Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Federal Marriage Amendment  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 848 times:

As many of you know, there is a movement in the U.S. to establish a new constitutional amendment which would define marriage as only being between one man and one woman. This is of course a backlash against gay and lesbian movements pushing for legal recognition of gay marriage.

I think it's a good idea. Morals in the world have dropped to such a point that at some point it has to be stopped. By allowing gay marriages, we would basically be throwing out the moral framework that is the bedrock of all civilized society, and replacing them with destructive ideals, such as 1) there are no differences between men and women that matter, 2) marriage has nothing to do with procreation, 3) children do not really need mothers and fathers, 4) the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.

In Europe we have an institution between being single and being married. The French word is "Concubinage", and is essentially a legally recognized status where 2 people live together, and have registered themselves as each others' concubine. It is not marriage, but it has practically the same effect vis-a-vis inheritance, rights, etc.

I don't think such an institution even has a descriptive word in English, but I think it's about time it should arrive. Gays and lesbians are here to stay, there's no question about that, but I feel marriage is a sacred institution that should not be touched. Mainstream society, while it can tolerate alternative lifestyles (as long as nobody is hurt) should not be forced to disgrace its most fundemental values for the sake of political correctness.

What do you think?


43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 796 times:

I think it's just a waste of breath and federal dollars, much like the flag-burning amendment. Some conservatives in this country want to have everything down on paper, so their way is the law of the land. If two people want to exchange vows to get married, what business is it of the governments to tell them otherwise? I thought the Republican Party was the party that was always telling us they want the government out of our lives? Yet they're trying to tell us we can't burn a piece of cloth; they're trying to tell us that they'll set the boundaries on who can legally get married. It's none of their business. It's none of my business, and it's none of anyone's business. And yeah, I know Cfalk didn't mention the GOP, but it is they that are spearheading this latest idiocy.

The institution of marriage isn't declining because of problems with gays and lesbians. Marriage is on the rocks because people who are getting married don't have any backbone to get through problems; they don't look at it as a committment, but just as an "agreement" or "understanding", that can be abridged at any time.

If the government wants to truly strengthen marriages, I'm sure there's a better way to do it than to just pick on gays and lesbians.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 790 times:

Being Roman Catholic, I don't much like the idea of divorce either, but enough blood has been shed over that issue...

As far as it being conservatives pushing this amendments, do you count Rev. Walter Fauntroy as one of them? If you recall, Fauntroy is one of Al Sharpton's good buddies, a civil rights leader, who denounced racial profiling, Bush's election, and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's a conservative?

The push for the amendment is interfaith, multicultural and bipartisan, and wishes to set a limit to which people do whatever they want to society's institutions.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 782 times:

the push for this Amendment (why do we need a friggin' Amendment for this crapola), is pig-headed, wrong, and unnecessary-whomever is pushing it. What a waste of time.

User currently offlineHairyass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 784 times:

As usual, I agree with Cfalk on this issue. I think the left is trying to push some extreme agenda down our throats.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 780 times:

And your agenda isn't extreme, hairybutt?  Smile

As Cfalk says, there's some ultra-liberals involved in this thing as well. And if you support it hairyass, I know I'm right.

User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 778 times:

No, Hairyass, you're wrong. Here in Massachusetts, there are several democratic pushing for a state law to have on paper that marriage is something between a man and a woman. There is some conservative organization called the Masschusetts Family Alliance, or something like that who is spearheading the movement.

However, to me there are two kinds of marriages. One, a legally recognized marriage. Two, a Church recognized marriage. I think that a legally recognized marriage should be allowed. I believe in equal rights for all. However, I believe a church recognized marriage should be left up to the church.

I mean, it is a Church marriage that is sacred. A legal marriage is just a piece of paper that says "you are married." A church marriage is what people celebrate. You celebrate your anniversary on the day you got married in a church, even though you may have been married legally on paper for a few days, or in the case of my aunt and uncle, 20 years.

So, I believe that government should not be one to say "You are gay, and you cannot marry." It should be up to the church for them to decide whether they want to officially recognize gay marriages.


« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3951 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 768 times:

Just another stupid conservative agenda. If you don't want to marry a same-sex person - don't marry one!

Simple as that.

Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 768 times:

The way I heard it, it wasn't an amendment, but I could be wrong. The Marriage Protection Act of 2001 is a great idea and, God willing, it will get through Congress!

I agree with you, Cfalk, and even if it is an amendment I hope it gets through.

User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 768 times:

Cfalk: Could you please explain to me how two guys or two women who love each other and want to spend their lives together and have the same legal protections as straight people AFFECTS YOU?????? Why do you care???? I just can't understand why a straight, married person would give a rip. It affects you in no way. Marriage is a contract, plain and simple. Gays can and will live together without it, start families without it, and live their "alternative lifestyles" without it. It's simply a matter of FAIRNESS and doing what's right. Supposedly, only 10% of the population would be eligible for this anyway, and obviously only a fraction of that would be interested in getting married.... so explain to me again how letting a small portion of the population get married would have any effect on procreation, the degredation of "morals," the downfall of society, etc. And how dare you be so arrogant to think that only straight people can have and raise well-adjusted, morally-conscious kids? All you have to do is look at the large number of f*cked-up kids raised by straight people today to realize that most straights have no business procreating anyway.

And yes, there is an English description for the European institution you described: Civil Unions. Vermont already has them

"Morals in the world have dropped to such a point that at some point it has to be stopped... ...should not be forced to disgrace its most fundemental values for the sake of political correctness."

Again, whose morals are you referring to??? Make no mistake about it, straight people have already done an excellent job of "disgracing" this "sacred institution" without any help from gay people. Gee, what's the divorce rate in this country? The Netherlands is the first country to allow full-fledged gay marriages (not civil unions, but same-sex marriages under the regular marriage laws), and I don't see them going to hell in a handbasket. They seem to be procreating just fine. Even conservative Germany just recently began recognizing same-sex unions. Europe certainly doesn't strike me as Sodom or Gomorrah.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times.. it all goes back to one fundamental truth: PEOPLE FEAR WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND.

An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 766 times:

Much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid I have to agree with Alpha1's original post. Although I do agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that is only my opinion. This proposal does nothing to treat the real problem-which as Alpha1 correctly pointed out- is people not willing to recognize marriage for its ideals and stick with it.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40262 posts, RR: 74
Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 760 times:

I agree Alpha1 and Matt D on this issue.
This sounds like government intrusion.
Marriage is something personal and is none of the governments business. The government should NOT decide who can and can't get married. Nor should the government give preferential tax breaks to those who make an individual lifestyle choose.
We live in a world so full of hate and if to men or two women love each other and wants an official marriage, let them have it!
Any politician who brings this sort of B.S up has waaaay too much time on there hands.

Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 764 times:

You can have your sacred institution of marriage as far as I'm concerned. All I want as a gay man is that my relationship with my partner of 4 years have some legal recognition in the following areas: Visitation rights as a family member if one of us should get sick or is in the hospital, de facto inheritance rights (why on earth should I leave my hard earned $$$ to the government, if I want to leave it all to my partner), tax status that heterosexual couples enjoy, and joint custody of the children I intend to adopt. I don't want your sacraments, your church weddings, your cheesy photo-ops outside your hallowed sacred institutions. I don't even want the term "marriage" sullied as it is by your 55% divorce rate. All I want is to be left alone, to live my life untouched by screaming republicans, hell-fire-and-brimstone preachers of any color and any political stripe, free of the stupid social regulation into my personal life by those who get more upset when someone tries to regulate a bottle of ketchup, and content that I can live my life as I please just as you and Jerry Fallwell and the entire fire breathing brigade in the GOP can live theirs.

Now, buzz off and leave me alone and stop trying to force your retrograde viewpoints on love and sex down my throat as you've been doing for centuries.

User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 759 times:


An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineWang_Wei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 747 times:

Who cares about piece of paper? If man love man or woman love woman then love is the same as in heterosexual love. Leave these poor people alone and please try to live your own lives.

User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 738 times:

In my earlier post, I said "most" straights don't have any business procreating. I meant to say "many." Sorry about that. If I actually meant to use the superlative "most", then I would be generalizing and saying something incorrect and unfair about the straight world. Seeing as how I don't appreciate straights using that type of language towards gays, I felt compelled to correct my mistake.

An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 735 times:

Why didn't I stumble onto this earlier?


You took the words right out of my mouth. Who the hell do these people think they are? Has anyone ever heard the separation of church and state? Why should I not have my relationship recognised by the state as being a monogomous 2 person family, and enjoy the same benefits as other taxpayers?

Those who wish to have their marriage sanctified by the church, then get married in a church.

Having the government declare only man and woman may get married is pandering to right wing bigots and morons from the church. Why do they continue to carp on about these issues? Haven't these people got anything better to do with their time? I bet you one thing, these would be the same people that 20 or 30 years ago would have been pestering the government to stop interacial marriages using the same arguments.

All they have done is moved on to softer targets.

I would like to see those who want these changes in legislation wear a special sticker on the front of their shirts declaring their full intentions. Would they do it? Maybe if they had a crowd of themselves together protected by the police. By themselves? I think not.


User currently offlineBoeingfan4life From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 723 times:

Holy hell do I agree with you!

User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3951 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (13 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 709 times:

By the way, polygamy should also be allowed. It's none of government's business.

Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 708 times:

Zach, why should it go through? Because you're homophobic? So two gay or lesbian people want to get "married"? So what? It has no effect on your life, my life or Cfalk's life. The only reason you'd be for such nazism is that you don't like gays/lesbians.

Marriage isn't in trouble because of gays/lesbians-they're just being used as scapegoats because heterosexual America doesn't take marriage seriously anymore. There's no justification for such an "amendment" or whatever it is, except for pure homphobia.

You want to "save" marriage? Tell men and women who are married, or who are thinking about it, to work at it a little harder, and to take it more serious.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 706 times:

Jaysit, I agree with you to the point that the government and these religious zealots should leave you alone to live your lives that's none of their business.

However, I'm still not sold on the point that gays/lesbians with significant others should receive the same benefits as married people. I just don't.

And one more thing, Zach. I have said in the past that I do not agree, nor do I accept homsexual lifestyles as just another "choice" or "lifestyle". I don't believe that, and I believe homsexuality is wrong. But the diff between you and me on this is that I don't believe that I, nor you, nor Uncle Sam, has any right to tell these people how to live their lives, where they can work, how they can serve their country. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but it doesn't mean they are not free to pursue it. You and Cfalk, on the other hand, take your dislike of homsexuality and homosexuals that extra step, where you would start denying them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40262 posts, RR: 74
Reply 21, posted (13 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 706 times:

...and to add what you are saying, us straight folks should stop marring for the wrong reasons.
Stop telling our daughters to marry man with lots of money like Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and Airline pilots Big grin

Stop listening to our family members who keep telling us to get married.

Some guys should stop showboating by marrying the hot chick with the large fake breast and divorcing when they get tired and repeating that same cycle every 5 years.

I think I'll be a bachelor for the rest of my life. Marriage is so overrated. If gays want to do it, go right ahead.

Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 700 times:

Alpha, I beg your pardon, I never said such a thing. I have no intention to tell people that they cannot do what they want. Like you, I don't agree with that lifestyle, but have no desire to make it illegal. However, I don't think the sacred institution of marriage, which has been in existance for at least 5000 years as a union between man and woman, should be extended to such a lifestyle. Marriage is, at its base a religious institution, and I feel that such a perversion of the institution would be a tremendous insult to all religious people. I don't mind them getting a legal institution of their own, like I described above, where all the rights would be there, but DO NOT CALL IT MARRIAGE. Call it something else.

I feel that much of this whole thing is caused by some people who love to tease and antagonize religious people or long-held beliefs.


User currently offlineEast Texan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 698 times:

Alpha 1 said it all!

I just want to add one thing. Just because someone doesn't agree with a gay or lesbian lifestyle, doesn't mean that they are a homophobe or a bible thumper!

We were created with the equipment that we have for a reason. You can make your own choice on how you use it. It doesn't affect me personally.

User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2627 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (13 years 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 695 times:

Now, see, that's where you're wrong, CFalk. You think that gay folk have nothing better to do with their time than campaign to change rules just so they can taunt the religious right?

Come on! That's pretty weak.

Here are some of the things that my partner and I have had to hire a lawyer to do in order to protect our interests. All of these items are addressed - in some manner - in a marriage contract:

Healthcare proxy - this piece of paper allows me to be in a hospital room with my partner should a serious health issue come up. If an emergency should arise, I am entitled to sign off on a surgical procedure that would otherwise have to be approved by his parents, who live 4,000 miles away.

Power of Attorney - this allows us to jointly share assets and to have access to each others' assets during times of emergency.

Trust - we had to form a trust in order to protect our shared interest in the purchase of our new home. Setting up a status such as tenants-in-common doesn't protect our interests fully in the event of death or a breakup.

The list goes on! Only six years ago, the state of Massachusetts change their insurance laws to accommodate jointly held assets by people other than traditionally acknowledged couples. I remember calling an insurance agency to inquire about household insurance and actually had an agent inform me that if we were a married couple or an unmarried heterosexual couple, we could purchase one policy to cover all assets; but since we were a gay couple, we had no choice but to purchase two separate policies.

I don't care what you call such a partnership contract. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to be called "marriage". But the time and expense that I have spent to protect our health and property as a couple is really ridiculous. And I don't think this is just about gay people. I think this issue pertains to many symbiotic partnerships between people who need legal protection.

25 Jaysit : I don't care if you don't "Agree with a gay lifestyle" - whatever that comment means... that's your prerogative. I don't necessarily agree with the "l
26 Cfalk : Mbmbos and Jaysit, Wow, that was easy, I think we actually agree. Just to reitterate, if some form of civil union can be created which has basically t
27 Jaysit : Agreed. What's the next topic?
28 TWFirst : So, all this really has to with is semantics??? I mean, you're all upset simply because of the potential use of one word by a group that "lives a life
29 Jaysit : Its not just semantics. I think that in spite of the basic legalistic and historical assumptions that marriage is a civil institution, to most people
30 Cfalk : Jaysit, Very well put. Charles
31 Mbmbos : "...and we cannot in any way force gay marriage upon religious institutions via legislative fiat..." Do you really think you can defend that argument?
32 Jaysit : Well, you're right. That's exactly what religious institutions have done over centuries - discrimination against gays has always had its roots in a Ch
33 Post contains images An-225 : I just still don't understand what the big deal is about. Cfalk - if you don't want to call it MARRIAGE, you can disagree with it, but you shouldn't f
34 Cfalk : An-225, Let's take your arguement: Currently, it is against the law in to barrel down a city street at 160 miles per hour. Why? Because you are quite
35 TWFirst : >>There is no human institution known to man older than that of marriage
36 TWFirst : That should say "before THERE were marriages." Sorry for the typo.
37 TWFirst : God, I'm have trouble with homonyms today! It should also say "...and where THEIR hearts are" Sorry again. I'm really tired today.
38 Post contains images CstarU : Damn it TW! quit doing that!!!!
39 An-225 : Again, I agree with TWFirst. It does not hurt you in any way. Just chill and live your life.
40 An-225 : By the way, they should have thought about morals when they burned people at the stake.
41 Jaysit : You see, it was OK to burn people they disagreed with at the stake. They did that to heighten morality - nothing immoral about that. It was also accep
43 Jaysit : Airfun: A good place to start would be Gay Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe's office. Jay
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Adulterous GOPers Sponsor Federal Marriage Bill posted Fri Jun 27 2008 11:38:15 by Max999
House Votes Down Gay Marriage Amendment posted Fri Oct 1 2004 19:00:37 by Rjpieces
Federal Marriage Amendment posted Tue Aug 7 2001 16:22:06 by Cfalk
Federal Panel Denies Marriage Benefits To Gays posted Sat May 6 2006 20:30:45 by AerospaceFan
God Bless The ACLU And The 2nd Amendment! posted Thu Feb 7 2008 22:21:52 by Ilikeyyc
US Federal Reserve Cuts Interest Rates Again To 3% posted Wed Jan 30 2008 11:17:33 by SINGAPORE_AIR
Federal Tax ID - EIN -Apply Online? posted Thu Dec 27 2007 07:57:36 by Nirmalmakadia
Federal Supermax Prisons posted Sun Nov 18 2007 20:12:02 by Bagpiper
Federal Grand Jury Indicts Barry Bonds posted Thu Nov 15 2007 14:17:51 by JetBlueGuy2006
MI Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case! posted Tue Nov 6 2007 13:53:31 by Dtwclipper