cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

Federal Marriage Amendment

Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:22 pm

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?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:31 pm

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.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:43 pm

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.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:59 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:07 am

As usual, I agree with Cfalk on this issue. I think the left is trying to push some extreme agenda down our throats.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:16 am

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.
 
LH423
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 1:02 am

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.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 3:17 am

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.
 
N400QX
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 3:27 am

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.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 3:33 am

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.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 3:34 am

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.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:07 am

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
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:24 am

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.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Jaysit

Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:38 am

AMEN BROTHER!! HALLELUJAH!!
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Guest

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 6:03 am

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.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Correction

Wed Aug 08, 2001 6:28 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 8:31 am

Why didn't I stumble onto this earlier?

Jaysit,

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.

mb
 
Guest

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Wed Aug 08, 2001 11:50 am

Holy hell do I agree with you!
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 12:58 am

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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 1:11 am

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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 1:20 am

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".
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 1:24 am

Alpha1:
...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
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 1:56 am

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.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Guest

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 2:04 am

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 avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 2:27 am

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.

"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 2:36 am

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 "lifestyle" that Evangelical Christians or Fundamentalist Muslims advocate, either. But I don't use my vote and my fists to prevent people who have those beliefs from exercising their religious and social beliefs and from living their lives free from any undue interference from the government or from those who disagree with them. One more thing - it's not a lifestyle and its not a choice. I have the same lifestyle as any other urban attorney, and the only choice I made was to be true to myself by coming out of the closet. The pain and misery of living a lie was just too degrading. We have one life to live. Lies are not the way to do it.

I leave you alone; you leave me alone. But when I ask the State for a protective law just so that I may be left alone in peace from bigots who think they have the right to fire me, to slug me, or to ensure I have little recourse in Civil courts, and if you choose to deny me that very basic protection then, yes, you side with those very bigots.

I don't know what that makes you. You tell me.

And, I agree with Cfalk in that marriage can stay a religous institution between a man and a woman. In the end, we all have to compromise. Lets not call a gay union marriage - we can call it a civil union - because that is what it is. We have our legal rights, and you have your institution of marriage with all its hallowed religious connotations. But if after 30 years of being with the same person (God willing), I am denied the right to be with the person I love at his death bed or from performing his last rites or being told by a hospital that I have to leave because I am not "family" then this is definitely NOT the land of the Free and the brave.


Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 2:46 am

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 the legal rights as marriage, fine by me. But keep the term "marriage" seperate. That word means a lot to most people, and there is no reason to offend them.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 3:09 am

Agreed.

What's the next topic?

Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Cfalk

Thu Aug 09, 2001 3:37 am

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 lifestyle" you don't agree with?


Interesting.


Seriously, I'm going to chew on that awhile. I know words are very powerful, and I find it fascinating what stimulates and motivates people. You've given me something to ponder. After I'm done pondering, I'll post my thoughts.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 4:25 am

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 it is either a de facto religious one, or one with strong religous roots, or a quasi-religious one. Given that most religious institutions in America frown upon gay unions, if not condemn them outright, those who are against "gay marriage" view it as a social attack against their religious beliefs and the institution of their Church. However, I am sure that a sizeable percentage of these very same people are willing to live in a civil society in which gay people are granted the same civil rights that come with living in a democracy but are also uneasy with the idea of gay marriage within their religous institutions. Yes, there are some churches and synagogues that recognize gay unions, and I laud those for their efforts. However, the First Amendment prohibits State control of religion, and we cannot in any way force gay marriage upon religious institutions via legislative fiat.

Thus, our efforts to recognize our unions must be conducted in a civil realm in which our constitution grants us all equal rights under its ambit. Legally, civil unions and marriages would fall under a "separate but equal" doctrinal framework. Of course, this doesn't mean that our civil unions would be accepted by those Churches who do not choose to do so in terms of what they preach, their rites, and their hierarchy - but that is what the separation of Church and State is all about.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 4:40 am

Jaysit,

Very well put.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 5:34 am

"...and we cannot in any way force gay marriage upon religious institutions via legislative fiat..."

Do you really think you can defend that argument?

Some religious organizations do not believe in quoting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is still mandated in most public schools. Other religious organizations do not believe in imbibing in alcoholic beverages and yet it is allowed.

Besides, shouldn't it be the other way around? Do you really think that religious institutions should be allowed to force their way on gays via legistalive "fiat"?
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Thu Aug 09, 2001 6:06 am

Well, you're right. That's exactly what religious institutions have done over centuries - discrimination against gays has always had its roots in a Church-State alliance. The constitutional separation of Church and State in the US has always been a ridiculous joke because our Federal legislature - the Congress - has always been a retrograde organization, and willing to pander to the basest motives. For all the talk about Justices legislating from the bench that conservatives engage in, I'd like to remind them that if the Congress had taken the US constitution seriously, the Judiciary would never have had to step in.

The truth is that the Church has always exercised its influence selectively - even when it came to passages in Leviticus. There are passages that forbid menstruating women from entering the portals of Churches. Do Churches ban that? No, they'd be censured outright if they tried. Yes, they have always discriminated against gays. And they continue to do so - the recent flap over the Salvation Army backroom gay discriminaton deal is a prime example.

Your analogy with the pledge of allegiance and alcohol is interesting, but then most people don't have a problem with the former, and the second raises less of a rabid response than gay marriage. So, in our fight to gain legal rights, we have to recognize that reality and tailor our strategies accordingly.

Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:14 am

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 force YOUR morals on everyone else.

In my opinion, Marriage is pretty pointless, just a piece of paper. If two guys, two girls, or more people want it (I am pro-polygamy too Big grin) then more power to them. You shouldn't really be involved in their business.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 2:00 am

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 likely going to kill someone. Our morals say that it is wrong to kill an innocent by-stander, therefore, society has made it illegal. What you are arguing is that, if some punk says, "I don't care if I kill someone - it ain't part of MY values." that he has the right to do it.

YOU might think that marriage is just a piece of paper. I don't, and billions of people around the world believe it is more than that, particularly Catholics (and a few other religions) who believe that it is a lifelong commitment that you cannot walk away from, and that is ordained and blessed by God, and is a profound institution that has lasted as far back as history has ever been recorded.

If, as it has been established in this thread, the relevant CIVIL rights traditionally connected with marriage can be provided through some means, without offending half the world by simply calling it something other than marriage, go right ahead. But please call it something else.

Words have deep meaning, especially when there is a long history attached to them. There is no human institution known to man older than that of marriage. As it is, I feel it is a stretch to say that civil weddings actually make a marriage. But OK, I can live with that, as it is essentially the same thing (without the moral commitment however). But having my own marriage with my wife, and our children, equated in every way, including verbally, to a same-sex partnership, I find that offensive. And I am not alone in this.

Why whould you want to offend half the world when all you need to do to avoid doing so is change the name?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Cfalk

Fri Aug 10, 2001 3:13 am

>>There is no human institution known to man older than that of marriage<<

I believe you're confusing "mating" with marriage. Your statement is incorrect. Before their were "marriages," there were, among other things, tribal hierarchy and structure. Marriages are not the oldest human institution.

>>As it is, I feel it is a stretch to say that civil weddings actually make a marriage. But OK, I can live with that, as it is essentially the same thing (without the moral commitment however). But having my own marriage with my wife, and our children, equated in every way, including verbally, to a same-sex partnership, I find that offensive. And I am not alone in this.<<


How can you possibly say that those joined in a civil ceremony don't have a "moral commitment." How do you know what the couple's intentions are and where there hearts are??? Very arrogant thinking here. And I'm sorry if you find same-sex partnerships (marriages) offensive. That's really your issue, and just because you and lots of other people have an issue with it doesn't mean it isn't the fair and just thing to do. As has been said before, gays and lesbians aren't wanting to get married just to mock and offend straights. They want to do it because there is a COMMITMENT to each other which deserves the same protections and legal recognition as those straight marriages where the very same commitment has been made. I've thought about it, and I really think you need to get over your hang up over the use of the word "marriage." The use of the word and the context in which I speak here are strictly in the legal/civil sense. The word "marriage" is a legal as well as a religious description, and I am referring to it solely in the civil/legal sense. I don't care if religions bless same-sex marriages - nor would I advocate that if relgions are against it - that's their business. Just as it's not your business if gays and lesbians want to be allowed to be "married" in the eyes of the law, using the word "marriage" just as it is used for straight unions. There is absolutely no need to be offended. I ask you again: how would this possibly harm your marriage (or other straight marriages)? Would it make your commitment to your wife and family any less valid? Of course not.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 3:14 am

That should say "before THERE were marriages." Sorry for the typo.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 3:16 am

God, I'm have trouble with homonyms today! It should also say "...and where THEIR hearts are" Sorry again. I'm really tired today.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Guest

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 3:18 am

Damn it TW! quit doing that!!!!


 Big grin Big grin Big grin
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 3:23 am

Again, I agree with TWFirst. It does not hurt you in any way. Just chill and live your life.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Fri Aug 10, 2001 11:48 pm

By the way, they should have thought about morals when they burned people at the stake.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Sat Aug 11, 2001 5:52 am

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 acceptable to slaughter, lynch, torture, deny the viability of inter-racial marriages, and generally look down upon others who didn't have that smug halo around their heads. Until one day, someone said...Oh look, the Emperor has no clothes !
Amen.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
airfun
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2000 7:34 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Sun Aug 12, 2001 12:23 am

RIGHT ON JAYSIT--YOU HAVE SAID IT ALL AND THEN SOME, WHERE DO YOU LIVE? I AM BECOMING MORE INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF THE GREAT STATE OF ARIZONA...I LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU MORE
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:55 pm

Airfun:

A good place to start would be Gay Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe's office.

Jay
Atheism is Myth Understood.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], WesternA318 and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos