sighted and weak-minded people who are, in fact, emotionally disturbed by homosexuality.
Just like there are severely short-sighted and weak-minded people who are emotionally disturbed by school prayer.
Originally posted by bishop375:
To bring this to your frame of reference, it would be like allowing straight people to murder, but not gays. THAT is apples-to-apples.
Again, the amendment does not ban gays from marrying. If they want to marry legally, they are willing to do so. Also, a straight person cannot marry a person from the same sex. The amendment states what marriage is to be, not what homosexuals are not to do. There is a difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
The majority spoke. They also spoke in the 50's and 60's making sure that white people had rights that black people couldn't have. Was that right? I fail to see the difference.
Actually there is a marked difference to date between civil rights and same-sex marriage. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted by a majority of our Congress, consisting of 72-27 in the Senate (not sure on the House), which is representative of the people of the United States. In contrast, our Congress passed The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 by a landslide vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, in defense of traditional marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act did two things:
1) It provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage."
2) It defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).
DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
The specific wording written into law is:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
This law, just like past civil liberties laws and any other laws that the majority of people in the United States felt needed to be changed, were enacted via the elected representatives and senators in the Congress. Congress is a reflection of the will of the people. In this case, I agree with DOMA. Perhaps someday the will of the people will change such that the definition of marriage and spouse will also change, only time will tell. Specifically I agree with DOMA because it advocates states rights, and it clearly defines marriage for the U.S.A.
Last edited by cjbaldw; 11/09/05 08:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by bishop375:
I qualified harm because there are a lot of severely short-sighted and weak-minded people who are, in fact, emotionally disturbed by homosexuality.
Just like there are severely short-sighted and weak-minded people who are emotionally disturbed by school prayer.
Originally posted by bishop375:
To bring this to your frame of reference, it would be like allowing straight people to murder, but not gays. THAT is apples-to-apples.
Again, the amendment does not ban gays from marrying. If they want to marry legally, they are willing to do so. Also, a straight person cannot marry a person from the same sex. The amendment states what marriage is to be, not what homosexuals are not to do. There is a difference between the two.
See... here is where I consider myself strange.
If a child doesn't want to pray in school, I don't feel they should be forced to. Nor do I think it should be banned. That's something I believe is up to the individual, and if the kid doesn't feel like it, so be it.
So, you're saying that because the state will not recognize a same-sex marriage, the people married do not get the benefits (or penalties, in some cases) afforded to straight couples in the state?
To roll this back a little bit further, someone mentioned polygamy and bestiality.
There are logistical issues with polygamy, ie: how are taxes/property handled in case of divorce? Who has medical rights? If you have a DNR to sign, which one of the wives/husbands sign it? I don't see it as being *wrong*, just difficult.
Bestiality is a completely different thing. Same with an inanimate object.
If you want to define marriage as a relationship between humans, fine with me.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,687
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,687 |
I don't understand why people even bring religion into this whole Same-sex marriage thing. Marriage was originally done as a social binding to share liabilities and benefits of partnership. Church was only there to BLESS the union, not administrate it. I'm also against one group trying to remove the rights from another. I'll put that more clearly. I don't agree with men marrying men, but I do support their RIGHT to do so. It really should be none of our business what goes on in the lives of other people. And we really shouldn't regulate them. This whole anti-gay marriage thing is ridiculous and violates the civil rights of a select group of people. 'Nuff said. 
J.T.
2002 Chevrolet Silverado 294ci V8. Custom CAI, headers on the way...
1997 Mercury Mystique Zetec ATX
Deceased February 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
If you want to define marriage as a relationship between humans, fine with me.
But that would be discriminating against animals! YOU HATE ANIMALS!
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Originally posted by Desea vivo el Todras:
Originally posted by TexasRealtor:
Originally posted by bishop375:
Still more examples- having known a gay couple (both women) who had their civil union, were committed enough that they were willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars on insemination treatments, to finally get pregnant and raise a child in what could be the most loving environment I've ever seen, how does that affect your view, or does it mean that they are an exception to the rule?
So why insist on the term marriage. Once you define marriage as anything other than and adult man and woman, then you open a can of worms. Beastiality advocates will fight for thier right to marry farm animals, polygimists will fight for thier right to marry mulitiple partners, etc.
exactly.
This is a perfect example of the illogical slippery slope comments I have heard and read in the past. You really don't buy into that, do you?
I don't doubt at all that someone would try this, but it would be quickly flushed out the judicial system.
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by dnewma04:
This is a perfect example of the illogical slippery slope comments I have heard and read in the past. You really don't buy into that, do you?
I don't doubt at all that someone would try this, but it would be quickly flushed out the judicial system.
They said that about gay marriage 100 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
"Sir, are you classified as a human?"
"Ahh, no, I am a meat popcicle."
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by dnewma04:
This is a perfect example of the illogical slippery slope comments I have heard and read in the past. You really don't buy into that, do you?
I don't doubt at all that someone would try this, but it would be quickly flushed out the judicial system.
They said that about gay marriage 100 years ago.
Did they? I must have missed that. That said, are you insinuating that allowing same sex legal unions will lead to us eventually letting people marry a rock?
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,431
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,431 |
Originally posted by dnewma04:
My proposal would be to remove marriage from legal documents, replace it with civil union for all legal unions. The term marriage in the historical sense would remain a religious based ceremony which would, upon completion, result in a legal civil union. Just like those dirty gays when they are united legally.
I've been of this opinion for three years now.
|
|
|
|
|
