Politics & Gov Gay Marriage Ban

Discussion in 'Politics & Government' started by JcMinJapan, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    This was brought up in another thread, but deserves its own. Why do you think of it? I am not gay, but I do not agree with the bans. Marriage is now considered a union of religous values. Although, there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. Marriage is only a LEGAL paper to say that two people have made a contract to live and take care of each other for the rest of their life. The church, synagogue, mosque or whatever weddings are your vows with your god or gods to live each other.

    If people want to be against marriage for their religous reasons, then they should take up gay marriage in their churches, not through the government. So, since the government controls "marriage" as a legal means to say that they will take care of each other, then gay "marriage" should be recognized! Or, how is this? Do not recognize any marriages at all! It is only for tax and legal purposes only. If they have kids, then that is settled in court like it is now. Don`t need marriage for that.

    All I am saying is that all humans should be treated the same. Ok, now people will bring up marrying more than one person at a time... well, if the poor sap can afford it and can live with the nagging times 5, then so be it... good luck! :lol:

    Now, my view of marriage may sem dim in this mail, but it is not. I am not talking anything religous, just the LEGAL word of MARRIAGE, not the relgious word.
     
  2. DreamLandMafia

    DreamLandMafia Premium Member

    I just dont see how some people can find any form of discrimination good...
     
  3. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    Concepts is build on top of another concept. The concept of Wife and Husban is based on the concept of Marriage is based on the concept of Relationship. To allows Gay couple to Marry is in fact changing the underlying concept. This is not about right/freedom of speech, this is about the concept that we based alot of things on.

    IF we start giving gay couple rights, then we should start giving more rights to the disabled, the blind, the wheel chair. After all, a gay person is borned disabled.. in a sense. Right?

    And about Human being GAY, I find it a little odd, cause I've never seen a gay cat, dog or cow.

    Why are some of us GAY? What's the cause for that?
     
  4. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    I know you are not saying it, but it sounds like you are saying that blind, deaf, ect should not be allowed to marry... :lol::lol:

    I have no idea about being gay or their feeling or thoughts as I am not gay and cannot understand it personally. I knew a few that were gay before and they just said that they are not really sure why they are, it was just a feeling.

    I do not mind gay people getting married. After all, they are basically the same as you and I in a human sense. It is just their sexuality in the scheme of things that is different. Other than that, there are no differences. So, that is why I have no problems. I do not find them morally corrupt for being gay, as the ones that I have known have the same moral values as myself. They follow the law, upstanding, care, honesty, and respect others. Wow, actually more moral than most of the law makers and citizens against gay marriage... :lol::lol:
     
  5. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    :hail:

    I have nothing against what you just said. What the two people do in their bed room is non of my own business. It doesn't bother me if gay couple are allow to marry.

    The point I was making is about "concept" and the "cause" for being GAY. Who know what the mother is eating during pregnancy which could modify the fetus!!
     
  6. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    I posted this in ATS early this morning but I think it's appropriate here as well.



    Full Faith and Credit Clause - Article IV of the US Constitution

    Article IV

    Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


    Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

    In a nutshell - if even one state allows for gay marriage all other states must recognize the legality of said gay marriage as provide by the US Constitution.

    The only way those who oppose gay marriage can discriminate or deny this right to gay/lesbian couples is to adopt a constitutional amendment that specifically does just that.

    Think about that for a minute. The only way to deny a right already guaranteed in the Constitution is to create an amendment that specifically discriminates against a group of people. Very sad.


    B.
     
  7. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    what i posted in another thread

    ---pineapple
     
  8. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    Pineapple:

    Why does the state regulate marriage to begin with - like you said it's a religious union? Although I have a strong opinion on the subject myself, I see middle ground.

    Why not discontinue state marriage licenses and issue civil union licenses?


    Bleys-
     
  9. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    Lol, wish i could answer that one for you Bleys. All i do know is that it is the states regulation NOT the nations, so everyone worrying over Bush need not worry as much as they should over individual states.

    ---pineapple
     
  10. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    Well, marriage is just a word. If we say we are married or have a civil union, what is the difference? It is just a word that people have given a religous thought. Marriage can be changed to civil union, but we would just be changing the word. Nothing else would change. To me they can call it a marriage license, civil union licence, ball-n-chain license, or a You-Will-take-Care-Of-Me-Or-Be-Screwed license. It is all the same. ;)
     
  11. oddtodd

    oddtodd Premium Member

    I think the bottom line is people imposing their will upon others .... Live and let live or just STFU !!!

    None of us need a church , god , religion , state approval , legal documentation etc... to make a solemn oath to a loved one .

    The only problem my sis has ever encountered is insurance benefiets for her partner . They moved to Vermont where the state recognizes civil unions and alternative parnerships.

    It all boils down to the benefiet package . Sad....
     
  12. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    But it seems to have a direct impact on how people vote on the issue itself.

    If you look at polls conducted over the last year over 50% of US citizens do not want gay marriage, but when asked if they would support a civil union over 50% are now okay with it. Now you and I might laugh and say WTH is the difference but obviously to a majority there is.

    One word - huge difference in how it is perceived.

    B.
     
  13. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    listen, the founding fathers were about as left leaning then as communism today, they were all agnostics and didnt want religion interfeering with laws, they would be turning in their grave to see a consevative evangelical president today. they would be for gay marriage all the way.
     
  14. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    How do you come to that conclusion junior?

    I think the founding fathers were probably not the most conservative people, but they also were not as liberal as the average person in the US today. Already plenty of americans have voted no on gay marriage, and i really doubt that a conservtive evanelical president of today is more conservative than the nation back then.

    ---pineapple
     
  15. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    no im jsut saying comparatitively they were pretty left leaning.
    but they would definetly be apossed to religion getting into the way of policy
     
  16. /Future Corpse/

    /Future Corpse/ Premium Member

    That pretty much sums it up.:up:

    I will live my life as I see fit and until I start living your life you should be the one deciding how you live it.
     
  17. TrueBlue5

    TrueBlue5 New Member

    Dr. Dean Hamer, scientist at the National Institute of Health, claims to have discovered a gene that will determine whether a human will be gay or not.

    Within a relatively short time, prospective parents will be able to determine whether a child in the womb is likely to be gay or straight.

    Many think this scientific advancement may do away with gays across the planet, presumably because straight parents will have the option to abort a potentially gay child.
     
  18. /Future Corpse/

    /Future Corpse/ Premium Member

    I wonder where the hardcore christian, anti-gay/pro-lifers think about that.
     
  19. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    Wow, that is a good question! Would the Church rather have gays or birth control... hmmmmmmmm :wow:
     
  20. mOjOm

    mOjOm New Member

    You're right, it is a 'Concept' isn't it!!! Now you would think that people would realize that 'Concepts' are nothing more than Ideas, Fantasy, Illusions of the Mind, etc. 'Concepts' are born from Imagination, Abstract Thought and so on. Meaning they are most definately subject to 'Change'!! They aren't Static Things of Reality like Mountains or Beer Bottles or Trees. Making a Law that Governs 'Conceptual Ideas' is about the most unstable pursuit you could ever put into action.

    Not to mention that 'Marriage' is a 'Concept' that is culturally and historically so diverse that you could never construct parameters for it that would be even remotely acceptable. In doing so, you're not simply establishing 'What is Marriage' but to a much larger degree 'What isn't Marriage'.

    No no no...You're thinking of it all wrong. Nobody is Giving Gay Couples Rights. RIGHTS are not given nor taken away by anyone else, PRIVILEDGES on the other hand are. So it's not about Special Rights for some and not for others at all, but more importantly EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL PEOPLE. I can't stress the importance enough behind what that means, not just in this case but in every aspect of yours and everyone's life. It is vital that you understand the difference and why.

    Others will try and confuse the issue to support their own agenda, whatever that may be, but call them on their B.S. There is no such thing as Gay Rights, Womens Rights, etc. Only EQUAL RIGHTS. With EQUAL RIGHTS there is no need nor place for 'Royalties'.

    Of course it's odd to you, you're not gay. Hell, I know plenty of other couples that are equally if not more odd as the few Gay Couples I've known. Just because they are the opposite sex makes no difference at all when trying to understand why they are together so the same goes for Gay Coupls IMO.

    Also, it's been well documented that animals are, or have lifestyles, that are gay. But even if there wasn't such documented cases I don't think it matters anyway cause you're talking about animals. A dog will hump your leg, a stuffed animal, a pillow or anything esle the same as a female. Many animals will poke just about anything or anyone when given the chance so it's not that great of a way to study Homosexual Activities.