Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Obviously if you have ever read through our constitution, you would know that the United States was without a doubt NOT "founded on religion".



I was in the historic district in Philadelphia a few weeks back, where the documents that form the basis of our national government were written...




There's one document that forms the basis of our federal government and its called the Constitution. Although our constitution was drafted by Christians - very religious individuals - it contains no references to Christ, no references to Christianity, no references to God, and the only references it contains that pertain to religion are a prohibition on requiring religious oaths and a prohibiiton on state sponsored religion.

I can't conceive how anyone could read our constitution and come away with the impression that this was intended to be a blueprint for a Christian nation.


He probably meant Declaration of Independence:

Quote:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



The reason for Marriage is to create a environment that benefits the state, ie: Male/Female marry and raise children. The laws protect the bond so that childrren are raised as best as possible and the laws protect this family as best as possible. It is in the best interest of the state to have its children protected and raised by this family unit. Now you can quote all sorts of instances where this doesn't work. But overall, it does. Without a religious motive to marry, why should an atheist marry? Why not just have kids? Why is out of wedlock children bearing frowned upon? Because, even though it doesn't happen every single time, the state wants a family to form and support itself and raise the children. Since the only "natural" way for this to happen is for a man and woment to marry and bear children. No other combination works as well so the state encourages this with it's laws. There is no incentive for the state to encourage any other combination. And I don't see any advantage to the state for any other combinbation. Don't quote me an elderly couple who can't have kids, or a women or man who is sterile. If the state could be more intrusive, it would probably ban that too. Since the state shouldn't be more intrusive, we can let those couple of exceptions slide without losing sight of the big picture, Children are best (not the only way, but still best) raised by a Mael/Female setup. Again, don't quote abusive male/female setups as these are against the law and not encouraged by the state.

So rather than what is in it for the the gay couple, explain why or how the state will benefit from gay marraige. Not a single instance, but a big picture. Heterosexual marraige is a benefit because it creates in the vast majority of the cases the best known environment for raising and protecting the next citizens of the state. One parent families are not ideal. Not "Bad", but not ideal, so the state does not encourage it with laws. Gay families are not necessarily "bad", but still not ideal.

For instance, if the tax laws and other laws made single mother families the preferred situation, then we would see even more "unwed" mothers. It is possible, but not as easy, to raise children by oneself, but certainly not the best situation. So our laws and tax structure do not encourage single parenthood. By the same token, unless I missed something, there is nothing to be gained by the state to encourage homosexual unions.

So, not god, not morals. If you had to state the BEST situation for raising children, one has to admit that a LOVING mother and father, raising their own children, is the best combination. So as a state (state meaning the US or one it's states), the only one to encourage with favorable laws is the "standard" combination. It shouldn't necessarily disallow other combinations, as exceptions can be made, but it should only encourage the ideal.

Marriage by definition is a male/female thing. Something else should be called something else. Pick a word, any word. Make a word up.

Some other peeves of mine is the argument that "conventional marriages have a 50% divorce rate so it isn't that sacred." So tell me why you want a part of something with a 50% failure rate?

Another little thing is that most arguments for gay marriage could be used for other combinations. Why not polygamy? Can't 3 people commit to each other? can't 3 people raise children better? Can't 4 people be good parents? Why can't I marry my brother? Are we not good people?
Why can't I marry my dad? He is a good parent and loves me already? By re-defining marriage we actually un-define it.

I don't believe the state should ENCOURAGE anything but the ideal.

Now, it may be in the states best interest to define a domestic partnership. Since issues as inheritance, health care, dependant support are important to the state, I would be in favor of a state law defining a domestic partnership. However, since it purpose is not primarily to encourage raising children in an ideal environment, it is not marraige, but something else, and the laws should be set up to make the best situation for the STATE. I don't know exactly what that would be, but I would be in favor of something like that.
Also, Power of attorney, living wills, wills, can accomplish many of the goals a gay couple needs without the benefit or drawbacks to marriage. Some decent laws could allow a reasonable equivalence to marriage without it actually being marriage.









My name is Richard. I was a Contouraholic. NOW: '02 Mazda B3000 Dual Sport, Black BEFORE: '99 Contour SE Sport Duratec ATX Spruce Green PIAA 510's, Foglight MOD, K&N Drop-in