Originally posted by Davo:No. Some consider the acceptance of gay marriage within our society to be forcing immorality upon them. Don't think one's conception of morality is entirely independent of society.
But, nobody is asking *YOU* to accept it. You can be as pissed off as you want about it, rant and rave about it, curse about it.
And don't give me this "majority didn't accept it" crap. This isn't about what the PEOPLE want to accept, or who it's being thrust upon. Nobody is being forced to be willing to accept, agree with, or like gay marriage.
The ONLY thing it's done is exclude a minority from the same rights as the majority, which is NOT what this country was founded upon.
Actually, they have the EXACT same rights as I do to marry somebody of the opposite sex. Texas, and many states in the United States, feel the same way.
There is something inherently wrong with homo-marriage and anything else pretending to be a marriage. What is it? Anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman can provide a basis for a future of our country!!! And before you go about and give me some BS about the fact that most married couples DON'T PROCREATE, let me say this. They procreate enough to continue our society. Unfortunately, abortion and abortificient birth controls are available and legal, which kind of makes our government and society a little hypocritical.
Re-read what you wrote and try to soak it in. First, we are talking about a statically small percentage of the country's population. Second, your pro-creation point is only a valid concern if you can somehow convince gay people to unnaturally (to them at least) marry someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise, I'd be willing to bet the majority of gay men and women will not look at an amendment like this and say to themselves. "Crap, i can't marry the person I consider my soul mate, so I might as well get married to some chick i don't love and make babies". It's not going to happen. Like you said, the hetero couples pro-create enough , right? I have a big problem with Abortion, but my concern has nothing to do with the continuation of our society, it's for the unborn child's welfare. You also seem to have your priorities crooked. I have no problem with birth control, prior to conception, sex isn't dirty and soemthing to only do 3 times during your lifetime. The lack of birth control, i could see doing more harm to our society than the use there of.
Quote:
We're not taking rights away from them, because they didn't have the right in the first place to marry a member of the opposite sex. No where in our constitution does it say that our country gives EVERYBODY THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT. If that were the case, our country would fall into an oblivion of chaos.
If this is so definite, why are the states explicitly defining it now, aside from getting conservatives attention for the last election? If this is so clearly the case, there is no need for amendments at any level of government.
If memory serves , the original constitution before amendments only defined that different races would not be allowed to marry. Gender was not specifically addressed. (this may be off, but I don't have time to look it up to verify and is just purely off memory.)
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
