I like GWB but...

A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

This is whacked. Why do people care if gays marry? How does it effect straight marriage in any way? I keep hearing "IT'S THE END OF CIVILIZATION!! BECAUSE..BECAUSE.. WELL IT JUST IS!"

 

marriage

it's my impression: most people are upset over giving gays the same rights to marriage, as what a man and a woman would have.

webster's defines marriage as: 1.) relationship between a husband and a wife.

it's believed that giving gays the right to marriage would dececrate marriage as a sacred vow. i don't know......... it seems that with the divorce rate as high as it is, claiming that "gays will dececrate marriage" is kinda weak. marriage isn't as sacred to society as it used to be....and a divorce is easier to get now, than ever.......can't blame that on gays, now can ya?

it'll be interesting to see what happens with this one. i just think it's lame that people always wait till election year to bring this crap out and cloud other issues that are more important.

 

Bush is an ASS! this is proof of that. put it in the constitution!!!???is it really that big of a problem??? really, in the grand scheme of everything he has done to screw up the US in the last couple years, is it that big??? besides, what will come next?? will he amend the constitution for other things that will limit your freedom in this country, as he feels necessary?? I REALLY can't believe he is running this country (or any country for that matter) he couldnt run a club house right, declaring war on other clubhous's as he see's fit, while letting his own clubhouse fal apart, and then putting into effect new rules to limit the freedom of his members. seems even a 12 yr old could see that he has to go.

 

GWB is best trying to not alienate any group, but especially not the conservatives by supporting gay marrige.

Remember his dad had really high ratings after the Gulf war, then he raised taxes, pissed everyone off and tanked in the election.

Most people opposed say its a moral issue. Personally I think that is rationalizing. Its more about hatred. And people only ever hate things that they fear.

 

Not true, I hate Hon-Duhs and I don't fear them.

 

If you were gay, this would be a very big issue to you. All they're asking for is the same rights that heterosexual people take for granted. Your spouse is someone who, legally, can make life-or-death decisions about you. If you're in the hospital, your spouse is someone who can make medical decisions for you. If you're in the ICU, typically only a spouse or close family can visit you. The way the law is today, your gay partner of 20 years is just another guy in the waiting room. I think that's wrong.

I don't think the folks objecting on "moral grounds" don't have a leg to stand on. If you don't like it, don't have a gay wedding. Also, no one is saying that your church will be forced to perform them, or even recognise them for that matter. The only recognition being discussed is recognition by the state and the only entity which would be forced to perform them is also the state, as in a judge performing the marriage.

I guess I just don't see what the big deal is myself. If you're not gay, it doesn't matter to you. But this is yet another case of people with the "I don't like that so YOU shouldn't do it" mindset sticking their nose in other folks' business. I don't want to marry another guy, but I really could care less if someone else feels differently on the subject.

 

In case you haven't noticed, none of the Dem candidates are for gay marriage either. And not everyone opposed to gay marriage is opposed due to moral or religious reasons or is homophobic.

Civil unions and legal agreements can confer adequate protections to allow your life partner access and rights when you are sick, when you die, etc.

The insistence that it be called marriage is far more a political statement than a civil rights issue. The gay political machine is demanding not only acceptance but endorsement. There is a huge difference.

The negative effects of social changes made in the name of tolerance are often not anticipated by most people. As soon as you decide marriage has no definition, it becomes meaningless.
Rather than the result being that any and all life partners will in the future be extended the benefits married couples now enjoy, it is just as likely to result in the loss of many of those benefits for everyone. Just because people don't see the harm in it now, doesn't mean there is no harm that will result.

 

I think you nailed it, Mongo. This feverish rush to defend the word "marriage" from invasion by gays doesn't hold water to me.

If a Civil Union confers all the legal rights of being "married," then this is a debate over semantics. If the two are functionally identical, what's the problem with calling a gay Civil Union a gay Marriage? If you were gay, wouldn't you want the lifetime commitment you made to your partner to be viewed the same as everone elses?

I also don't see the point of how this "makes the definition of marriage meaningless." Right now, it's supposed to mean a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman. They'd like it to mean a lifetime commitment between two people. How does this change matter to ANYONE who's not a party to that marriage?
I also said "supposed" because, with a 50% divorce rate, marriage certainly doesn't mean what it did 50 years ago. My ex-wife certainly didn't consider those vows to be binding for a lifetime.

I also don't buy that the majority of "conventionally" married folks are going to get screwed out of anything because their gay neighbors or colleages are now married, instead of in a civil union. I just don't see that many anti-gay employers out there who are so bent on not providing benefits to gay spouses that they'd piss off all their heterosexual employees in the process.

 

I'm old enough to remember when the same arguments and attitudes concerned unwed mothers. Back in the bad old days it was considered immoral and it was far more rare. Then we became enlightened and accepting. Waiting until you are an adult or can support yourself and child before you become a parent is no longer a legitimate concept as a result.

Who wants to make the argument that the explosion of teenagers with babies, day-care centers in high schools, unmarried mothers with multiple children being supported by the public and a couple generations of kids with no experience of growing up with a father or young fathers with no idea that fatherhood comes with responsibilities has been an improvement?

Think it's cost you anything personally? How about society?

Which one of you fathers will have no objections when your son or daughter tells you they will be joining a multiple-partner marriage? If there is no reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman there is certainly no reason to keep it between just two people. There would actually be no reason to deny any group of any individuals the right to marry, including any combination of relatives. How would you feel about your daughter marrying your brother? After all, who would it hurt?
If they want to get married, they should have the same rights as anyone else.
And you can't use the "possible birth defects caused by inter-marriage" argument. Birth defects already occur and for a number of reasons, so why should that be a reason to deny fathers and daughters the right to marry?
(this is the same argument Mongo used "All the people who have gotten divorced have caused the word marriage to lose it's meaning. Has nothing to do with who they're boinking. I've known a number of gay couple that were married in every way but the name, so why not allow them the name AND all the other bennies? What difference does it make?".

No reason your ten-year old shouldn't get married, or just shack up with an older guy (or a few of them) if she feels like it.
The courts have already decided she has the right to an abortion without your agreement or even knowledge. It's a very small step from that to removing all parental rights. Can't discriminate, you know.

Any rules or requirements for any reasons, even reasons you think are legitimate, are just a form of discrimination from someone's standpoint.

Isn't having a WERA rulebook a form of discrimination? Aren't you stopping people from doing what they want to do?

 

So, in a nutshell, you believe that gays should be denied the basic civil right of getting married? All because it may, somehow, cause problems down the road. Your stated examples, while flowery, aren't at all relevant because we're not talking about unwed mothers knocking out babies, we're talking about gay marriage. A state in which child conception is 100% impossible.

As for would I care if my daughter wanted to get married into a threesome, yes and no. Yes, I'd probably care, but if all parties are consenting adults it's not my call to make. Her life is HER decision, not mine. That whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. What makes me happy is probably not the same as what makes you happy. Does that make me right and you wrong? Or does it merely make us different.

I guess I fall back on the "all men were created equal" bit myself. If I, as a straight man, have the right to get legally married, with all that is implied by that action, then I don't see how anyone can deny a gay man or woman that same right.

 

Come on Sean, you don't honestly believe that it is as unaccepted now as it was when we were kids do you? As a whole, yeah it is still unacceptable but not nearly as bas as when we were young.

 

You forget that parenthood, like anything else, is learned. When you grow up in a home with no father and are told in a thousand different ways that fathers are not necessary, why would you as an adult then think it necessary to be a parent to your children?

If the male who impregnated your mother never helped to support you or her and had no part in raising you, and the same circumstances held true for many, if not all, of your friends, then why would you as a male see any reason to stay with the females you impregnate, or take any part or assume any responsibility in raising the children you help produce?
Society will support them and provide for their needs, and there is no disgrace inherent in your actions. It certainly frees up your time and money so you can do whatever you like, unfettered with a wife or children.
Civilized behavior is learned, not natural. Do you not live your life in certain ways because you learned the value of certain actions from watching your parents? Do you really think the dissolution of inner-city families is something that "just happened" with no causative circumstances?

Single parent households are increasing every generation. So is the burden they put on society, which costs you in many ways.

And for MTK, gays are not being denied the civil right of getting married. They are free to marry, just as you and I are. That is not what they are asking for. They want to redefine marriage.
If I want to marry my dog, is that okay? Shall I then prevail in court when I sue my employer to force him to extend health benefits to my dog? And of course, any rights or benefits extended to a spouse by the state or federal governments should also apply to the dog, who is my legal spouse.

Change the facts to something you can understand.

A WERA racer wants to enter a highly modified motorcycle in a stock class. Because you don't want to change the rules to allow it, you are denying him his rights. Sure, he could enter a different race, but that wouldn't be fair, lots of other people have a motorcycle and they are entering the race, why can't he?
Everyone is on a motorcycle, right? Just because his motorcycle is different is no legitimate reason to exclude him from the race. He doesn't have a stock motorcycle, nor does he want one. The fact that his motorcycle is different does not in any way change the other motorcycles or guarantee any change in the results of the race.
You could argue that the race is defined by rules, but the makeup and standards of a society are also defined by rules.
If it is not legitimate to deny the changing of societies rules to accommodate anyone who does not agree with them, then it is also not legitimate to deny changing the rules of the race to accommodate any racer who does not agree with them.
As a cornerworker, it wouldn't affect or bother me, so it shouldn't affect or bother anyone else.

You want to lay society's problems on the failure of parents to take responsibility for their children, but you can't see that society removing the right of a parent to control their children or have a say in what they do removes their ability to exercise that responsibility?

The state of NH says that my underage daughter can show up at an abortion clinic accompanied by the 25 year old man who impregnated her and get a state-provided abortion which I have no say in and no right to even be informed about. They are prohibited by law from informing me or informing the police about the role of the older man.

I'm sure that your response will be something implying that if I were a good parent then she wouldn't get pregnant or be involved with an older man. You can take this position because you never did anything undesirable or illegal without your parent's knowledge when you were a kid. They knew where you were and what you were doing every minute of every day, no doubt.
Of course, if you did do anything undesirable or illegal without your parent's knowledge when you were a kid, then that means they were irresponsible and sucked as parents, right?

 

How do you reconcile the above two statements? If they CAN get married, then the word "marriage" was redefined long ago and this whole thing is a moot point. Clearly, that is not the issue here.

My understanding of this issue is that they CANNOT get married and that's the root of the issue to them: they'be been denied a basic civil right that heterosexual people take for granted. Now I admit, as a straight guy I really haven't investigated the gay marriage laws to any extent, but that's my understanding of how things are today. In fact, I believe that not only can they not get married, but there are laws on the books in 38 states actively prohibiting gay marriage. That's hardly "free to marry." Also, if they're "free to marry," then why has there been such a huge rush to get married in San Francisco in the last few weeks, now that the mayor is defying state law? In fact, only a few states even allow "Civil Unions" of gays, and these unions are NOT the same as a marriage in the eyes of the law.

And I still don't see how two gays getting married will be the downfall of civilization. Sorry, but pedophilia does not follow as a direct consequence of letting two gay, consenting adults get married. There's just no justification for such a leap of logic. Pregnant teens are also equally irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, children period are not relevant when discussing gay couples, given the obvious biological issues a same-sex couple presents to reproduction.

Now you've also claimed it would lead to polygamy. Perhaps it will, but more importantly, who cares if it does? Right now, in America, there are polygamous "couples" living happily with the situation they've chosen. That's their perogative and I see no reason, or constitutional authority for that matter, for the state to stick it's nose into that affair. As long as they take care of themselves, people should be free to live in whatever arrangements make them happy. Don't like polygamy? Simple: stop at one wife. If one wife doesn't bring enough misery into your life, well then, have another! Why, how did you guess I was divorced?

Also, your WERA example is completely flawed. WERA is a private institution that one is free to engage in commerce with or not. The state doesn't give you the option of not playing their game. Right now, the state is depriving a group of citizens a basic civil right based upon their sexual orientation. That's just as wrong as the state saying that interracial couples cannot marry (a law that WAS recently on the books in some states of the USA). The state has no legitimate say in who you marry, as long as they're human (sorry, your dog cannot legally contract and marriage is, at it's root, nothing but a contract from the state perspective). Now if you can teach your dog to speak and write English, then I'll support your right to marry your dog. Beyond that, I'll stick with those legally able to contract (over 18, not insane, etc.) as a limit on who's allowed to marry.

 

Word.

 

My point concerning gays being allowed to marry is that they can marry, just so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, they are not being deprived of any right. Their desire to be with someone of the same sex is what denies them the right to marriage. Marrying someone of your own sex is not marriage as it has always been defined. Therefore, what they are seeking is to redefine marriage. Any legal rights between gay couples can be assigned or ceded through contract without marriage.
Where you came up with the pedophilia thing, I have no idea, since I never mentioned it. However, since gays, even single gays, can and do adopt, then discussion of children is most certainly appropriate when discussing gay marriage.

As far as marrying my dog, why do YOU get to impose rules on who I want to marry? You don't want to impose any rules on me if I want to marry another man, but if I want to marry an animal all of a sudden you feel justified imposing rules. Sorry, if you feel the only rule is what people want, then you don't get to impose arbitrary rules. Under your own logic, it's not your business, it doesn't affect you and you have no right to impose your rules.
As my dog's owner, I have full legal responsibility just as I would for a minor child, so I can assume contractual responsibility on his behalf. There is no more obligation for him to agree to it than there would be for him to agree to neutering.

I didn't say gay marriage would lead to polygamy, which of course already exists, it would lead to the legal obligation to recognize polygamous marriages and accord them all the same rights.

And I don't buy the comparison of being gay to being black. You can't choose not to live as a black person. You can choose not to live a gay life-style. Sexual proclivity is not necessarily a choice, but sexual actions are. You can think and feel anything you want, but what you atually do is your choice.

WERA being a private institution has nothing to do with anything.
It operates in the public realm. And regardless, the comparison still applies. Why shouldn't the racer with the modified engine be able to race in a stock class? How does it harm anything? Does it add to or detract from anybody's racing talent? Does it guarantee any advantage? You don't want to modify your bike, but he does. That's his business, why should you care?

As far as not thinking that what you see as desirable should have anything to do with how your daughter lives, I don't buy it.
If she wanted to live in a polygamous marriage, fine with you?
Okay, how about if she wants to live as a heroin addict?
How about doing crack and working as a prostitute? Still okay?
Her choice, right? None of your business.
How about if she's robbing 7-11s with your grandchildren in the car? You fine with that?
How about if she's living behind Sears in a cardboard box with the kids and earning money prostituting them? All her choice, of course. You really wouldn't care or think it was just her business?

One last question. Do you actually have kids?
Because most people who have kids and care about them also care about how they live their lives, even when they are just exercising their right to do what they want.

Just for the record, I'm not homophobic, don't hate gays and think they have the right to do whatever they want in their bedroom so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I have gay friends and have worked with them and been their employer. I have no problem getting along with them and treat them just like anyone else.
I even watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on occasion and think it's funny.

 

I hope you realize that out of all these examples, only the first one does not put someone at a significant risk of shortening their life span. Apples and oranges. The decision to marry someone of the same sex or several other people at the same time doesn't put your daughter's life in jeopardy. The decision to take cocaine and rob stores with kids waiting in the car does.

 

True, but that's a personal choice. MTK's exact words were

which I took at face value. Nowhere did he say "unless I thought it would harm her or shorten her life-span" so he obviously feels no entitlement to interfere in how she lives her life. I believe part of a parent's obligation is to help steer their children away from life situations which may destroy them. I will grant you that he may object to the kids being in the car while she's robbing stores, but other than that she would just be doing what makes her happy. According to his statement, he wouldn't consider it wrong, just different.


When all rules and laws are characterized as discrimination and violations of human rights, and tolerance for anything and everything is regarded as a virtue, don't be surprized when society rushes right past the point where you think the line should be drawn. There will be no more regard for your line than there was for anyone elses.

You may think some of the examples I've used in my arguments ridiculous or unlikely, but if you had publicly stated a couple decades ago that same-sex marriages would not only be legal, but that acceptance and applauding of same would be regarded as a sign of intelligence and forward-thinking, most (if not all) people would have scoffed. That which is unthinkable today will become merely ridiculous tomorrow, then possible the day after and acceptable the day after that. That progression is the hallmark of a society in decline and on it's way to destruction.
Individuals cooperate to form a society, when everyone can and does do anything they wish, no society exists.


As in my example using unwed mothers, they have become prolific since the 1960's when society deemed it unfair to regard them in a shameful light. Of course, we also decided they have no duty to live with the consequences of their actions. Since they can't support themselves or their children, everyone else who has lived in a responsible manner must shoulder their responsibility also.
Has it really been a good thing for society that we now have legions of parentless kids who then have more kids that they refuse to parent? There are hundreds of thousands of families out there that have gone 3 or 4 generations with no fathers in the household, kids whose mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers were never married. These kids grow up in poverty and often engage in and fall victim to crime at much higher rates than kids from more stable, two-parent families. Even children of divorce are better off.
Have we really done them a favor?
Remember, it was all done in the name of tolerance and enlightenment.

We were too sophisticated to buy into our parent's mores and rules.
We weren't sophisticated enough to see that everything comes with a price.