DescentBB

Testiculese wrote:The fact that he wants to hold a Constitutional Convention in the first place is the threat. Defining marriage is none of the Constitution's business.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I beg to differ. Marriage is something that is basic to life and society. I could wish that we didn't have to explicitly define something so obvious. But the need has arisen, not because conservatives are trying to force values on others, but because the core value that is marriage is under attack by those who would force the acceptance of their warped values on everyone else. Conservatives aren't the ones trying to change this country, it's the other way around.

Ferno wrote:oh, bull.
you may be able to convince yourself with that argument you just posted, but you won't be able to convince anyone else with it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So I'm stupid, or gullible, or both. But can you tell me at what point marriage was conceived in human history? If I won't be able to convince anyone else, there must be a reason, right?

Ferno wrote:yea.. civilization as a whole is completely dependant on a man being married to a woman...

and the institution of marriage is under attack by completely warped people...




That just reeks of bigotry and ignorance.

I never did get an answer, and I don't want to just let this go.

Testi, I can see your logic, but the more I think about it, the more I believe it is based on a misrepresentation of just how basic marriage is to life and society, and possibly a misjudgment of just what the constitution is for. As I see it, the two things that must be understood in order to arrive at the truth of this are, "what is marriage?", and, "what is the constitution for?".

You can't convince me than marriage is no big deal just because the homosexuals want the norm to change to include them, or because more and more people don't even bother with marriage, except as an afterthought to an intimate, established relationship. These things don't truly effect what marriage is, they only evidence a changing perception of it. As a Christian, and a conservative, I don't care what people have decided that marriage is in light of these changes. They're "moving the boundaries," as Mike Huckabee so eloquently put it. If anyone's going to claim that marriage is not basic enough to be supported by our constitution, then let them demonstrate it using historical evidence, and without first redefining marriage. If you can't do that, then our dispute remains one of human origin, and therefore liberal vs conservative thought.

It's very important to bear in mind that Christians/conservatives weren't the ones looking to change the laws of the land, it's the special interest groups who started that. Neither are they looking to change the country from what it has always been, but rather, at this time, to necessarily solidify the definition of the institution of marriage--a definition that has always been accepted as obvious, for reasons moral, spiritual, and physical (do we need schematic drawings?)--against all attacks.

Ok Thorne, no one else feels that their \"values\", if you can even call them that, are being threatened. Grow up, get used to it, homosexual people are going to be around as long as heterosexual people, so just deal with it. If they want a little piece of paper that says that are together, just to make them happy, then I'm sorry, let them have it. It does nothing to take away from a marriage and I would have with a woman, or the love that I would have for her.

Just because it is different from what your little book says doesn't mean it's the wrong thing. When the big guys wrote our declaration, they said EVERYONE was entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not everyone that lives their life to how YOU see fit.

Thorne, I think that you've done a decent job of demonstrating that marriage has social value. But there's another claim that you need to demonstrate in order to complete your argument. You also have to demonstrate that allowing homosexual marriage somehow takes away from marriage's social value.

As I see it, this is not the case. This marriage business isn't a zero-sum game. Allowing a homosexual couple to marry doesn't mean that there is now one less heterosexual couple married.

Moreover, for somebody who recognizes the social value in marriage, you might not think that a homosexual marriage is as socially valuable as a heterosexual marriage. But don't you still find the homosexual marriage to be socially more valuable than a homosexual couple that's not married at all?

Marriage since the beginning of time has always been about reproduction and legitimizing children, starting families etc…therefore since Homosexuality is by default non reproductive I see no need to let Homosexuals get married.

Gays wanting to get married is all because someone else has it, its related to the Nah Nah Nah aspect of being gay.

I find a major amount of hypocrisy here, on one hand the gays are always screaming that others should accept their lifestyles, while on the other hand stand in complete denial of their own sexuality. (non reproductive)

I hear the arguments that benefits are given to married people…and they should get those benefits…well those benefits don’t come out of a vacuum, they stem from the fact that married people have children. And gays adopting children should be forbidden outright! (Based on the fact that I believe that children have rights, which include the right to have both a Mother and a Father) But that’s another subject.

As far as a civil union given to people who want to have a kind of marriage because of love or some such thing…well if we let non reproductive people have a union what’s to stop people from marrying their family members? Or some other such nonsense. If you love your partner…then live together and enjoy, what do you need a marriage for?

Another argument against gay marriage is this: A marriage is a union of dissimilar things such as mustard and ketchup or luxury and performance to get something that is more than the sum of the parts…you can’t marry mustard to mustard and get special sauce…you just get mustard…I realize this is a semantic argument but it does have merit as far as a definition of marriage is concerned.

Animals do it. Yes, I've seen Discovery shows on it.

The constitution (even ours) is taken from the Bible because when it was made, the people in power were most likely religious.

I haven't met anyone yet like me (who doesn't believe in religion) and thinks homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. I have no issues with it. It's mostly because they want the same benefits (when the spouse dies, the other one gets it's pension etc, here in Canada).

The world, as with humans are EVOLVING. This means everything. I'm sure one day we will not believe in religion anymore because we will have realized that MAN created God and not the other way around.

No flames please, just clean chatting.

Dang even the canucks get it.

Spidey, your post was complete nonsense. Gay marriage isn't because other people \"have\" it. It's two people that want to be recognized as a couple. What is the big deal with that? So frickin' what? Who cares? Why do you people always feel like you get to tell others how to live their lives?

What's the divorce rate of heterosexual couples? Pretty bad in this country, why are you so worried about saving the sanctity of that? This should not be that big of a deal, they are here to stay. You better get used to it...if you feel they are such a threat to your society, build an iron house with no windows and live the rest of your miserable life clinging to the hope that the world might regress to 1955. Good luck with that one.

Amen to that! All those idiots that want to go go back and relive the fifties, Beaver Cleaver and Father Knows Best have a selective memory.

That decade SUCKED for women, African Americans and anybody else that wasn't a white, heterosexual Christian male! I know, I lived and experienced that decade!

Now we see attempts to make a constitutional amendment that will enshrine bigotry on a whole class of people that just want to have equal rights, not special rights. The constitution was created to defend and ensure freedom for all, not just a select few.

I bet that ANY man is OK with 2 women getting married. It's the thought of 2 men that grosses them out. I bet you that is why they are against gay marriages.

Marriage since the beginning of time has always been about reproduction and legitimizing children, starting families etc…therefore since Homosexuality is by default non reproductive I see no need to let Homosexuals get married.

Since the beginning of time? Who declared as married the Neanderthals? Who pronounced the hunter-gatherers of the rift valley \"man and wife\"? What do you recognize as \"married\"? How many wives do you accept? When are people \"unmarried\" in your view? Do you think there has never been a society that was accepting of homosexual relationships?
You are carrying a pile of cultural baggage my friend and I'm not sure you see it.
There is and never should be (nor will be in my opinion) any need for any religious community to sanctify the \"marriage\" of any pair or group of people that does not meet their criteria. However if the government wants to recognize any pair or group of people as married in terms of their standing with respect to the laws of the land then that is up to the majority of the citizens to decide. Where I come from (Canada) we recognize that there is more to the world that the narrow view of the Christian conservative lobby and the majority has accepted that not all people fit a single model.
In Muslim countries a man can have more than one wife.
What you want is for the U.S. constitution to reflect your Christian cultural bias.

Do what you like. Keep it inside your borders.

Spidey, as was already said in the other thread - if you think the purpose of marriage is to have children & start familys, and you exclude Gay people because of this. Then infertile heterosexual people should also be excluded.

Spidey wrote:a union of dissimilar things such as mustard and ketchup or luxury and performance to get something that is more than the sum of the parts…you can’t marry mustard to mustard and get special sauce…you just get mustard…

haha, it reminds me of this part on American Dad


"guys guys, a baby's not like a Fire. You can't just rub 2 sticks together and FLOOM!"

Spidey wrote:Marriage since the beginning of time...

I just want to point out the obvious... The human race hasn't existed since the beginning of time.
I know what you mean though, I just don't agree with you. I think everyone deserves their freedom. Besides, don't you Americans see yourselves as free.

I also see it as ironic that so many Canadians (including me) are replying to something that is strictly American.

Alter-Fox wrote:I also see it as ironic that so many Canadians (including me) are replying to something that is strictly American.

its kinda hard to ignore the elephant in the room...

\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..\"

Those who wish to legislate against gay marriage want to do exactly what the first amendment prohibits.

I think what may be over looked here is if gay marriages are allowed, what Pandora box of sexual relationships is opened? First off Muslims should then be allowed to have their 4 wives as determined by the Koran. Hippy style group marriages ought to be allowed (hey, it takes a village)and what about the whack job that wants to marry his favorite goat. I mean, where do we draw the line?

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.
Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction.
Marriage is not a requirement to make a family.

Marriage is none of the government's business. It is a private religious ritual. The fact that government is even involved should be a red flag.

The Constitution is a document that applies to ALL people. Marriage does not apply to all people. To modify the Constitution to only cater to a certain group (as large as that group might be) is wrong.

The only authority that can truly modify the meaning of marriage is the church/mosque/whatever. They can reject the union of whatever they don't approve.


Woody, who cares if Muslims have 4 wives? It's none of your business. Who cares if hippies want a communal marriage? It's none of your business. Who cares if a whack job wants to marry his goat? It's none of your business.

See the pattern?

If the gays are Christian, and Christian churches don't approve of gay marriage, then gays can't get married in Christianity.

Gays aren't Christian Testi...they are living a life of shame.

Ferno wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."

"Or prohibiting the free exercise there-of"

Don't quote the partial article Ferno, that is a typical way of thinking for those against religion

Zuruck wrote:Gays aren't Christian Testi...they are living a life of shame.

then you don't know or understand anything about Christianity Zuruck,

I think he was being sarcastic, Cuda

Testiculese wrote:Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.
Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction.
Marriage is not a requirement to make a family.

Marriage is none of the government's business. It is a private religious ritual. The fact that government is even involved should be a red flag.

OK. Based on that reasoning, the federal and state governments should quit giving all those little perks that go along with marriage. The state is already involved up to it's neck.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html

You are right! They should. All of those, except the pension stuff, should be written up in the person's living will and dead will. The pension recipient should be registered with the company.

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."

"Or prohibiting the free exercise there-of"

Don't quote the partial article Ferno, that is a typical way of thinking for those against religion

I didn't feel the need to because I figured people here would know the entire thing.

Nice attempt at pigeonholing me, though.


yea, no one should make a law against practicing any religion, but they should also not make a law banning a certain type of marriage because of what a religion believes. With that in mind, how does allowing gay marriage to be legal prohibit a religion from practicing?

there is nothing in the US constitution that would prohibition the adoption of a amendment to limit marriage.

Gays aren't Christian Testi...they are living a life of shame.

LOL

http://www.gaychristian.net/

BTW I'm with Testi. Marriage is a church thing. The government doesn't really need to do anything. This shown by the fact that Common Law relationships are recognized in law and that works quite well.

Ford Prefect wrote:Where I come from (Canada) we recognize that there is more to the world that the narrow view of the Christian conservative lobby and the majority has accepted that not all people fit a single model.

Any chance you could ship some of your citizens down here and talk some sense to some of the citizens here?

fliptw wrote:there is nothing in the US constitution that would prohibition the adoption of a amendment to limit marriage.

so you support banning gay marriage?

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting, non-related adults. It has nothing to do with christianity, or any other religion. It has nothing to do with a couple ability to bear children, or to raise them, for that matter. Thus, the wack-job cannot marry his goat (non consenting), nor can you marry your sister(in most societies). Gender is only an issue because society says it is, and government defines legal. Society recognized unions between people long before religon.

fliptw wrote:there is nothing in the US constitution that would prohibition the adoption of a amendment to limit marriage.

Matter of interpretation but I believe you are wrong. US citizens have the right to persue happiness.

Blank post. I misunderstood.

OK

Blank Post. I tried to respond, but by the time I had made my post, you had edited yours.

How can you have a debate with someone who thinks a simple expression such as “since the beginning of time” should be taken literally?

Testi…you need to do some reading…

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudie ... rriage.htm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... %2FPrinter
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04B01
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What% ... %20For.pdf

I know what your are going to say…so don’t, these where just the first 4 links that came up when I searched…so any accusations of bias are unfounded. Go on and read the rest of the web pages just for laughs and you will see the same thing over and over again.
The search I used was “What is the purpose of marriage?


Zuruck…That’s quite an outrageous supposition you make about me there, and the divorce rate is so high because people are getting married for the wrong reasons.

Tunnelcat…A man can dream, the Fifties are looking pretty good to me right about now.

If you look at this from another perspective, say Pros and Cons you will also have good reason to not to sanction same sex marriage.

Pro=A small minority gets something they don’t really need.
Con=A large number of people get disgusted.

And this can be expanded on.

If there is no real need to have same sex marriage then why make it legal when it flies in the face of so many, I just can’t see doing something because someone “wants” it and doesn’t really “need” it.

In summary…if you are offending/disgusting a whole shipload of people in order to appease a few, is it worth it?

BTW if anybody can make the argument that gays really need to get married I’m listening.

Spidey wrote:Pro=A small minority gets something they don’t really need
. . .
BTW if anybody can make the argument that gays really need to get married I’m listening.

This is an unclear argument. Need with respect to what?

Need in order to be able to survive? No.
Need in order to be justly treated? Possibly.
Need in order to be able to fully pursue happiness? Probably.

Set out what you mean by "need."

Spidey wrote:In summary…if you are offending/disgusting a whole shipload of people in order to appease a few, is it worth it?

Is what's right, what's just, or what's good determined by what what a certain bunch of people find disgusting? Is that really your argument here? I think you'll find this type of argument indefensible.

An aside: Even though surveying a group of people to see how many would be happy vs. how many would be disgusted is a rather poor benchmark to determine what is right, gay couples would not be the only people happy to see gay couples have the right to marriage. Many heterosexual Americans would be happy to see them have this right too, not necessarily because they are immediately benefiting from it, but because seeing rights aptly recognized to people ordinarily denied them makes most people happy. You need to at least account for this in your formula.

No Spidey, you have no idea what freedom means.

I've never tried caviar, but i hear it's an aquired taste - therefore, perhaps MOST people do not like caviar.
We don't NEED to eat caviar.
Therefore we should make caviar illegal.

Do you now see how stupid this is?

Woodchip wrote:if gay marriages are allowed, think of all the OTHER people in society that we'll eventually be forced to stop attacking. First it was the women, then the Blacks... Eventually society will be so accepting that there'll be no-one left to discriminate against - what will we do then?! These Witches arn't gonna burn themselves, i just got a new pitchfork & everything.

^^
fixed that for ya

This is something that the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent.

Ferno wrote:This is something that the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent.

for the second time in this thread there is NO separation of church and state in the constitution.

it says that:
Congress shall make no LAW ESTABLISHING a religion.

Dictionary wrote:law1 /lɔ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[law] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.

Dictionary wrote:es·tab·lish /ɪˈstæblɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-stab-lish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.

NO WHERE is our government trying to to found, institute, or build a religion and enforce it by Judicial mandate.


part two of that article:
Or prohibit the free exercise there-of.
I just love you guys always leaving out the second half of that article. as I know there are some here on this forum that would love Congress to out-law religion. that will not happen either

Not to mention that it’s the state that sanctions marriage in this country…you can get married any way you want in this country…but you still need a state issued license to do it.

Roid…Maybe you have Freedom & Liberties confused? All rights, Freedoms and Liberties in this country come from either God or Government.

“I've never tried caviar, but i hear it's an aquired taste - therefore, perhaps MOST people do not like caviar.
We don't NEED to eat caviar.
Therefore we should make caviar illegal.”

That was the worst analogy I have ever heard.

Jeff…need with respect to survival. Nobody needs marriage to be happy, people who get married for things like Love & avoiding Loneliness usually end up divorced…that’s part of my comment about “getting married for the wrong reasons”. Also: The argument is not indefensible…we have plenty of laws on the books to defend peoples sensibilities. And: your argument hinges on gay marriage being the right thing…this has yet to be proven

Well last night I was watching The News Hour and they had a story about Religion in America. They said that 78% of people in America say they are Christian…so I say forget the debate and put it on the ballad, and let democracy do its thing.

The \"right thing\" is subjective, a point of view. Different people have their own opinions on what is right, and, at least in Canada, people are entitled to their opinions.

What's wrong with his analogy? It fits perfectly. If 78% of the people think caviar is disgusting, why not ban it? It makes as much sense as you do.

Marriage has NOTHING to do with survival. Where do you get this claptrap? Nobody needs marriage...at all. It's a man-made social/religious construct. It also doesn't work. You're statement that being married for love is the wrong reason is so irrationally retarded it's laughable. Love IS the base reason. You go to the alter to 'love one another till death', not 'to bear and raise offspring'. Children aren't ever mentioned. Plenty of married people marry and live their lives and don't have kids. Your arguments are shallow as the kiddie pool.

It's called a ballot. It doesn't belong on it anyway. It's a complete non-issue for government, and NONE of it's business. It should be decided by the religion in question. If the religion bans it, tough for the gays. They should change religions, or drop them entirely.

Alter-Fox wrote:The "right thing" is subjective, a point of view. Different people have their own opinions on what is right, and, at least in Canada, people are entitled to their opinions.

The right thing is not subjective. Society running on people's "Opinions" is not subjective it's anarchy.

In my "Opinion" we should shoot all Canadians on sight.
In my "Opinion" all Beautiful women should be required to walk around naked.
In my "Opinion" all Ugly women should be required wear Burka's.
In my "Opinion" All Liberals should be sent to San Fransicko and a wall should be built around it so they cannot get out.

Those are my "Opinions" some of them real, some of them for effect, but hopefully you get the point

CUDA wrote:for the second time in this thread there is NO separation of church and state in the constitution.

Did I say it was part of the constitution? no, i have not.

My only guess as to why you would say that is that either you greatly misunderstood what I said, or you're intentionally trying to twist what I have said.

Maybe I should make myself clearer. The absolute \"right and wrong\" are defined in the law, however, if your country is debating what is right and wrong (such as in this thread), and there isn't a law one way or the other yet, or the law is purposefully unclear, then it is subjective.

Right and wrong are subjective when they are not defined by law.