|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/05/06 - 20:48 Post subject: Speaking of Constitutional Amendments
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman should take a few weeks of congressional posturing, uhm er I mean, debating. It's a fantastic topic in a Senatorial election year. It will speak in volume to single-issue voters.
I've thoughtfully changed my stance on the idea that people should search their brain an issue, any issue that they feel strongly about - if they need a reason to vote at all. I would prefer that people find a couple of reasons, at least, then vote.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/05/06 - 21:41 Post subject:
it's really sad that we need an amendment to protect marriage but whatever it takes I guess
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/05/06 - 22:38 Post subject:
what are we protecting marriage from? If I marry my boyfriend, is the straight married couple next door less married?
12 Reasons Same Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
That said, can someone at least agree with me that this is a political ploy? It's an election year for congress; Bush has been losing support, the religious right is a powerful block of voters, and this is a rallying issue for them. Voters are more concerned about Iraq, gas prices, health care and the economy. What is the purpose of trotting out this amendment once more?
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/05/06 - 23:00 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: |
What is the purpose of trotting out this amendment once more? |
As I alluded, I believe the point for politicians to bring this issue up is primarily political in the derogatory sense.
Members on both sides* have indicated that there would be a struggle to even get close to 50 let alone the require 67 (I think that's the right number) required for the amendment to pass.
* I'd really like to have a viable third party in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 06:48 Post subject:
now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 07:16 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman |
that is a veiled personal attack.
answer the damn question; how would the marriage of 2 people of the same sex affect the marriages of straight couples?
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 08:08 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman |
Why? Because society dictates it? I find this viewpoint very archaic...and sad.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 08:42 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman |
that is a veiled personal attack.
answer the damn question; how would the marriage of 2 people of the same sex affect the marriages of straight couples? |
dude you need a seriouly thicker skin - not every disagreement on the topic is directed at you
the world does not revolve around keltic now that was a personalattack
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 08:50 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman |
Why? Because society dictates it? I find this viewpoint very archaic...and sad. |
But what if society is right?
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 09:11 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman |
It is a unity of people. Your religion defines it as a bond between one man and one woman - and that will never change. I don't care if it does or not - it's your religion, do what you want with it. Believe what you want. It really doesn't make a difference to me. But apparently, it makes a difference to you what I think or believe. This really isn't a political issue, it is a religious issue, which honestly has no business being decided by a majority vote. In my opinion, the only people that really oppose gay marriage are those that want to force the world to live by the rules of their religion.
Let's take a look at some amendments and see whether this one fits with the big picture or not...
13. Abolish slavery. All have the right to freedom.
15. All races have a right to vote.
19. Women have the right to vote.
28? A group of people with their own beliefs does not have the right to be recognized as married by the government.
It doesn't matter if you talk about gays. This amendment would be as absurd as saying people from Atlanta have no right to get married.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 09:16 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | keltic63 wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know a marriage is one man + one woman |
that is a veiled personal attack.
answer the damn question; how would the marriage of 2 people of the same sex affect the marriages of straight couples? |
dude you need a seriouly thicker skin - not every disagreement on the topic is directed at you
the world does not revolve around keltic now that was a personalattack |
no not every disagreement is about me, but one that says "I'm not smart, but I'm smarter than you" is a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you. So once again, you avoid the question by hurling personal insults. I guess that's because you have no other answer than your own personal prejudices.
So in all of history, marriage is historically and by definition the union of one man and one woman?
King David had 8 wives and ten concubines. Solomon had 700 wives. Jacob married Rachel and Leah. There's the Biblical perspective on marriage.
In the 19th century, marriage was a relationship of power and subordination. Wives could not control property, enter contracts, or even have the right to her own earnings. If the marriage ended, the husband had the right to custody of the children.
Arranged marriages existed into the 20th century. The idea of romantic choice, and mutuality in marriage are relatively new ideas.
"Gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage" How does allowing more people to marry threaten the institution of marriage? Shouldn't we aim to have more, not fewer people married? When the Rotary Club allowed women to join, did it weaken the Rotary? Are straight couples less likely to get married and stay married if they know gay couples can marry? Does gay marriage diminish the supply of marriage licenses? If the added 3-10% (depending on which statistics you choose to believe) of the population were given the right to marry, would the remaining 90-97% of the population feel they couldn't or shouldn't get married?
There is no threat to marriage. The constitutional amendment is a distraction from more pressing political issues.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 09:33 Post subject:
ONCE AGAIN Keltic the world doesn't revolve around you
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 09:54 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | ONCE AGAIN Keltic the world doesn't revolve around you |
is that all you have?
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 10:18 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | This really isn't a political issue, it is a religious issue, which honestly has no business being decided by a majority vote. |
Is there something wrong about voting according to your religious convictions? If my God is number one in my life and the religious beliefs I have trump everything else in my personal world, of course I'm going to vote accordingly. Taking religion out of the voting booth is like asking me to check my entire value/belief system at the door and vote with an empty head.
Voting is the lone voice in government that most citizens have. Take the 18th amendment for instance. Majority rule put Prohibition on the books. And it stayed there for 14 years. It was repealed and we've moved on (or have we?). But my point being is we can point fingers and argue until we're blue, but voting according to a person's beliefs is what this country is all about. Really, that's amendment number one, that I can exercise my religion as I choose, including the voting booth.
|
|
|
|
|
Capt Kirk
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 120
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/06 - 10:45 Post subject: My two-cents
Now, I'm probably one of the more conservative folks on the board (actually, I'm a John McCain, Alan Specter SENSIBLE consevative...) and its not even the issue of gay marriage that bugs me (it doesn't), the real issue is tinkering with the Constitution.
An ammendment to our most sacred of founding documents is serious business.
There are certain issues that need to be decided at the local level, BY VOTERS, and not activist-judges. (OK, so that's an off topic rant for another post...)
Things like same-sex unions and abortion are very moral issues. Moral issues do differ from place to place and local people should be free to decide what is acceptable in thier regions. I believe in the concept of the social norm and as such, social norms do differ. I think its OK that the many states should have the right to decide what the acceptable social norm is for them and pass laws as such. Smoking bans is an example.
A contitutional ammendment will have to be voted on and it will not pass on the NATIONAL level.
|
|
|
|
