mar·riage

[Rich Parsons]

gay marriage


I think it should be allowed.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Well, anyway it's my personal belief...and I'm sorry for shouting...anyways...like I said, let's get back to the thread...it's getting or well it got off subject...a subject that will be a heated arguement...

 

[Rich Parsons]

gay marriage


I think it should be allowed.

Marriage between anyone, should be allowed. As long as everyone knows what they are getting into up front. I would not limit it to sex or the number 2. I would limit it to being an adult and of sound mind.

 

[Makalakumu]

And also, why does this country seem to have the Scriptures from the Bible plastered all over the Lincoln memorial and all the major historical Landmarks.

Yes, but what about the pagan imagery? Oh wait, they are the same! Pago-Christians! And how about the symbols dedicated to Set? Horus? Satan - yep, that one is in our national seal. So upon whose principals was our country founded?

This gay marriage question is rediculous. It stinks of suppressed homo-eroticism expressing itself as hatred and malice. Makes a bunch of people want to fight...gee, think somebody wanted it that way? Anyone read Frank Herbert, "...suppression of homosexual desire turns regular soldiers into berserk warriors..."

God does not discriminate.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Marriage between anyone, should be allowed. As long as everyone knows what they are getting into up front. I would not limit it to sex or the number 2. I would limit it to being an adult and of sound mind.

But how many supposed "Adults" are of sound mind?

 

[Rich Parsons]

But how many supposed "Adults" are of sound mind?

Yes, I agree that the young and in love could be accused of not being of sound mind

I will let the state determine who is of sound mind. i.e. anyone who is not under the care of someone else permanently for mental issues. (* Sounds bad *)

 

[hardheadjarhead]

There was this little disagreement back in the 1860's that decided that states rights are subservient to the federal.

This isn't always true, Bob. Federal courts can, and often do, defer to lower courts and uphold their decisions. Federal law supersedes state law, of course, if there is a conflict between the two laws. If there is no Consitutional amendment regarding an issue, then the states are in fact free to decide.

One state's dictates act as precedent for another, however. If, say, California were to pass a law allowing gay marriages (unlikely), other states would likely follow suit. There is also argument that should the gays in S.F. move back to their home states, their marriages would have to be recognized. I'm not sure of the truth in this.

What I was pointing out was the incongruity of the Republican "pro states rights" stance and their present attempt to seize such autonomy away from the states via Constitutional amendment. Its hypocritical at best.

In any case I don't believe such an amendment will pass. Many Republicans are against it. It is one thing for a state to outlaw a gay marriage, quite another for the Federal government to do so. I suspect, however, that this will be the one great legal debate of the decade, if there are any.


Regards,

Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I just read this in the current issue of 'The Nation'. Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University puts forth the following argument:

Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Sooner or later, friends like this are going to start contracting same-sex marriages of convenience. The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.
In a narrow sense, the women and children in this arrangement would be better off. Yet the larger effects of such unions on the institution of marriage would be devastating. At a stroke, marriage would be severed not only from the complementarity of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity--and even from the hope of permanence.

Is there anything wrong with this picture? Think about it.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

We live in a different day and age compared to that of the original drafters of US law. One of the reasons that the legal def. of Marriage is based on the Judeo/Christian values that the founding fathers lived with. Even in the face of Church/state issues, Church values will be transformed into Citizenry morals.

Marriage as defined exists because it encouraged family units. These family units would produce, train and raise the next generations of moral citizens who would carry the mantel of citizenship as responsibility. WIthin the context of history, this would be a logical institution to promote in a growing nation in need of stability, bodies to produce food and commercial products, fill out armies, ...

The roots of Marriage might be religious in nature, but even within the context of Citizenry, marriage is more than just a legal contract. It has a sacredness to it because the man/woman union will create national stability and future citizens. Couch it in legalize for the sake of establishing a framework, but it is not the same as any other contractual agreement. Legal or religious, marriage is a union of self not just services. A gay marriage, though I can recognize the constitutional issue, will not - by the nature of the gender issue - produce future citizens. Adopt, bring in children from past/other relationships but that is not the same as production.

 

[michaeledward]

. . .The roots of Marriage might be religious in nature, but even within the context of Citizenry, marriage is more than just a legal contract. It has a sacredness to it because the man/woman union will create national stability and future citizens.

What exactly is 'sacred' about creating future citizens?

. . . Couch it in legalize for the sake of establishing a framework, but it is not the same as any other contractual agreement. Legal or religious, marriage is a union of self not just services.

Why is marriage not the same as any other contract? Certainly, the sacrement of marriage is different from a contract, because of its spiritual component. But, 'LEGALIZE' is not the language of spirituality. Is there a difference between the sacrement of marriage and the civil marriage?

. . . A gay marriage, though I can recognize the constitutional issue, will not - by the nature of the gender issue - produce future citizens. Adopt, bring in children from past/other relationships but that is not the same as production.

By 'production', are you refering only to the bioligical process of conception? The last time I checked, conception does not require marriage. Are the next generation of citizens just a function of nature? There is no place for 'Nurture' in producing citizenry?

 

[loki09789]

The sacred-ness issue is within the ideology of patriotism vs religion. The family unit is considered the core of the development of citizen in this country. Future citizens within a nation of religion keep it alive, the same as in a nation of citizens. As American citizens we carry multiple ideologies, citizenry/faith or moral structures.... my point is that much of the American value construct is founded in Judeo/Christian values by virtue of the values of the leaders of the country and the platforms that still get people voted into office.

No, You don't need to be married to concieve, but the basic American belief is that it is better for the family and the child if that conception is within a family unit. Stability is not guarenteed, but it is more likely. I would consider a well developed person as one was a product of nurturing.

If you only think of marriage, whether civil or religious, as a contract then you are not acknowledging the personal nature of it. THe goal and purpose of a marriage 'contract' is inherintly different from other 'contracts.' Marriage as contract only can be abused for tax breaks and convenience regardless of the gender of those who enter into it. I don't know anyone who works on a strictly mercenary level of values.

I understand that there is a distinction between my personal values as a citizen and my personal values outside of that. I would vote FOR the right of gay recognzied marriages if it came down to it. Why because, my personal values aside, this is a country supposedly base on nondescrimination. Much like the sufragist movement, the gay marriage issue is about equal recognition within the eyes of the law - full and diginified membership in the country that you live, work and pay taxes to. There are practical benefits, but they are there or churchs that register for tax breaks as well. Again, it is never just a contractual agreement when ideology is involved.

My personal feelings are for me to be an example of not to lord over others and impose on others, and I choose to be an example of someone who recognizes that I don't always understand how a member might contribute, but he/she has the right to contribute just as much as I do.

I don't know who else has said that clearly where they stand on this, but I would like to hear from others.

Paul M.

 

[michaeledward]

. . .The family unit is considered the core of the development of citizen in this country.

On this we are agreed. I have a friend, who has had the same partner for 27 years. Together, they adopted and are raising a child who is now 8 years old. Doesn't this constitute a 'family unit'? But so far, I have not mention gender...

Future citizens within a nation of religion keep it alive, the same as in a nation of citizens. As American citizens we carry multiple ideologies, citizenry/faith or moral structures.... my point is that much of the American value construct is founded in Judeo/Christian values by virtue of the values of the leaders of the country and the platforms that still get people voted into office.

Certainly, other faiths have structures around the 'family unit'. One need not be from the Jewish, or Christain belief structures to have cannonized families. In fact, Christianity, has only been around for the past two millenia ... did 'family units' exist before that time? Did societies exist before that time?

No, You don't need to be married to concieve, but the basic American belief is that it is better for the family and the child if that conception is within a family unit. Stability is not guarenteed, but it is more likely. I would consider a well developed person as one was a product of nurturing.

Can a man and a woman, living in a non-sexual relationship raise well developed persons via adoption? Is sexuality required to create a 'stable family unit'? If not, what does the gender of the supervising family roles matter?
Also, I don't think the belief that stability in the family is strictly an 'American Belief'.

If you only think of marriage, whether civil or religious, as a contract then you are not acknowledging the personal nature of it.

Actually, I think that by entering into a marriage contract, I am acknowledging the very personal nature of the contract. I do think that those who oppose marriage of same-sex couples are not acknowledging the personal nature of the contract. They are putting their belief structures into the personal matter of others.

THe goal and purpose of a marriage 'contract' is inherintly different from other 'contracts.' Marriage as contract only can be abused for tax breaks and convenience regardless of the gender of those who enter into it. I don't know anyone who works on a strictly mercenary level of values.

There are more than 1049 rights granted to married couples by the federal and state governments that are denied to same-sex couples, whether the relationship is based on sexuality or not. I'm not sure that searching for a way to secure these rights should be considered 'mercenary'. Although, some may enter into a 'Civil Marriage' (if such a thing ever comes to exist) strictly to benefit on their income taxes, or to have Social Security survivor benefits, but I think that the number would be few ... how many men and women are marrying just to receive these benefits?

I understand that there is a distinction between my personal values as a citizen and my personal values outside of that. I would vote FOR the right of gay recognzied marriages if it came down to it. Why because, my personal values aside, this is a country supposedly base on nondescrimination. Much like the sufragist movement, the gay marriage issue is about equal recognition within the eyes of the law - full and diginified membership in the country that you live, work and pay taxes to. There are practical benefits, but they are there or churchs that register for tax breaks as well. Again, it is never just a contractual agreement when ideology is involved.

My personal feelings are for me to be an example of not to lord over others and impose on others, and I choose to be an example of someone who recognizes that I don't always understand how a member might contribute, but he/she has the right to contribute just as much as I do.

I don't know who else has said that clearly where they stand on this, but I would like to hear from others.

Paul M.

My clear two cents. There is no good reason to deny a same sex couple a marriage license. What they do, or don't do, is none of my business. They should be allowed the same protections, and the same frustrations, my wife and I share after being married (by a JP in a Gazebo on a Golf Course... not in a church).

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Certainly, other faiths have structures around the 'family unit'. One need not be from the Jewish, or Christain belief structures to have cannonized families. In fact, Christianity, has only been around for the past two millenia ... did 'family units' exist before that time? Did societies exist before that time?

Yes they did, but my point here is the influence of these Judeo/Christian values on the current issue and laws in America. We are the adolescent on a global scale.

Can a man and a woman, living in a non-sexual relationship raise well developed persons via adoption? Is sexuality required to create a 'stable family unit'? If not, what does the gender of the supervising family roles matter?
Also, I don't think the belief that stability in the family is strictly an 'American Belief'.

I am discussing the basic tenets of American values around marriage, based on current definitions. Topic, not personal values.

I never said that it was strictly American, but it is part of American values.

Actually, I think that by entering into a marriage contract, I am acknowledging the very personal nature of the contract. I do think that those who oppose marriage of same-sex couples are not acknowledging the personal nature of the contract. They are putting their belief structures into the personal matter of others.

That is why I don't think it is my place to impose personal values on the rest of the population, as much as it is my duty to vote as a citizen promoting the values of American equality and freedom.


There are more than 1049 rights granted to married couples by the federal and state governments that are denied to same-sex couples, whether the relationship is based on sexuality or not. I'm not sure that searching for a way to secure these rights should be considered 'mercenary'.

I am not saying that gay marriage agenda is to secure these right for mercenary reasons. I was referring to a post earlier about how the legalization of gay marriage would open doors for same sex friends to use it for tax breaks and benefits... my point was that it doesn't matter what the sex, someone will find a way to try and scam the system. I agree that there are few of these though.

My clear two cents. There is no good reason to deny a same sex couple a marriage license. What they do, or don't do, is none of my business. They should be allowed the same protections, and the same frustrations, my wife and I share after being married (by a JP in a Gazebo on a Golf Course... not in a church).

Mike[/QUOTE]

Agreed, and I am wrestling with my personal values and my social/citizenry values openly here, so I can understand why it might look like I am anti or ultra critical of gay marriage/lifestyle. I have to separate my stance for my personal lifestyle choice and my stance as a voting power: Will I promote equal and dignified citizenship or will I limit someone elses access to that right with my vote. I choose to promote the equal opportunity position.

Paul M

 

[Quick Sand]

I just read this in the current issue of 'The Nation'. Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University puts forth the following argument:


Is there anything wrong with this picture? Think about it.

Mike

As regards to the quote you had in the above post. Technically, yes this could happen but I see no reason why it is more likely to happen with same sex friends then it would happen with two friends that are male and female. How often to two male and female friends decide to get married just for tax benefits etc? It's not likely to happen any more with same sex friends.

I fully and completely support same sex marriage. If someone wants to change the legal term and have EVERYONE considered to be in a civil union in the eyes of the law instead, I would support that too. As long is it's the SAME term for hetro and homo couples and they all recieve the SAME benefits.

I wanted to throw something at my TV when I watched Bush's speech on Tuesday morning and it's made me glad to be Canadian.

 

[loki09789]

Is there any current rumblings about this gay marriage issue in Canadian gov.? If so, are the terms,arguments any different?

Paul M

 

[MisterMike]

I dunno...

Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry.

It seems we are trying to fit a tradition of what a man and woman would do to what a sick or disturbed same sex couple wants in their deviant lifestyle.

But it is tradition that is under attack, and on a higher level, the will of our Creator.

 

[Makalakumu]

It seems we are trying to fit a tradition of what a man and woman would do to what a sick or disturbed same sex couple wants in their deviant lifestyle.

But it is tradition that is under attack, and on a higher level, the will of our Creator.

Mike

This attitude contributed to the death of thousands of homosexuals. Do you truly believe that was the the will of your creator? Do you believe that anything your creator created would be "sick or disturbed"? Do you believe in satan? If so, don't you think this hatefull speech would be his work?

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not a sin. A PERSON IS BORN GAY!!!! :jedi1:

How can that be a sin?

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

. . .Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry. . .

There is an error in the logic of this statement. And there is a supposition that I think is open to discussion.

Homosexuality is un-natural * Therefore * Two homosexual people wanting to marry is un-natural * or * Two homosexual people wanting to raise a child is un-natural

Change the word homosexual to 'People who eat Dogs', and you might be able to see that one statement does not logically follow the other. (I love my puppies ... but in some places in the world, they are a food source).

We've had the discussion before about whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and we don't need to re-hash it here. One of the great things about the United States, is we have always welcomed those who are different from us. MisterMike, as you see homosexuality as different from you, and your beliefs, I would hope that you can also welcome those who are different into your community. And shouldn't they be allowed to the same priveledges and responsibilies that you enjoy? - Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Mike

This attitude contributed to the death of thousands of homosexuals. Do you truly believe that was the the will of your creator? Do you believe that anything your creator created would be "sick or disturbed"? Do you believe in satan? If so, don't you think this hatefull speech would be his work?

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not a sin. A PERSON IS BORN GAY!!!! :jedi1:

How can that be a sin?

upnorthkyosa

No, this attitude is not. Perhaps you mistook my intent.

I think homosexuality is satan's work manifested thru a psychological abnormality.

 

[MisterMike]

There is an error in the logic of this statement. And there is a supposition that I think is open to discussion.

Homosexuality is un-natural * Therefore * Two homosexual people wanting to marry is un-natural * or * Two homosexual people wanting to raise a child is un-natural

Change the word homosexual to 'People who eat Dogs', and you might be able to see that one statement does not logically follow the other. (I love my puppies ... but in some places in the world, they are a food source).

We've had the discussion before about whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and we don't need to re-hash it here. One of the great things about the United States, is we have always welcomed those who are different from us. MisterMike, as you see homosexuality as different from you, and your beliefs, I would hope that you can also welcome those who are different into your community. And shouldn't they be allowed to the same priveledges and responsibilies that you enjoy? - Mike

I know we've hashed the nature-nurture thing out before, but I only listed it as part of my explanation before even going into religion.

To me, there are perfectly natural reasons (nature still coming from God) and there are religious reasons to be against this.

And of course, you cannot substitute in "people eating dogs" while misquoting my statement and still have the same logic. I agree there.