Homosexual Marriage

[trixmix]

These are characteristics of mental abnormalities but society does not have to endorse these behaviors. If you have an urge to act in a way out of the ordinary, great, but don't come up to me and demand that I recognize it as perfectly normal.

BRAVO! You took the words right out of my mouth! Well stated!!! I have been looking for the right words, and those fit to a tee!

[tusaki]

Quote by: trixmix ... Otherwise, like someone posted before...who the hell knows what kind of fanatical group will pop up, advocating human/animal, or adult/child marriage unions...It could get really ugly!

There is a HUGE difference between homosexual marriages and what you claim could happen. You are just scare mongoring.

Marriage, from the governments perspective, should be defined as "a union between two consenting adults".

[Sandy]

I was going to post something here but when faced with homophobia, I decided to let it go.

I feel sorry for so many of you who were trained with hatred in your hearts for others who are different. Shakespeare had a wonderful quote for you people.

"In nature there's no blemish but the mind, none can be called deformed but the unkind."

I fear that you will pass on your phobias to your children and America will stay over in the corner of ignorance.

[trixmix]

Quote by: Sandy I was going to post something here but when faced with homophobia, I decided to let it go. I feel sorry for so many of you who were trained with hatred in your hearts for others who are different

I never said I hated gays...Why would I waste my time hating gays, I have plenty of violent and downright evil types to hate...But the fact remains that 'gay' is not what humans were engineered for...So, with that said, I don't pass anything on to my kids, but knowledge, moral and otherwise...While everyone is pushing for not only tolerance of gay people, but acceptance and conforming to the belief that it's just another choice for kids to make as they grow up...I stress to my children that, yes, Gays are people who deserve to be accepted yet what they have decided for a lifestyle is not morally right...
Because, perhaps I am selfish, but I'd personally like to eventually see grandkids in my future...If I present homosexuality to my kids as one of their choices, as if 'it's all good', I am lessening my chance at grandkids-plain & simple...It is shown to my kids in such a way that if they suddenly found out they had the 'gay flaw', I would still love and accept them, but it's not something to shoot for.

[trixmix]

Quote by: tusaki Marriage, from the governments perspective, should be defined as "a union between two consenting adults...".

You forgot to add,
"...of opposite gender..."

[tusaki]

No I didn't forget. To me it doesn't matter if homosexuals can marry or not. I won't feel bad about it one bit and I'll be just as happy when I marry. I really dont see what the fuss is about. "sanctity?" c'mon. Why would you, married or going to, feel less happy when homosexuals are allowed to do the same?

[Matt W]

Trixmix:- Who says gays are not morally right? They're just different, surely. Stressing to your kids that it's a wrong choice...well. If one of them turns out to be gay, then you've guilt-tripped them about their sexual preferences, and they will probably feel unable to talk to you about it, as you've condemned them from day 1. Is that a particularly good approach?

[Osborn F Enready]

Trix said:
Okay, I'll give you that one...perhaps the government shouldn't really have control of the actual 'union of marriage'...But, we know that it boils down to tax and probate issues...The government, I am sure, wants to keep those things in their court...And for the sake of keeping things legit, so to speak. Otherwise, like someone posted before...who the hell knows what kind of fanatical group will pop up, advocating human/animal, or adult/child marriage unions...It could get really ugly!

I say:
Government, put in place by the people, for the people, to govern the people. The government is not SUPPOSED to be a watchdog of any religious practices or endorse any said practices, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Religion, a private organization that is run by its own rules and guidelines for THOSE THAT WISH TO PARTICIPATE!

Marriage, is a RELIGIOUS institution, and the LAW has NO RIGHT to interfere between a man/woman and their religion, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

THE ONLY reason this is an issue, is because of these reasons:

1) The U.S. government decided to enact a law that allowed the testing of blood of those wishing to be married, under the name of a "marriage license". This was the first "legitimazation of marriage in actual written law. A good idea, started to check the blood of those wishing to marry and have children, trying to prevent disease. But that was an open door to bad decisions.

2) The government then decided it would give "favored citizen" status to those that got married by offering income tax breaks, "to help those that are trying to help build this country." The main reason this gay marriage issue is currently being brought up, which is that if the GOVERNMENT is going to offer FAVORED CITIZEN STATUS to those that married, why should it only be people who can conceive normally, and not those that adopt. If Male/Female families can adopt and get tax breaks, why not man/man or woman/woman couples? A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT. WHY ANY FAVORED STATUS IN TAXATION? That is descrimination with OUR MONEY, the taxpayers money!

3) NOW, by letting the government get involved in the "qualifications" for marriage by requiring a marriage license, and offering tax incentives to those with children, they have unwittingly opened themselves up to a boat load of descrimination charges because:
A) If the government does step in and say gay marriage is not permitted, it both goes against the constitution by removing the rights of those who wish equal fairness for raising adopted children under the tax code, and sets the tone that GAYS are not NORMAL, or, should they not be TREATED EQUALLY.
B) If the government says gay marriage IS ok, then they are violating the churchs beliefs and "trying to change the morals of our society" according to the religious zealots, and also they violate the constitution by amending when not necessary, as this is already covered under ALL MEN BEING EQUAL under the eyes of the law.

WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS A CATCH-22 CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY PASSING LAWS THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, AND ARE NOW BEING SCRUTINIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC EYE OVER A STICKY ISSUE.

The explanation is quite simple. At the time the majority of the states being formed under the union of a democratic republic, were believers in God in the form of Christians and Catholics. To say that since that was the way it was then, thats the way it should be now, is ridiculous.

The writers of the Constitution recognized that liberty means something different to everyone, though the essential necessities to provide liberty were the same. If you will read Article 1 of the Bill of Rights you would see how clearly they actually did understand liberty, regarding religion.
Here is Article 1:

"Religious Establishment Prohibited. Freedom of Speech, of the Press, and Right to Petition.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is clear that they believed one of the essential items of liberty was freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. "Free exercise" of religion is very vague for a purpose. They felt that enumerating rights too specifically would endanger every right not specified. The point being, without freedom to believe and practice belief in a higher power OF YOUR CHOICE, be it God, Rah, Budda, or whatever YOU the individual so chooses to claim to be your God, you have neither liberty or freedom.

This country when it was founded, had a majority of believers in Christianity such as Catholics,Lutheran,Presbytyrian,Baptist,Mormon,
Mennonites,Amish,etc,etc. Since this was the overwhelming majority, they had no issue with allowing those things you speak of to be built, or the phrase "under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance. They also condoned using a bible to swear on, and their oath was "under God". THAT DOES NOT MEAN that it is "OK" to ignore the rights of those who embraced and help build this society who happen to be Godless,Athiest,Humanist,Shinto,Muslim,Buddhist,Gaya, or any other by FORCING them to recite ALLEGIANCE TO YOUR GOD! Liberty is essential to all men, for this to be a free society.

This country was founded as a Democratic Republic, which is far from where it is today, unbeknownst to the very people who live here. In a Democratic Republic, 99% of the people, couldn't take away the rights of 1% of the people. Also our Bill of Rights specified these rights are inalienable. Today those rights are being trampled in all respects by a government that no longer embraces or recognizes true liberty. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to limit the Governments power, not the peoples power. Our Government no longer resembles a Democratic Republic in any way, shape or form. When the very document used to limit the oppression of government, is used to repress the will of the people, you have a situation where the government no longer represents the people. This is where we are today.

Our Federal Government no longer respects the rights of the individual, or the states, as is clear in many issues, especially in Californias attempt to legalize medical marijuana in that state. The Fed has no authority to tell California they can't legalize, yet they do, because they are already sponsoring an UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR ON DRUGS!

No matter how you color the picture, the picture we see today is not the United States it was intended to be. I will fight to make it the way it was intended to be, which is the land of the free, and the home of the brave,REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS, ONE AND ALL.

SUPPORT and ENACT legislation that will review all civil laws, and tax code for infringement of the Constitutions limitations. That is our only chance of making this government do its intended function.

And for those that are still skeptical, I ask you to question the very Pledge of Allegiance you have recited countless times, and ask these questions;

Do you even know and comprehend what "REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." means?

NOTICE HOW THEY STATE REPUBLIC, (FOR WHICH IT STANDS). THAT MEANS THE REPUBLIC AS WRITTEN IN (THE) CONSTITUTION, not some specific individuals interpretation of the Constitution.

Without the Constitution standing unmolested, this government is not official, nor does it have authority, nor has it authorized or issued a document stating that it is independent of our Constitution. That my friend means that we are CURRENTLY under attack by political forces to USURP power FROM THE PEOPLE, as PROMISED in the Constitution.

The words "Under God" were added after a campaign by the "Knights of Columbus" (an organization with religious ties), lobbied to have those words added.

The orginal accepted version is;

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all"

Please check the fact here, or other official websites.
http://www.history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[Osborn F Enready]

Also, notice the authors of the pledges thoughts on this...

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

[Osborn F Enready]

Someone said: (and Trix agreed)
These are characteristics of mental abnormalities but society does not have to endorse these behaviors. If you have an urge to act in a way out of the ordinary, great, but don't come up to me and demand that I recognize it as perfectly normal.

I say:
This quote sums up my thoughts perfectly....

``It is my right to be uncommon...if I can; I seek opportunity...not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stole calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, This I have done, and this is what it means to be an American.''
-Dean Alfrange

[Starboy]

Quote by: trixmix That is a concept I will never grasp, nor do I think that it should even be an issue...Frankly, I am getting quite sick & tired of hearing about it...Marriage is a union between a man & a woman...PERIOD

Hey I like that style.

Religion is a matter between a believer and their god...PERIOD (then get it out of our government)

A family is a matter between those in the family...PERIOD (then get the government out of our families)

A marriage is the formation of a family by two people...PERIOD (then get the government out of our marriages)

A persion who thinks that stating things with a ... PERIOD is convincing should find this argument convincing... PERIOD.

Starboy

[trixmix]

Quote by: Starboy A persion who thinks that stating things with a ... PERIOD is convincing should find this argument convincing... PERIOD. Starboy

Thanks for the laugh this morning, that really was funny - But, to be quite honest...I don't think I was going for convincing, I think I was just emphasizing the finality of that statement...It really all boils down to that, when I looked up 'marriage' in the dictionary, it specifically said it was a union between husband & wife...which I then looked up and they boiled down to man & woman. So, whether or not the government has a right to get involved with it, due to religion or the constitution is irrelevent, as long as they have the definition backing them, they can get away with not even touching the religious or the family aspect whatsoever...

If you think about it, It is actually is kind of creepy, same sex marriages...How do they announce them? "I now pronounce you husband & husband..." QUESTION MARK

[Starboy]

Quote by: trixmix Thanks for the laugh this morning, that really was funny - But, to be quite honest...I don't think I was going for convincing, I think I was just emphasizing the finality of that statement...It really all boils down to that, when I looked up 'marriage' in the dictionary, it specifically said it was a union between husband & wife...which I then looked up and they boiled down to man & woman. So, whether or not the government has a right to get involved with it, due to religion or the constitution is irrelevent, as long as they have the definition backing them, they can get away with not even touching the religious or the family aspect whatsoever... If you think about it, It is actually is kind of creepy, same sex marriages...How do they announce them? "I now pronounce you husband & husband..." QUESTION MARK

All I see is that you find SSM to be creepy. Fine. So it makes you feel creepy. Some people don't like Maine lobster because seeing that red carcass on the plate makes them feel creepy. Fine then don't order Main lobster or stay out of restaurants that serve Maine lobster. But I love Maine lobster. I don't care for SSM but it does not make me feel creepy. It is just not for me. But because it is not for me it is none of my business to say that it is not for two other consenting adults that want it. One should not ban Maine lobster just because it makes one feel creepy. That is just selfish and profoundly stupid and is not the sort of thing one would expect in a country that claims to value freedom.

Starboy

[trixmix]

I can respect that...I can especially relate to the Maine Lobster reference...because it does make me feel creepy to see it on the plate, I hate lobster...it gives me the chills to think about it. How on earth did you choose that particular analogy?

But because it is not for me it is none of my business to say that it is not for two other consenting adults that want it. One should not ban Maine lobster just because it makes one feel creepy. That is just selfish and profoundly stupid and is not the sort of thing one would expect in a country that claims to value freedom.

Fair enough, in this country, based on what we stand for, we shouldn't tell two consenting adults what they can & cannot do...As long as I am entitled to my opinion of it being creepy...without being called a homophobe or prejudice. I am not a homophobe, I am a deviant-phobe. I consider homosexuality to be a form of deviant perversion. As long as they can keep to themselves, I have no complaints as to what they do.
One of my reasons for being against gay marriage is because it just puts the whole concept out there - even more than it already is - as a normal thing. It's getting to the point where it is being shoved into my face.
You're right, because I abhor Maine lobster doesn't mean I should ban it for everyone...but, on the same token...because people like Maine Lobster doesn't mean that I deserve to have it shoved in my face!
It's a common courtesy issue at this point...If I hate lobster, I wont walk into a place that serves it, but if it gets to the point that lobster is the 'in' thing and every place around starts to serve it, and suddenly everywhere you go they are serving lobster, then my choices for going somewhere without it, start to be compromised. Thats where I get the short end of the stick.
I say we behave like they say in the military - Don't ask, don't tell...They can go ahead & have dirty laundry and they can hang it out to dry in their own yard. But the minute it starts to spill off into my yard, and I either have to forfit my looking out the window, or live with the view of someone elses dirty laundry. Then I have a problem! Just like they should be allowed to hang it behind their own fence, I should be allowed an unobstructed view out my window without having to see what they are hanging!

[Starboy]

Hey I agree, but I will also say that you are exposed to the concept of Maine lobster more than you have said. There are Red Lobster commercials on the TV all the time. But I am sure that like most people you have just learned to tune them out. Hell until I mentioned this you probably can't remember the last time you saw one. Now of course for the next few days to a week you will notice them constantly. You will then get over it and it will not bother you again. People will still be eating Maine lobster and it will still make you feel creepy but there will be no laws against doing it and people will have liberty in a country that values freedom.

Now here is the question I would like you to ask yourself and try to answer. Why is the issue of SSM such a big deal? Why are people bringing it up to creep you and many others out? What is going on? Why are you being manipulated so and by whom and for what purpose?

Starboy

I chose the Maine lobster analogy because most people are grossed out over Maine lobster. It is definitely an acquired taste.

[trixmix]

Quote by: Starboy Now here is the question I would like you to ask yourself and try to answer. Why is the issue of SSM such a big deal? Why are people bringing it up to creep you and many others out? What is going on? Why are you being manipulated so and by whom and for what purpose?

Well, like I said before, it is such a big deal, ONLY because it makes it look like the norm...If my daughter has to come home from school - perplexed - asking me why a boy in her classs has two fathers, and no mother...that is bringing the issue to my doorstep...and that is where I have a problem...
I don't think people are bringing it up with the intention of creeping me, or anyone else out...I think that, to gay people, it is something they cannot control, or it's so normal, and should be accepted as such in their eyes-so they are desperately trying to fit in & have the same rights as a man/woman couple whom are married...In the process of doing that they are broadcasting louder, and marching longer, and speaking up more...which, essentially is shoving it my face-and in the face of my children who are so impressionable while they are young...and can fall for any idea that is presented to them while their brain is developing...I wish that they could be more discreet so that my children have a chance to develop normal sexual desire first...before that idea is presented to them so frequently and so emphatically. As for being manipulated, I am not...but I seriously believe that my children may be...You can't hardly even turn on the TV anymore without some blatant display of homosexuality...It's almost like they are spreading propaganda to get more followers....That is an exaggeration, I know...but seriously...it's not far from that!

I am not just picking on Gays either...If there was a sudden epidemic of people with say, bestiality fetishes, who suddenly decided that living in the USA entitled them to whatever love they choose...and they love dogs, and other people decided to have tolerance and acceptance of that practice...I would have the same arguement with them...Or cross dressing or anything out of the norm...Don't shove it in my face, and especially don't shove it in the face of my children, until they have grown up enough to form their own opinions...and will not be swayed by something thats being force fed to them!

[mr.perfecto]

If you paraded through the streets celebrating being a Lobster "Lover," you might get away with it as long as no one knew what you really meant. But If you came in and demanded to marry a lobster they would probably hospitalize and medicate you.

A same-sex relationship will never produce a child and, as such, neither party needs any of the protections of marriage. If people want an avenue to express their love for each other, they can go carve their names in a tree.

[Starboy]

Quote by: trixmix Well, like I said before, it is such a big deal, ONLY because it makes it look like the norm...If my daughter has to come home from school - perplexed - asking me why a boy in her classs has two fathers, and no mother...that is bringing the issue to my doorstep...and that is where I have a problem...

I am very sure that your daughter knows about far worse but has never talked to you about it. There are far worse issues that are already at your doorstep. And besides gay couples already adopt. They are already foster parents. They already have gay sex. They have been doing this for some time now. Now here is something that may not have occured to you. It is not all that likely that your daughter would come across it because gays self segregate. They know most males can't handle it. They know that a person such as yourself just freaks out. They live in their own neigborhoods. They self seggregate. But I gotta tell you. As much as you think you are a sensitive twentyfirst century guy you are acting like a bigot.

I don't think people are bringing it up with the intention of creeping me, or anyone else out...I think that, to gay people, it is something they cannot control, or it's so normal, and should be accepted as such in their eyes-so they are desperately trying to fit in & have the same rights as a man/woman couple whom are married...In the process of doing that they are broadcasting louder, and marching longer, and speaking up more...which, essentially is shoving it my face-and in the face of my children who are so impressionable while they are young...and can fall for any idea that is presented to them while their brain is developing...I wish that they could be more discreet so that my children have a chance to develop normal sexual desire first...before that idea is presented to them so frequently and so emphatically. As for being manipulated, I am not...but I seriously believe that my children may be...You can't hardly even turn on the TV anymore without some blatant display of homosexuality...It's almost like they are spreading propaganda to get more followers....That is an exaggeration, I know...but seriously...it's not far from that! I am not just picking on Gays either...If there was a sudden epidemic of people with say, bestiality fetishes, who suddenly decided that living in the USA entitled them to whatever love they choose...and they love dogs, and other people decided to have tolerance and acceptance of that practice...I would have the same arguement with them...Or cross dressing or anything out of the norm...Don't shove it in my face, and especially don't shove it in the face of my children, until they have grown up enough to form their own opinions...and will not be swayed by something thats being force fed to them!

Ahhhhhh! You are conflating so many unrelated issues. Gays do not want to get married because they seek society’s endorsement for their sexual practices. They could give a shit about that. They no more seek your approval for their practices then you seek their approval for your sexual practices. So get over the sex. You have such a dirty mind for a person who is creeped out so easily.

Some people want to be with other people to be a family. It is not about kids, although it might be. But gnarly old people get married all the time. Some of them want sex. To many that is very creepy. They are not going to have children. Yet we allow them to get married. We allow them to be a family together and to have all the rights of a family. These rights have nothing to do with sex. A marriage license is not a sex license. It is a license to be a family. If you have a narrow view of what a family should be then that is your problem. My bet is that you should be more concerned about the sexual practices of hetero parents of your daughter’s class mates than from the very rare gay couple that may have adopted a child.

You do not have to have a license to have sex. It doesn’t matter how kinky or strange the sex is. The marriage license is not about sex. It is about being a family.

Also gays parading through streets is something they will do no matter what. However are you creeped out by gays dancing through your streets or by the pictures of gays that prance through the streets in their neighborhoods? Because you must not be so naive to think that broadcasters expect you to watch it like a car wreck? There is far worse done during carnival in Rio but that doesn’t seem to bother you. If they are prancing on their own streets and the media shows it to you and you watch then who has the problem here? You or the gays? Your aversion to gays is starting to look like a perversion regarding gays.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto If you paraded through the streets celebrating being a Lobster "Lover," you might get away with it as long as no one knew what you really meant. But If you came in and demanded to marry a lobster they would probably hospitalize and medicate you. A same-sex relationship will never produce a child and, as such, neither party needs any of the protections of marriage. If people want an avenue to express their love for each other, they can go carve their names in a tree.

By that argument if a couple does not produce a child is the marriage terminated? Are old people then not allowed to get married? What about a young couple that is infertile? What is the difference between a young infertile couple and a gay couple? Does it matter what the sex of the partners if there is no way it will result in a child?

You seem to think that a marriage license is a sex license. A marriage license is just a social recognition of a family. It does not require children. If fertility rates keep dropping there will come a time when a large percentage of the hetero marriages will be childless. Will you be shocked? With all that unproductive sex?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy By that argument if a couple does not produce a child is the marriage terminated? Are old people then not allowed to get married? What about a young couple that is infertile? What is the difference between a young infertile couple and a gay couple? Does it matter what the sex of the partners if there is no way it will result in a child? You seem to think that a marriage license is a sex license. A marriage license is just a social recognition of a family. It does not require children. If fertility rates keep dropping there will come a time when a large percentage of the hetero marriages will be childless. Will you be shocked? With all that unproductive sex? Starboy

Hmm, so don't purchase liability insurance because you will never be in an acciedent?

The difference between a gay couple and an infertile couple is the difference between a real (but non-functioning) gun and using your finger as a pretend gun. If you fire that gun, some people might be surprised that it was loaded or that the old parts still managed to work or even that you tried to fire a gun you thought wasn't working, but no one is going to question the fact that guns shoot things. Or that you are responsible for the result. On the other hand, if your finger goes off, the military is going take you in and run test, lots of test on you. Molding the rules of responsible gun ownership to cover using your finger as a pretend gun would not only take the focus off the purpose teaching gun safety--not hurting an innocent person--but also mock the entire concept in the process.

edit: And, no, marriage is not just about sex. Its about controlling how new people are brought into the world.