Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

PatrickHenry · Nov 12, 2004, 01:36 am

I am wondering how the volconvo community references this debate.

It seems that America, by and large, doesn't favor the concept. I think there is a very wide acceptance of homos generally in the US. They get a few swats, but overall I don't think most Americans want them treated as pariahs. Euros are likely even more tolerant.

But allowing a homosexual union to labeled "marriage" apparently goes against the grain. All eleven states where the question was presented on 11/2/2004 voted to disallow homosexual marriage.

Where do you stand?

Suburbanite · Nov 12, 2004, 04:30 am

well, it is not a question in my mind that i is a distraction from real issues, but it doesn't mean I dont agree with the other options either. It is frankly none of anyone's business and it is no one responsibility to uphold morals that have no practical application. Jesus is not the president, and if he was I'd be a bit more encouraged to assassinate him. That said, it is not the government's responsibility to even speak on the issue of marriage whatsoever.

rhod01 · Nov 12, 2004, 07:13 am

It's a human right. It shouldn't matter what it's called!

Gorgo · Nov 12, 2004, 07:51 am

I think the whole thing should be looked at from top to bottom. Some see marriage as a religious ritual. Some see the contractual and social benefits. They talk about things like the idea of "kin." When you live with someone, they're not kin. When you get married, they're kin.

I think there are probably cases where two people who are not sexually involved would benefit from the idea of civil unions, so I don't think it's just a sex thing. I think anyone who wants to enter into that kind of contract ought to be able to.

I think if the state does anything, it should offer "civil unions" , or simply contractual unions with public benefits, to everyone who wants it regardless of whether or not they have sex, and leave marriage to the churches.

However, if the State offers marriages, it should offer them at least to homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Haik · Nov 12, 2004, 09:46 am

The fact that there are laws against it is about as ridiculous as the segregation laws in the early 1900s against blacks. I think in the next few generations of youth it will be more widely accepted.

Mulkaccino · Nov 12, 2004, 10:17 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Haik,
The fact that there are laws against it is about as rediculous as the segregation laws in the early 1900s against blacks. I think in the next few generations of youth it will be more widely accepted.

I think it's a litte more complex then that, but I agree for the most part. Marraige is a religious institution adopted by the government. So the religous get a say as to what the givernment does. That is the real issue and that is the problem.

rcne · Nov 12, 2004, 12:43 pm

The 'marriage' that was pushed upon the masses is where the gays lost.

If they would have not been so embolden to think that they could force their 'rightness' upon the rest of us I think a chance of 'civil unions' was possible.

Now they claim their rights have been violated - gay union was never a right - so we are taking a right that was never there away?

Move to Canada - they want you - if you must be married. Stay here and fight for civil unions - which was the major scope of the argument anyway.

Mulkaccino · Nov 12, 2004, 02:11 pm

A black person being able to use a clean, decent restroom was never one of their rights either. Should all black people have just packed their bags and moved to Africa?

Whats special about black people over gays that they should be allowed to participate in a public national institutions yet gays should not?

Granting solely Civil Unions to gays is a "seperate but equal" law. If you do not know what this is or do not understand it I will find a link for you ( I do not have full internet access when I post here generally).

Can someone show me why my mentality is incorrect?

Suburbanite · Nov 12, 2004, 02:43 pm

You'd be hard pressed to find a clean bathroom in Africa.

Mulkaccino · Nov 12, 2004, 03:23 pm

Good point. Maybe I should have referenced Canada again.

crayola · Nov 12, 2004, 03:34 pm

Black/white marriages, "unions" if you will, are still considered "abnormal" or should I say "frowned upon" by the racist whites.

Same-sex unions is just to much for some people to handle.

I've tried to figure out what the religious fundamentalists fear the most, gays or dark skinned people.

If black people were seen daily on Evangelical TV stations as repsentatives of Israel, would the "White-Is-Right" Right Wing zealots continue their donations for a black Israel to co-exist? Why do we only see a white Nutenyahoo, Sharon, and maybe Pinkus speaking to their "good friends" in the evangelical Kingdom of Entertainment ? When was the last time Nutenyahoo made a good friend visit to Jesse Jacksons Rainbow Coalition? And what does this have to do with anything homosexual?

Falwell is geared up to amend the Constitution with a ban on homosexual same-sex marriages and "other specific things" he sees unfit within that lifestyle. Will this mean a ban on gays adopting children? Eating in the same resturants as "Christians"? Being employed with "Christians?" Isn't this the same thing black people had to endure before MLK knocked some sense into the "White-Is-Right" religious party?

What's at the root of this problem other than a "I'm a better human than you are" mentality?

Mulkaccino · Nov 12, 2004, 03:55 pm

Also if your argument for the oposition against gay marraige is religously based, do you believe Atheist, Agnostics, and non-Christians should not be allowed to marry?

Starboy · Nov 13, 2004, 09:06 pm

I chose "civil rights issue". The thing about marriage in our society is that it really is not just between two people. It is a social recognition of the constituency of a family. And there are many laws that pertain specifically to families and there are many rights and duties that also apply to families. So it is not really a private issue at all. There is a reason why historically marriages were very public events. It was a method from a simpler time to notify everyone that there was a new family unit in the village and they were to be given the rights, privileges and duties accorded to such a unit. Nowadays we have marriage certificates.

Starboy

JustinGilmore · Nov 15, 2004, 03:48 am

It's a civil rights issue
It is also a celebration of diversity.
Also, during the campain trail it served as a distraction from the real issues of government, and election

Texans 4 Furors · Nov 15, 2004, 04:21 pm

Get the government out of ALL marriages. Period.

Starboy · Nov 15, 2004, 04:28 pm

Maybe we should have the government "bless" all marriages. I can see it now. Government pastors, priests, rabbis, mullahs, monks, witch doctors, shamans and ministers here to help us all be properly married and sanctified.

Starboy

Osborn F Enready · Nov 16, 2004, 02:26 pm

Government, has no business in defining or advocating any religious activities. Marriage is a religious bond, and the only reason it was EVER introduced into the auspice of government authority was due to the blood born diseases at the time of licenses being made mandatory for those wishing to be married, so they could be sure to get a blood test and not contaminate another if they were ill.

That is the only reason, and since our medical practices in this nation have long ago surpassed the need for that test, they should no longer require licensing.

Texans 4 Furors · Nov 16, 2004, 02:29 pm

I thought states started using licenses after the emancipation proclamation to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other.

BrightKID · Nov 16, 2004, 08:41 pm

Marriage is a very important thing to Christians. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Even if you don’t like Jesus or God understand where were coming from. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. The choice is up to you. If Jesus or the government should not speak on the issue of marriage; who should?

BrightKID · Nov 16, 2004, 08:41 pm

Marriage is a very important thing to Christians. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Even if you don’t like Jesus or God understand where were coming from. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. The choice is up to you. If Jesus or the government should not speak on the issue of marriage; who should?

View Poll Results: In my opinion, homosexual marriage is
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone	304	43.74%
A distraction from the real issues of government	83	11.94%
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept	73	10.50%
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong	94	13.53%
A private matter between the couple and their minister	58	8.35%
Other-I will explain below	58	8.35%
A celebration of diversity	25	3.60%
Voters: 695. You may not vote

Nov 12, 2004, 01:36 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	I am wondering how the volconvo community references this debate. It seems that America, by and large, doesn't favor the concept. I think there is a very wide acceptance of homos generally in the US. They get a few swats, but overall I don't think most Americans want them treated as pariahs. Euros are likely even more tolerant. But allowing a homosexual union to labeled "marriage" apparently goes against the grain. All eleven states where the question was presented on 11/2/2004 voted to disallow homosexual marriage. Where do you stand? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 12, 2004, 07:13 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
rhod01 Socialist Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 226	It's a human right. It shouldn't matter what it's called! http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1153/gates8lq.jpg Political Compass Position: Economic Left/Right:-9.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:-7.13

Nov 12, 2004, 12:43 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	The 'marriage' that was pushed upon the masses is where the gays lost. If they would have not been so embolden to think that they could force their 'rightness' upon the rest of us I think a chance of 'civil unions' was possible. Now they claim their rights have been violated - gay union was never a right - so we are taking a right that was never there away? Move to Canada - they want you - if you must be married. Stay here and fight for civil unions - which was the major scope of the argument anyway. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Nov 15, 2004, 03:48 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
JustinGilmore Molten Ash Location: US, California Posts: 44	It's a civil rights issue It is also a celebration of diversity. Also, during the campain trail it served as a distraction from the real issues of government, and election ...weird

Nov 12, 2004, 04:30 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	well, it is not a question in my mind that i is a distraction from real issues, but it doesn't mean I dont agree with the other options either. It is frankly none of anyone's business and it is no one responsibility to uphold morals that have no practical application. Jesus is not the president, and if he was I'd be a bit more encouraged to assassinate him. That said, it is not the government's responsibility to even speak on the issue of marriage whatsoever.

Nov 12, 2004, 07:51 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	I think the whole thing should be looked at from top to bottom. Some see marriage as a religious ritual. Some see the contractual and social benefits. They talk about things like the idea of "kin." When you live with someone, they're not kin. When you get married, they're kin. I think there are probably cases where two people who are not sexually involved would benefit from the idea of civil unions, so I don't think it's just a sex thing. I think anyone who wants to enter into that kind of contract ought to be able to. I think if the state does anything, it should offer "civil unions" , or simply contractual unions with public benefits, to everyone who wants it regardless of whether or not they have sex, and leave marriage to the churches. However, if the State offers marriages, it should offer them at least to homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Nov 12, 2004, 09:46 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Haik Molten Ash Posts: 64	The fact that there are laws against it is about as ridiculous as the segregation laws in the early 1900s against blacks. I think in the next few generations of youth it will be more widely accepted.

Nov 12, 2004, 02:11 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Mulkaccino Molten Ash Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 105	A black person being able to use a clean, decent restroom was never one of their rights either. Should all black people have just packed their bags and moved to Africa? Whats special about black people over gays that they should be allowed to participate in a public national institutions yet gays should not? Granting solely Civil Unions to gays is a "seperate but equal" law. If you do not know what this is or do not understand it I will find a link for you ( I do not have full internet access when I post here generally). Can someone show me why my mentality is incorrect?

Nov 12, 2004, 02:43 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	You'd be hard pressed to find a clean bathroom in Africa.

Nov 12, 2004, 03:23 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Mulkaccino Molten Ash Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 105	Good point. Maybe I should have referenced Canada again.

Nov 12, 2004, 03:34 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
crayola Molten Ash Posts: 129	Black/white marriages, "unions" if you will, are still considered "abnormal" or should I say "frowned upon" by the racist whites. Same-sex unions is just to much for some people to handle. I've tried to figure out what the religious fundamentalists fear the most, gays or dark skinned people. If black people were seen daily on Evangelical TV stations as repsentatives of Israel, would the "White-Is-Right" Right Wing zealots continue their donations for a black Israel to co-exist? Why do we only see a white Nutenyahoo, Sharon, and maybe Pinkus speaking to their "good friends" in the evangelical Kingdom of Entertainment ? When was the last time Nutenyahoo made a good friend visit to Jesse Jacksons Rainbow Coalition? And what does this have to do with anything homosexual? Falwell is geared up to amend the Constitution with a ban on homosexual same-sex marriages and "other specific things" he sees unfit within that lifestyle. Will this mean a ban on gays adopting children? Eating in the same resturants as "Christians"? Being employed with "Christians?" Isn't this the same thing black people had to endure before MLK knocked some sense into the "White-Is-Right" religious party? What's at the root of this problem other than a "I'm a better human than you are" mentality?

Nov 12, 2004, 03:55 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Mulkaccino Molten Ash Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 105	Also if your argument for the oposition against gay marraige is religously based, do you believe Atheist, Agnostics, and non-Christians should not be allowed to marry?

Nov 13, 2004, 09:06 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	I chose "civil rights issue". The thing about marriage in our society is that it really is not just between two people. It is a social recognition of the constituency of a family. And there are many laws that pertain specifically to families and there are many rights and duties that also apply to families. So it is not really a private issue at all. There is a reason why historically marriages were very public events. It was a method from a simpler time to notify everyone that there was a new family unit in the village and they were to be given the rights, privileges and duties accorded to such a unit. Nowadays we have marriage certificates. Starboy

Nov 15, 2004, 04:21 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Texans 4 Furors BANNED Posts: 179	Get the government out of ALL marriages. Period.

Nov 15, 2004, 04:28 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Maybe we should have the government "bless" all marriages. I can see it now. Government pastors, priests, rabbis, mullahs, monks, witch doctors, shamans and ministers here to help us all be properly married and sanctified. Starboy

Nov 16, 2004, 02:26 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Government, has no business in defining or advocating any religious activities. Marriage is a religious bond, and the only reason it was EVER introduced into the auspice of government authority was due to the blood born diseases at the time of licenses being made mandatory for those wishing to be married, so they could be sure to get a blood test and not contaminate another if they were ill. That is the only reason, and since our medical practices in this nation have long ago surpassed the need for that test, they should no longer require licensing. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 16, 2004, 02:29 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Texans 4 Furors BANNED Posts: 179	I thought states started using licenses after the emancipation proclamation to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other.

Nov 16, 2004, 08:41 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
BrightKID Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	Marriage is a very important thing to Christians. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Even if you don’t like Jesus or God understand where were coming from. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. The choice is up to you. If Jesus or the government should not speak on the issue of marriage; who should?

Nov 16, 2004, 08:41 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
BrightKID Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	Marriage is a very important thing to Christians. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Even if you don’t like Jesus or God understand where were coming from. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. The choice is up to you. If Jesus or the government should not speak on the issue of marriage; who should?