|
Post by pettyluv on Sept 5, 2003 18:17:07 GMT -5
If you think people are homophobes because they wish uphold traditional values and try to keep some sanctity in the institution of marriage, then so be it. I have no problem with gays, and I believe that in the privacy of their homes they have the right to do as they wish, but there is no right to marriage.
I completely support a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a women. To throw thousands of years of Western tradition out the window to please some PC lobby is ridiculous.
Another problem is that this issue and many others expresses how liberals cannot get their agenda through the democratic process so they must push it through the courts. An amendment to ban gay marriage is the only way to safeguard the issue from activist courts.
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Sept 5, 2003 19:50:01 GMT -5
If you think people are homophobes because they wish uphold traditional values and try to keep some sanctity in the institution of marriage, then so be it. I have no problem with gays, and I believe that in the privacy of their homes they have the right to do as they wish, but there is no right to marriage. I completely support a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a women. To throw thousands of years of Western tradition out the window to please some PC lobby is ridiculous. Letting homosexuals would ruin the sanctity of marriage? Silly me, I always thought marriage was for people who loved each other... As for tradition thing, just because it's been done for thousands of years doesn't make it right. Slavery was a rather popular tradition in the West for a long while there. In the Middle East/African areas female circumcision (sp?) is a popular tradition as well.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Sept 5, 2003 22:24:06 GMT -5
Comparing upholding traditional marriage to something like slavery is just absurd.
Im not proposing anything radical, all I think we should do is codify already existing law into an amendment. If there was ever a redefinition of marriage by Congress I would accept that as democratic rule of law, however the only way these people get anywhere on this issue is by finding some unelected liberal judge who will let it slip by.
There is no Constitutional command for gay marriage, and no reason for it. The American people overwhelmingly oppose the idea of gay marriage and I think the move toward an amendment could gain a lot of steam.
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Sept 5, 2003 22:37:16 GMT -5
I don't think comparing them is absurd...the basic principle behind it is the same. It was a Western 'tradition'. The only reason it could be considered absurd is that two people in love getting married doesn't really hurt anyone.
Aren't laws supposed to be here to protect people? Is gay marriage hurting anyone? I'd think there are more pressing issues for the government to be handling other than stopping people from getting married.
|
|
|
Post by ColeSlaw12 on Sept 5, 2003 23:00:24 GMT -5
I completely support a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a women. To throw thousands of years of Western tradition out the window to please some PC lobby is ridiculous. i believe it was the straight couples that turned marriage into a divorce free for all.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Sept 5, 2003 23:11:06 GMT -5
Well if you can claim moral equivalency between the enslavement of a race and gay marriage, then thats your issue to work with.
<<I'd think there are more pressing issues for the government to be handling other than stopping people from getting married. >>
The government is not stopping anyone from getting married, since there is no situation that can exist in which two people of the same gender are married.
Suppose we allow homosexual marriage, then whats to stop the recognition of polygamous marriage and incestual marriage. After all, theyre all adults who "love" eachother, right? Where does society draw the line?
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Sept 5, 2003 23:17:03 GMT -5
<<i believe it was the straight couples that turned marriage into a divorce free for all. >>
Which is also a good point, the "no fault" divorce laws that were enacted in states throughout the 70's have had a horrible effect on marriage and the family. However I do not believe that allowing gays to marry will solve the problem or make it any better.
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Sept 5, 2003 23:39:21 GMT -5
~Suppose we allow homosexual marriage, then whats to stop the recognition of polygamous marriage and incestual marriage. After all, theyre all adults who "love" eachother, right? Where does society draw the line? ~
There's a difference between homosexual marriages and polygamous and incestual marriages. Polygamous marriages and incestual marriages are hurtful to people. With polygamy you have the possibilty of a guy taking on many wives w/o their knowledge of each other. That's harmful emotionally and poses health risks. The same emotional and health risks come with incestual relationships.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Sept 5, 2003 23:49:38 GMT -5
But I thought marriage was for people who love eachother? In this new world where the state cannot place judgement on the validity of relationships between consenting adults, I think your argument would have a hard time holding up in court.
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Sept 6, 2003 10:21:07 GMT -5
I did say marriage is for those who love each other, but I also said laws are supposed to protect us.
|
|
|
Post by ColeSlaw12 on Sept 6, 2003 11:59:21 GMT -5
Well if you can claim moral equivalency between the enslavement of a race and gay marriage, then thats your issue to work with. The government is not stopping anyone from getting married, since there is no situation that can exist in which two people of the same gender are married. i'm not sure i understand. two people of the same gender can't get legally married by law. that is the problem. same sex couples are not treated equally as straight couples. i think that is where its~a~nova is pointing out that same sex couples are being treated below people as was slaves. this is obviously not a western tradition as canada is legalizing it as well. seems like the only western nation your talking about it the united states of america.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Sept 6, 2003 16:11:30 GMT -5
I agree with Nova and Cole on this one Petty. Both of them provide much better points than you. You just seem to continue rambling about "Western tradition" in an international community where most people don't give a damn.
But seriously, laws are supposed to protect people, PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.
And how many people do you honestly think would actually go for polygamous and incestual marriages? Where the hell are you living? And Nova is right. The gay marriage issue is being treated like that of the civil rights movement (i.e. "Well, if the blacks get to share bathrooms with the whites, then ... *insert phrase here*").
Coming from an impartial standpoint, I would say Nova is putting up a much more substantial argument than you are Petty.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Sept 6, 2003 22:40:11 GMT -5
^You can think how you like, but to me this is more of a moral issue than anything, and in good conscious I cannot justify it.
Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans do not approve of gay marriage either. In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed with wide bipartisian support. If you support gay marriage take it up in the legislature, use the democratic process, thats what we are trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Sept 7, 2003 15:12:22 GMT -5
Democracy ... a fake word if I ever heard one in the United States ...
|
|
|
Post by m on Sept 8, 2003 6:35:05 GMT -5
I'm with pettyluv on this one, but the worst part of this is, homosexuality is being brought up as a race issue which it clearly is not. Gays are not a "race." As for marrying for love, and that it's not hurting anyone, unless the two consenting adult wear some sort of protection, and they don't for the most part.
Marrying for love? The typical gay relationship or marriage lasts from two to five years. If you think the divorce rate is high now, just think if we gave made it legal to hook up and with no-fault divorce, annul the marriages. I guess the bright spot there is the lawyers will be busy with divorces instead of lawsuits against fast food joints.
Not hurting anybody? The disease rate is higher and life expectancies are shorter for homosexual couples.
African Americans and other minorites have been fighting for equality for several centuries, yet gays have won instant acceptance in the last ten years. Now we have TV shows that, oddly, favor the gay male. And apparantly, the typical effiminate, overly emotional girly-man is the norm.
|
|