Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gay Marriage Threat; What is it?
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 06:50 PM (866 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "Gay marriage threatens normal marriage because it cheapens what marriage is."

Don't many if not most married couples share health insurance? Do they cheapen marriage?


"Marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman that agree to share their lives together (till death do us part). It is a comitment to stay together for the mutual benefit of the family (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health). It is also done in front of witnesses to verify the contract....Does anyone think that gays will embrace this permenance also? Most likely they won't."

Seems to me to be what gays want as well. Why do you think they don't?


"This is what gays are really looking for...legitimacy, not marriage."

How exactly do you divine this and then claim it as a fact?


"Anyone telling you that the amendment is not needed is purposely trying to fool you. "

Doesn't that poison the well of discussion, calling me a fool for disagreeing with you?


"The fact is, once you are married in Mass, you are married everywhere."

Absolutely false. Each state is free to decide what laws of other states it recognizes.

Well, not if the Senate had usurped state's rights and voted yes.


"The way it is now, a minority of people get to deside the gay marriage issue. Your opinion doesn't count, unless we have a constitutional admendment."

Absolutely false. Texas just voted on the issue. Each state does.

What do you call legislators, a majority of the people?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 04:11 AM
Alan "Gay marriage threatens normal marriage because it cheapens what marriage is."

Don't many if not most married couples share health insurance? Do they cheapen marriage?

The chief reason given for wanting to be married by gays is the shared benefits. Funny thing is, I'm not even against that. So in responce, some states created "civil unions" to provide this. But gays weren't satisfied with this, they wanted marriage. Why? I speculate that it is because marriage gives legitimacy to what they are doing. Since a civil union gives them what they want, why want marriage, if not for the air of legitimacy it seems to give.

Quote:
 
"Marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman that agree to share their lives together (till death do us part). It is a comitment to stay together for the mutual benefit of the family (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health). It is also done in front of witnesses to verify the contract....Does anyone think that gays will embrace this permenance also? Most likely they won't."

Seems to me to be what gays want as well. Why do you think they don't?
If over 50% of straight couples don't want perminace even though there is a history of it, what makes you think gays would want perminance with no history?

Quote:
 
"Anyone telling you that the amendment is not needed is purposely trying to fool you. "

Doesn't that poison the well of discussion, calling me a fool for disagreeing with you?

Sorry....you are right, I "poisoned the well". I should not have said it this way.

Quote:
 
"The fact is, once you are married in Mass, you are married everywhere."

Absolutely false. Each state is free to decide what laws of other states it recognizes.
I think you are wrong. If you have a valid marriage licence in Alabama where the starting age is 16, you could be married in any state, even in states where the starting age was 18. This is why we need to have federal laws decided by the majority.

Quote:
 
"The way it is now, a minority of people get to deside the gay marriage issue. Your opinion doesn't count, unless we have a constitutional admendment."

Absolutely false. Texas just voted on the issue. Each state does.

What do you call legislators, a majority of the people?


Like I said, if you are married in Mass, you are still married in Texas. The Mass legislature does not represent the majority in the US, only in Mass.

The funny thing is, we do have a federal law making gay marriage illegal. It was signed by Clinton. Most think it will not stand up in court, which is why we need the constitutional admendment.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "The chief reason given for wanting to be married by gays is the shared benefits."

Where'd you hear this nonsense? I mean, I know it is part of the justification for legalizing same-sex marriage, but that doesn't mean at all it's chief.


"If over 50% of straight couples don't want perminace even though there is a history of it, what makes you think gays would want perminance with no history?"

So then you're not saying being gay is the problem.

Gays in marriage, civil unions and as couples have as long a history.


"I think you are wrong. If you have a valid marriage licence in Alabama where the starting age is 16, you could be married in any state, even in states where the starting age was 18. This is why we need to have federal laws decided by the majority."

CA does not recognize this. Nor, iirc, does TX.

So the states can handle this fine without the federal government imposing its will.



"The funny thing is, we do have a federal law making gay marriage illegal. It was signed by Clinton. Most think it will not stand up in court, which is why we need the constitutional admendment. "

You might want to take a look at the Defense of Marriage Act of '96:

  • First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state.
  • Second, for purposes of federal law, it defines marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
I would guess it has little standing because the Constitution does not empower the federal government to make such laws.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Chris said "I would guess it has little standing because the Constitution does not empower the federal government to make such laws. "

This is why, I think, the scope of federal law was expanded. Where one state's laws are in conflict with another, federal law is required. The constitution implies this through its laws about treaties, etc. I wish I had thought of this in the other thread where we discussed this issue directly.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Huh?!? You've got to be kidding. Constitutional powers concerning the making of treaties with foreign nations empower the government to usurp state's rights? Argue that one out please, I just got to hear it.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
[sic, Social] Conservatives Are Losing on Gay Rights
Quote:
 
After the Senate's rejection of the Marriage Protection Amendment Wednesday, supporters tried to portray it as nothing more than a temporary setback. "We are making progress," announced Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, noting that since the last vote two years ago, 14 states have approved bans on same-sex marriage.

If this is progress, it's on the order of a shipwreck survivor swimming toward the nearest island, 500 miles away: going in the right direction, but with no chance of getting there. All the leading indicators suggest that the smartest thing the amendment's supporters could do is pack it in.

They are getting no traction in the Senate. In 2004, 48 senators went on the record in support. This time, the number in favor was . . . 49. Approving a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote, or 67 out of 100 senators....

If states can limit marriage to heterosexual couples, and if they can refuse to recognize same-sex weddings performed elsewhere (meaning Massachusetts), there is no need to fiddle with the work of the founders....

Start with public attitudes, which are growing more and more favorable to gays and gay rights. ...

The greatest consolation for them is that same-sex marriage is still unpopular. But more than half of Americans endorse either gay marriage or civil unions, which are marriages in all but name....

A more telling sign is the huge shift in opinion on discrimination. In 1977, when Gallup asked if homosexuals should have "equal rights in terms of job opportunities," 56 percent said yes and 33 percent no. Nowadays, opposition to this form of gay rights has only slightly broader appeal than the Socialist Workers Party. This year, 89 percent of Americans favored equal employment rights, with only 9 percent disagreeing.

That evolution suggests attitudes on gay marriage are likely to grow more positive, not less. The battle for tolerance has largely been won among young people, who will be guiding policy in the not-too-distant future....
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
abradf2519
Jun 9 2006, 03:39 AM
Marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman that agree to share their lives together (till death do us part). It is a comitment to stay together for the mutual benefit of the family (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health). It is also done in front of witnesses to verify the contract.

It is a well known and much ignored fact that the nuclear family is the best way to raise kids. It is also well known and much ignored that divorce causes harm to kids. The purpose of marriage is to be a permenant bond to provide kids and grand kids the stability they need to develop properly. It is unknown how much a gay marriage would harm kids.

Brad
It would be more correct to say that traditionally this is true. But, this concept is born out of religious beliefs. Right now, there are gay marriages performed in churches in every state. Not all churches, but the churches that think it is scriptually proper to do so.

Why not take this whole thing out of the religious context with respect to secular law, and provide for equal treatment for any two individuals wishing to share resources, have partnership, have spousal benefits (and responsibilities) apply to their circumstance. Once you remove the term "marriage" from government and let it stay in the congregations where it belongs, it becomes a non issue. With government merely providing the legal framework for partnerships wether hetro, homo or assexual.

BTW I personally consider homosexuality to be a diviant behavior. But, it is not my place to police anyones morals or pass legislation that would intrude on their personal lives or their right to equal treatment under the law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
I have never understood the arguments against gay marriages or civil unions on the basis of it destroying heterosexual marriage. Such arguments just don't make any sense to me. It is funny that I don't see arguments that extra-marital sex is destroying heterosexual marriage.

Couples were living together and producing children long before the first religion was invented. What was the divorce rate 'way back then, compared to now?

I see no "homosexual agenda" in the desire for a couple to be open about their relationship and have it acknowledged by insurance companies, mortgage companies, adoption agencies, government tax agencies, et. al. I do, however see an ultra right wing Christian agenda to brand all homosexuals as "less than people", in the same way these same groups lobbied against rights for negroes, native americans, and women.

Quoting the Torah to prove their point should have absolutely no standing within the halls of congress. There are exactly two verses of the Judeo-Christian Bible that condemn homosexuality and the scholars disagree on the exact meaning and implications, but that is not the point. Out of the hundreds of names for god or gods among the population of the US, and the thousands of teachings or holy books, congress is supposed to side with the personal translations of Pat Roberson (we should kill that guy), Jerry Fallwell (9/11 was god's punishment to the US for sin), Newt (who divorced his dying wife so he could marry the woman with whom he was having and affair), etc. These folks have many devout people that listen to them, but more importantly to the white house, they can produce large voter turnout in the next election.

Politics is behind this proposed ammendment to the constitution -- not faith. Remember how Bush was going to restore "values and respect" to the white house? It was a political tactic that was forgotten as soon as he was elected. Now the fight is on to keep a majority in congress so the under-the-table payments from HMOs, oil companies, etc., keep flowing in.

Please, I am a little slow witted, so explain it to me again exactly how the lesbian couple staying next to me, who has been together for almost 20 years, needs to be forbidden to have the rights to adopt a child, share health insurance, visit each other in the hospital when one might be in critical condition ("family only"), purchase a house without forming a joint corporation, etc. How would them adopting an unwanted child and getting him out of the foster care / institution system do irreparable harm to heterosexual marriage.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
Member
Why do religions want to control the sexual behavior of it's members?? Some where Churches forgot about the "Do on to others...and let he who is without sin cast the first stone" advice. This country is facing many BIG ISSUES but homosexual couples are not one of them.

Personally I am much more worried about my wife getting killed by a drunk driver than I am about her running off with some woman..

Ken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
campingken
Jun 12 2006, 10:57 AM
Why do religions want to control the sexual behavior of it's members?? Some where Churches forgot about the "Do on to others...and let he who is without sin cast the first stone" advice.

Not controlling our members allows people who don't believe the way we do to come in and corrupt our church with their selfish agendas.

If you don't go to our church, we cannot control your sexual behavior. Duh...
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
No constutional amendment, Gay marriage is law. Period.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Do we really know what the outcome of this little social experiment is? If you look in European countries, you will see the result IMHO. Less people get married. Why? Because it no longer means anything. These same counties have a high suicide rate for young people (like Sweden). Did anyone ever explore this to see if there is a connection? Nope! Why? Because the proponents of Gay marriage don't seem to care...They just want to win.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Why do you blame this on gays when it's Christians mainly in the country getting all the divorces and cheapening marriage?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
From Doc:
Quote:
 
It is funny that I don't see arguments that extra-marital sex is destroying heterosexual marriage.
What?! :faint: The church has been saying that for centuries! We kick people out of our church all the time for that!
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
yes, the churches have tried, in vain, to control man's sexual appetites, from very ancient times.
secular laws removing that control are at fault, not church theology.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply