Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

Originally posted by TheRooster . . .
I suggest you get outside your own world for a minute and think in terms of a document that is to serve mankind until mankind ceasts' to exist. . . .

You mean ceases to exist, do you?

When you always take arguments to illogical extremes you create such ridiculous straw-men that they can only be laughed at.
But please don't stop it; you are entertaining a good number of people at this address.

Now do try to understand. By saying that giving homosexuals the right to marry will lead to people wanting to marry animals, all you are doing is showing the depth of your prejudice against gays. Luckily prejudice is a curable trait. All it takes is education and learning to understand people better.

No document made by a government is expected to last until mankind ceases to exist. Governments change, morality changes, civilizations rise and fall. The best we can do when agreeing on laws is to legislate the minimum possible that will benefit people and society and protect people and society from harm in the context of society as we know it.

Denying rights to a group of people harms them in ways that some people who have always been able to take those right for granted find impossible to understand.

The slippery slope you should be worried about is the progressive denial of rights to other groups of people.
Marriage today, guns tomorrow.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by TheRooster

 

The constitution is the document that also states the simple fact that we are all EQUAL. Hence the simple reasoning that suggests: If strait poeople can celebrate their love through marriage, gays should be allowed the same and EQUAL right to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am for equal rights for all. What I'm looking for is a clear definition, something set in stone, not to be breached because down the road something else becomes acceptable to a select few who wish to impose it on all. What you choose to do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But the next time questionable bahavior leaps out of the bedroom, farm, forest, desert, etc... and into mainstream society, will our children or grandchildren be putting it on a ballot initiative because all of a sudden it's become "mainstream"?

reply to post by TheRooster


Out of curiosity...seriously.

Do you view marriage, in this day in age, as a strictly religious union or as a secular contract/union?

In my view, marriage has become less associated with religion and more associated with secularism. And, if that is the case, how can the state deny that "contract" based on sexual preference??

[edit on 11/5/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by dbates
You're just being coy.

One thing I hate is to ask an honest question of someone who "knows" me and have them tell me I'm just playing dumb or being coy. I'm not coy and I don't play games. I asked the question because I didn't know YOUR answer!

So, thanks for answering, but I could do without the value judgment.

Obviously contracts that bind man/woman unions are unique in that they help to promote the welfare of the state by providing and providing for the next generation.

If having children is a prerequisite for marriage, then I am illegally married because I cannot have children. If gay people can't get married because they can't have children, then I shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

If we allow infertile couples to get married, pretty soon, there will be no children. Sounds stupid, huh? Yeah, I thought so, too.

While not all man/woman unions result in children this is in fact the only union that can produce children. A society with no youth has no future, thus it is in the state's interest to help encourage and support this cause.

Even when it is determined ahead of time that the couple cannot breed? Your argument is weak.

There is no vested interest on the state's behalf for same-sex contracts. These contracts make no lasting contribution to society. Why should government money and time be wasted on such a fruitless enterprise?

Why did they waste their precious time and money on my fruitless enterprise? Because I am a citizen of this nation and I have a RIGHT to marry.

Besides, same-sex couples can and do form families, have children and make lasting contributions to society.



[edit on 5-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by TheRooster
What I'm looking for is a clear definition, something set in stone, not to be breached because down the road something else becomes acceptable to a select few who wish to impose it on all.

Should slavery have been set in stone? What type of thinking would lead you to condemn all future generations to our limited thinking of today? That is so ass backwards, I can't begin to wrap my head around it.

Hey, what the heck, let them get married! Then they can be as miserable as everyone else!

Bottom line for me is that I see marriage as a religious union as well as a civil one. Clearly the Bible tells us it is an abomination for a person to have a romantic relationship with the same sex so I don't want that relationship to be supported by the law of man. I will always vote with my heart, mind, values and morals leaning towards the laws of God where applicable. I'll leave the interpretation of mans law and the constitution to the supreme court, meanwhile I will interpret and support the law of the most high God and cast my vote with that in mind.

You don't need to agree with me but now you know my position a little better.

Originally posted by tombangelta
Although the need for human progression and evolution is no more evident than in today's society , i have always seen Gay marriage as a perversion of our fastly dissolving traditions.

its just wrong to be blunt.

Christian traditions. This country was founded on Freedom, including the religious variety. Religious morality should never be legislated.

There is no real need for it and i dont think it helps the ideology and structure of the Family institution as a whole.

I had two gay friends who were together for over 25 years. One day one of them had a severe stroke and went into a coma. His family had disowned him when he came out to them, for purely religious reasons, and never spoke to him again. Because they were not 'married', his family was contacted as next of kin. For the two weeks prior to his passing, the family left instructions that he was to have no visitors who were not family, and they also never visited him. When he died, they donated the body to science, there was no funeral, and the surviving partner never got a chance to say goodbye to the love of his life. Luckily, the home they bought together was covered in the will, but the family still contested the will in court. Thankfully, they lost the case.

No one is asking for special rights, just equal rights. Anything short of equal rights in this country, regardless of what rights we are talking about, is simply unamerican, plain and simple.

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry one! Otherwise, mind your own business. As far as we have come in this country, this just shows how much farther we still have to go.

Originally posted by TheRooster
Free speech doesn't just protect the popular words, it protects them all.

And "All Men Are Created Equal" doesn't just protect the straight people. It protects us ALL.

Remember that freedom?

BTW, it is not considered "free speech" when the intent is to harm. Look it up.

Originally posted by kinglizard
Bottom line for me is that I see marriage as a religious union as well as a civil one. Clearly the Bible tells us it is an abomination for a person to have a romantic relationship with the same sex so I don't want that relationship to be supported by the law of man. I will always vote with my heart, mind, values and morals leaning towards the laws of God where applicable. I'll leave the interpretation of mans law and the constitution to the supreme court, meanwhile I will interpret and support the law of the most high God and cast my vote with that in mind.

You don't need to agree with me but now you know my position a little better.

But is it really fair, when living in a country based on secular principles, to impose the 'laws of God' from your religion on others who do not share your view or your religion. Shouldn't religious morals be practiced and enforced on the individual who espouses them, and not the society on a whole? Ethical behavior should be legislated, but morality should not, as morals differ from person to person. There is a difference between ethics and morality.

reply to post by caballero


I don't really care about gay marriage as its a fake issue to pretend their is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. That said, I'm very happy prop 8 was passed. Now all we have to do is ban hetro-sexual marriage as well and I'll be completely satisfied. The less government contracts in existence there are the better off people are.

Leave marriage up to the church. Replace legal marriages with some sort of child parenting contract so we can finally bring clarity to our fuzzy bloated laws and start making laws to actually suit a specific purpose.

reply to post by Kailassa


Perhaps the problem with our country is your view on this. This country has waaaay too many laws on the books as it is, we have been legislated into near slavery.

If I understand you correctly... your solution is not one to believe in a document and what it represents, take a stand and beat back the change in popular beliefs... but to legislate it for all eternity? Sorry, and I'm sure this one will go over well with everyone at the house. That belief is BS!

The demise of this country is only a matter of time because we HAVE NOT defended the Constitution and what it stands for, we have been tweaking it here and there, and each slight adjustment has set the moral compass of this nation on a heading towards the abyss.

It would appear our differences begin with the fundamentals and then go in two distinct opposite directions. But rather than take cheap shots or belittle you, I will simply and respectfully disagree.

If you think I am of the opinion that homosexuality leads in any way to bestiality, you are mistaken. For the sake of healthy debate, you must also consider the extremes, ( for the record, I don't "always" take it to illogical extremes, but have been know to go there to stir the gray matter, or is it grey matter, I'll allow you to decide.) the point I was trying to make is... where does it end? What can society agree on that will NEVER be breached, for eternity? IMHO, you can have your marriage, I never said you couldn't (I've had a couple myself :dn I just want it clearly defined.

====
Mod Edit: large quote removed, 'reply to' linked
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 11/6/2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I should have said the definition of marriage. There has to be an objective defiition of what the word marriage means. I believe that definition includes exclusivity of the word marriage applied to being between a man and woman only.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Icarus Rising]

I am happy that it did pass and defines marriage as between male and female.

Proper use of sex organs causes pregnancies.

Whoever is reading this, like it or not, it is how you got here.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
But is it really fair, when living in a country based on secular principles, to impose the 'laws of God' from your religion on others who do not share your view or your religion. Shouldn't religious morals be practiced and enforced on the individual who espouses them, and not the society on a whole? Ethical behavior should be legislated, but morality should not, as morals differ from person to person. There is a difference between ethics and morality.

I understand you position but I'm just voting my conscience. Do you suggest I vote in a way that sits in conflict with my beliefs? That's not a very reasonable request to ask of anyone. It's like me asking you to vote against gay marriage because God says it's an abomination.

You can argue if such a law is constitutional or if it should even be on a ballot but when I see a check box and a proposition I will vote according to my beliefs just like anyone else.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
I am happy that it did pass and defines marriage as between male and female.

Proper use of sex organs causes pregnancies.

Whoever is reading this, like it or not, it is how you got here.

you say that as if homosexuals had even a fraction of the contempt that their heterosexual (or perhaps latent homosexual) counterparts have for gays. I don't think homosexuals are "anti-heterosexual" anymore than being a woman or man makes you anti-opposite-gender.

Originally posted by TheRooster
The demise of this country is only a matter of time because we HAVE NOT defended the Constitution and what it stands for, we have been tweaking it here and there, and each slight adjustment has set the moral compass of this nation on a heading towards the abyss.

This country was never supposed to have a 'moral compass', just an ethical one. It was founded on secular principles. Morality is the pervue of religion, and since we have a protected freedom in that matter, it must not ever be legislated. In this case it has been.

reply to post by fmcanarney


Perhaps we should pass a law, then, that says that sex may only occur between a male and female whilst the female is ovulating. Otherwise, pregnancy could not occur and they would not be using their sex organs "properly". Maybe we should go ahead and outlaw foreplay too, as it is perfectly acceptable to get knocked up without getting the least bit of pleasure from the act...

EDIT: I nearly put "whilst the male is ovulating". I don't want to damage anyone's dignity, after all...

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Siblin]

Originally posted by Kailassa
There have been cases where a man could not visit his partner who was in hospital dying, because he was not related to him or married to him.

This really hits home for me. My previous partner died of kidney cancer. Although I was able to visit him and even moved in with his sister at the end to help take care of him, I was not able to sue for wrongful death. His family didn't want to for some reason. Unless they did and never told me(which could really be the case if I let my paranoid mind run wild).

Why, you may ask would I sue? Well, for about 3 years he complained about kidney pains and his doctor (without even so much as taking one single blood sample, let alone scan) told him it was kidney stones. Until finally the pain was too much to handle and my partner made them x-ray him only to find a tumor the size of a baby attached to his kidney. He died 3 months later.

God bless you Jim. I miss you at times.

But, on a better note, I am now happily with my current partner of 7 years. I think Jim would be happy for me.

Anyway, I can admit my own biasness here, but I wish people could really see things beyond their own nose.

Wait, are you seriously saying that by Cali not passing Gay marriage rights, its disgusting?

IMO, disgusting is two guys pounding eachother. Maybe im just closed minded, i dunno?