A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


And just to follow up on Shartely's good point.

That isn't what speration of church and state even is. It basically just says that government cannot promote or attempt to recruit into religions.

Now, with judicial activism being as crazy as it is today seperation of church and state has come to mean "we hate catholics and want them away from our stuff", but that's not what it always meant.

Amen to that!

Guess what, Athiesm is a belief system and that is being forced upon the rest of us now. That is why I send my kids to Private Catholic Schools.

If you really wanted to be true to the constitution, you would not stand in anyone's way to practice their religion, not try to ban all public displays of it!

[logamus]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Wait a minute, the thing that makes us different from Sweden is that we dont have gay marriage and then if we do we won't be the same?

I don't understand you're point.

But it is not foolish or arrogant to believe that gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage or damages it when we can clearly point to the evidence that IT HAS IN TWO PLACES ALREADY

my point is gay marriage is NOT the only thing that seperates the US and sweden. not by a mile. to pin all their current social problems on gay marriage is just not right. and then to suggest that the addition of gay marriage here would cause social problems on the same level is also not right. we seem to have been functioning just fine for quite a while with non-married gay couples and i really cannot believe that allowing gays to marry would change that fact.

Originally posted by Albinonewt

No, I don't (at least not at first). But if you think that gay couples aren't going to divorce 10 times as often as non gay couples then you don't know the first thing about fidelity rates in gay relationships nor have you paid attention to the divorce rates in sweden and norway

again, what does gay divorce/fidelity rates have to do with hetro divorce/fidelity rates? i dont know how many single hetro friends you have, but the ones i know run through girl/boyfriends on a fairly regular basis. what does that have to do with hetro marriage? simply saying gays have alot of partners is ignoring that hetros have alot of partners as well.

i cant imagine that there will be very many happy hetro marriages affeceted in any way by gay marriage. i stress the happy part, a bad marriage is a bad marriage regardless of the gay community and vice versa. its apples and oranges really.

[logamus]

[hijack]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

That isn't what speration of church and state even is. It basically just says that government cannot promote or attempt to recruit into religions.

Originally posted by breg
Or think about the "In God We Trust," printed on every dollar bill.

is "in god we trust" promoting a religion or belief? is "one nation under god" promoting? it is sometimes hard to see the unfairness when its not unfair to you.

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
If you really wanted to be true to the constitution, you would not stand in anyone's way to practice their religion, not try to ban all public displays of it!

while i agree that not standing in the way is the best policy, what happens when public schools are forced to bog down with teaching about allah, budda, etc. wouldnt the easier way be to just accept that america is so diverse in religion that the best policy would be to have no official endorsement of any one kind? that would have to include public displays as well. i mean if its perfectly acceptable to have the ten commandments in the statehouse, they also need to put the koran in there too. how wild would the folks in alabama be about that?

much like the old paintball line "its not the gun but the player using it" always seemed to come from the folks who had the angels, timmys and emags. they dont walk on the field feeling they are at a firepower disadvantage so they dont realize what a firepower advantage really is. the same is true with the religion debate, more often than not the people who dont see anything wrong with having the ten commandments in the statehouse, or saying "one nation under god" are not the ones having someone elses religious belifes thrust upon them. much like henry ford said about the public in reference to the model t, "they can have whatever color they want, as long as they want black". this "freedom of religion" debate is going the same way. you can practice whatever religion you want, so long as you dont mind being bombarded with christian views.

[/hijack]

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by logamus
while i agree that not standing in the way is the best policy, what happens when public schools are forced to bog down with teaching about allah, budda, etc. wouldnt the easier way be to just accept that america is so diverse in religion that the best policy would be to have no official endorsement of any one kind? that would have to include public displays as well. i mean if its perfectly acceptable to have the ten commandments in the statehouse, they also need to put the koran in there too. how wild would the folks in alabama be about that?

I never suggested teaching them. However if a group of student's want to form a prayer group why should they not be allowed the same access to school facilities as other student organizations. I am not saying endorse religion, I am saying don't stand in the way of it either.

Also don't teach morals in the public schools. You have no right to do so. Why should my children be forced to read "Why Adam has 2 mommies" if I disagree with it? I will teach my children right and wrong. That is again why I pay to send them to private schools to ensure they learn my beliefs. Should I be able to force my beliefs on someone else? No! But the public schools do on all kinds of issues from Birth Control to Homosexuality to Political Correctness.

[1stdeadeye]

The Gay rights lobby may have seriously damaged their own campaign by pushing too far to fast. Here is a great story on that angle!

[logamus]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I never suggested teaching them. However if a group of student's want to form a prayer group why should they not be allowed the same access to school facilities as other student organizations. I am not saying endorse religion, I am saying don't stand in the way of it either.

i have zero problem if a group of students in a school want to form a prayer group or similar. like a chess club or german club there should be equal access. i just dont want parents getting wadded up when a group of islamic kids want to form a group. i also dont think those kids need to have wiretaps on their phones either, but i digress.

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Also don't teach morals in the public schools. You have no right to do so. Why should my children be forced to read "Why Adam has 2 mommies" if I disagree with it? I will teach my children right and wrong. That is again why I pay to send them to private schools to ensure they learn my beliefs. Should I be able to force my beliefs on someone else? No! But the public schools do on all kinds of issues from Birth Control to Homosexuality to Political Correctness.

you certainly have the right to send your children to private church school, just as i send my son to one. while you may disagree with the 2 mommies book, someone else might disagree with teaching creationism. keep in mind that public schools have hearings (at least they do in Texas) every year prior to the school year to discuss curriculum.

you also have to keep in mind that not all parents are created equal and part of the job of society is to try to help guide the young into being productive adults. i would much rather have the school teach the kids some of the touchy issues than have some of the kids grow up never exposed to it. as a parent you still have the ability to teach your children your values, i think that public schools have just been turned into a "safety net" for those kids that are not tought anything at home.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by logamus
[B]i have zero problem if a group of students in a school want to form a prayer group or similar. like a chess club or german club there should be equal access. i just dont want parents getting wadded up when a group of islamic kids want to form a group. i also dont think those kids need to have wiretaps on their phones either, but i digress.[/b}

But in many places they can't have student prayer groups. That is wrong.

you certainly have the right to send your children to private church school, just as i send my son to one. while you may disagree with the 2 mommies book, someone else might disagree with teaching creationism. keep in mind that public schools have hearings (at least they do in Texas) every year prior to the school year to discuss curriculum.

you also have to keep in mind that not all parents are created equal and part of the job of society is to try to help guide the young into being productive adults. i would much rather have the school teach the kids some of the touchy issues than have some of the kids grow up never exposed to it. as a parent you still have the ability to teach your children your values, i think that public schools have just been turned into a "safety net" for those kids that are not tought anything at home.

My problem is that the curriculum is dictated by liberal elitists who only insert their views and everyone else be damned! Morals should be taught at home. However there are too many parents content to let the schools and TV raise their children, but then I digress.

[logamus]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
The Gay rights lobby may have seriously damaged their own campaign by pushing too far to fast. Here is a great story on that angle!

there are extremists on both sides of every issue.

The Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said "America stands at a defining moment, the only comparison is our battle for independence from England."

that guy might want to tap the brakes. the only thing gay marriage and the american revolution have in common is that they both occured in america.

while i am certain there are a good number of gay people who chose to be gay, i also feel there are a good number of them that are "just gay". going back to a post i made earlier, homosexuality is legal in the united states. regardless of someones consious decision or genetic makeup being in a gay relationship is perfectly legal. as long as there is nothing a gay couple can be prohibited from doing legaly i dont see any reason to prohibit marriage. a gay couple can buy a house, a car, adopt a child, adopt a dog, be covered under the others insurance(on several insurance plans and companies), go on vacation, run for public office, and on and on. the only legal distinguishment between homo and hetro couples atm is legal marriage.

just as this country had to endure a trying social time at the begining of the civil rights movement (some might argue we are still enduring it) i see this as yet another step down the road of civil rights. while the "plight" of the homosexual is no where near the severity of that the black americans went through, it is one more step we should take to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is available for all americans. not just the ones we agree with.

[logamus]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
My problem is that the curriculum is dictated by liberal elitists who only insert their views and everyone else be damned! Morals should be taught at home. However there are too many parents content to let the schools and TV raise their children, but then I digress.

the squeaky wheel gets the oil. if the only voice heard is that of the liberal, guess who wins the debate. morals amongst other personal beliefs should be tought at home, but as an advanced society we cannot neglect those children who have the misfortune of being raised by parents that dont give a damn. now we are both digressing.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by logamus

while i am certain there are a good number of gay people who chose to be gay, i also feel there are a good number of them that are "just gay". going back to a post i made earlier, homosexuality is legal in the united states. regardless of someones consious decision or genetic makeup being in a gay relationship is perfectly legal. as long as there is nothing a gay couple can be prohibited from doing legaly i dont see any reason to prohibit marriage. a gay couple can buy a house, a car, adopt a child, adopt a dog, be covered under the others insurance(on several insurance plans and companies), go on vacation, run for public office, and on and on. the only legal distinguishment between homo and hetro couples atm is legal marriage.

Except there are still sodomy laws around the country so in fact, Homosexual behavior is not leagl everywhere!

just as this country had to endure a trying social time at the begining of the civil rights movement (some might argue we are still enduring it) i see this as yet another step down the road of civil rights. while the "plight" of the homosexual is no where near the severity of that the black americans went through, it is one more step we should take to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is available for all americans. not just the ones we agree with.

I must disagree. To compare the plight of gays to blacks is to trivialize their suffering. How many gays have been lynched?

Also you open the slippery slope argument with your last comment. What about poligamists, animists (people who practice animal sacrifice), NAMBLA, etc.....

[logamus]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Except there are still sodomy laws around the country so in fact, Homosexual behavior is not leagl everywhere!

well im pretty sure when the supreme court struck down the texas sodomy law last year that pretty much does away with everyones sodomy law. that court ruling is what has opened this door.

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

I must disagree. To compare the plight of gays to blacks is to trivialize their suffering. How many gays have been lynched?

im sure the parents of that gay kid in wyoming might have something to say. the story is somewhat fresh on my mind because hbo has been playing the crap out of it for the last two weeks. the young gay college kid who was approached by a few guys in a bar that eneded up killing him because he was gay. it does happen, not as often as it did to black americans and i in no way intended to trivialize what happened to black americans. the problem is that it is the most recent (and remotely similar) situation. we could talk about what happened to the japanese americans during ww2 or go back to the native americans but not many of us were alive back then to remember.

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Also you open the slippery slope argument with your last comment. What about poligamists, animists (people who practice animal sacrifice), NAMBLA, etc.....

i agree that it does somewhat open the slippery slope. the only problem with animists (a group i admit i have never heard of), nambla, etc is that they are not engaging in sexual activity with a consinting adult. i stated earlier that polygamists dont bother me so long as everyone involved is of legal age and consents to the marriage. i however suspect there are enough supporters of that practice to reverse the laws on that (or enough men that want to put up with more than one wife )

i dont mind the government saying that whomever is in my bedroom needs to be of a certain age and must agree to be there. i do however mind if they want to tell me who can be there and how many of them can be there. nobody needs that much government in their life.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by logamus

well im pretty sure when the supreme court struck down the texas sodomy law last year that pretty much does away with everyones sodomy law. that court ruling is what has opened this door.

Maybe. I don't remember the basis of the ruling. I thought it involved the way they were caught, not the actual practice.

im sure the parents of that gay kid in wyoming might have something to say. the story is somewhat fresh on my mind because hbo has been playing the crap out of it for the last two weeks. the young gay college kid who was approached by a few guys in a bar that eneded up killing him because he was gay. it does happen, not as often as it did to black americans and i in no way intended to trivialize what happened to black americans. the problem is that it is the most recent (and remotely similar) situation. we could talk about what happened to the japanese americans during ww2 or go back to the native americans but not many of us were alive back then to remember.

A few very isolated cases do not equal oppression. With the Japanese Americans in WWII and the Civil Rights movement, we are talking about locking people up and forcing them to live in fear.

I don't recall mass gay bar burnings or gay activists being murdered. Come to think of it I don;t seem to remember the great gay round-up where G.W. Bush and the radical right arrested all the gays everywhere and put them into camps.

THis is a case of certain people demanding something they are not entitled to and that is marriage. Hell I was not entitled to a minority scholarship when I went to school because I am not a minority. Maybe I should sue now too!

i agree that it does somewhat open the slippery slope. the only problem with animists (a group i admit i have never heard of), nambla, etc is that they are not engaging in sexual activity with a consinting adult. i stated earlier that polygamists dont bother me so long as everyone involved is of legal age and consents to the marriage. i however suspect there are enough supporters of that practice to reverse the laws on that (or enough men that want to put up with more than one wife )

i dont mind the government saying that whomever is in my bedroom needs to be of a certain age and must agree to be there. i do however mind if they want to tell me who can be there and how many of them can be there. nobody needs that much government in their life.

So where do you draw the line in the sand?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by logamus
my point is gay marriage is NOT the only thing that seperates the US and sweden. not by a mile. to pin all their current social problems on gay marriage is just not right. and then to suggest that the addition of gay marriage here would cause social problems on the same level is also not right. we seem to have been functioning just fine for quite a while with non-married gay couples and i really cannot believe that allowing gays to marry would change that fact.

But I didn't pin ALL their social problems on gay marriage. I pinned only their current problems with the destruction of the institution of marriage. And that problem is a direct result of gay marriage.

Yeah, we are functioning fine with cohabitation. Because it isn't an affront to thousands of years of tradition that 80% of the country believes in, and gay marriage is.

And while gay marriage may well contribute to a host of social problems, the only problem that I think gay marriage directly affects is the institution of marraige itself.


again, what does gay divorce/fidelity rates have to do with hetro divorce/fidelity rates? i dont know how many single hetro friends you have, but the ones i know run through girl/boyfriends on a fairly regular basis. what does that have to do with hetro marriage? simply saying gays have alot of partners is ignoring that hetros have alot of partners as well.

Do you even have any idea what the differences in fidelity rates between gays and non-gays?

Of course you don't.

If you did you would know that many leaders in the gay community consider rampant infideilty to be their most pressing problem. If you did you would know that the gay community wants marriage in part to try to force fideilty on itself. But you don't, so you're just going to sit their and claim that because you don't believe it it isn't so.

i cant imagine that there will be very many happy hetro marriages affeceted in any way by gay marriage. i stress the happy part, a bad marriage is a bad marriage regardless of the gay community and vice versa. its apples and oranges really.

Well, then you're dead wrong. Ask the Swedes. Ask the norweigans. Ask any clergyman that is responsible for the sacred institutionn. Or, if that doesn't work, as 8 out of 10 Americans who think you're dead wrong.

[logamus]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
A few very isolated cases do not equal oppression. With the Japanese Americans in WWII and the Civil Rights movement, we are talking about locking people up and forcing them to live in fear.

I don't recall mass gay bar burnings or gay activists being murdered. Come to think of it I don;t seem to remember the great gay round-up where G.W. Bush and the radical right arrested all the gays everywhere and put them into camps.

i in no way have stated that the situation gays in this country are facing are equal to the other examples. they are not the same. if my earlier posts were not clear on that then i am sorry. i was just trying to find other social issues of the past that divided the country, not try to equalize the gay marriage issue to them.

the violence towards gays in this country is very minor when compaied to groups of the past, but the fact that violence is there makes my point. many(perhaps all, i honestly dont know) hate crime bills have sexual orientation provisions included just as race and religion. that somewhat illustrates the fact that governments know people are prayed upon based on their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

THis is a case of certain people demanding something they are not entitled to and that is marriage. Hell I was not entitled to a minority scholarship when I went to school because I am not a minority. Maybe I should sue now too!

that is the the gist of the arguement. what rights are gays entitled to? my point all along is that if the one and only thing gay couples are not allowed to do is legaly marry, but can do anything else married couples do then whats the point. is it to just thumb your nose at the gays chanting nanny nanny boo boo?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

So where do you draw the line in the sand?

i thought i was clear on that, consenting adults is where i draw the line. as long as everyone involved is an adult and consents then its none of mine or any one elses business. so we are clear, everyone does not include animals, adults does not include children and consents does not include brainwashing or rape.

sadly, i have to cut my end of this debate off for the night. its bath/bed time, but i look forward to tomorrow.

[logamus]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Do you even have any idea what the differences in fidelity rates between gays and non-gays?

no i dont, and i will also go so far as to say i have no idea what the fidelity rate for hetros is either. on that issue i can only speak from my own personal experience. and while i cannot comment factually, i seriously doubt a vast number of americans know what those rates are either.

Originally posted by Albinonewt

If you did you would know that many leaders in the gay community consider rampant infideilty to be their most pressing problem. If you did you would know that the gay community wants marriage in part to try to force fideilty on itself. But you don't, so you're just going to sit their and claim that because you don't believe it it isn't so.

i dont doubt that infideilty is a pressing problem in the gay community, just as it is in the straight commuity. i think that if the gay community wants marriage to solve infidelity then they they neednt look farther than straight marriage to see how well that works.

Originally posted by Albinonewt

Well, then you're dead wrong. Ask the Swedes. Ask the norweigans. Ask any clergyman that is responsible for the sacred institutionn. Or, if that doesn't work, as 8 out of 10 Americans who think you're dead wrong.

perhaps while im asking 8 out of 10 americans how they feel about gay marriage i can ask the 5 of out 10 that got divorced too. along with the countless numbers of unhappily married couples. maybe i can swing by and ask the local clergymen, the ones not going to prison for molestation, what they think about straight marriages batting .500 and what the latest infidelity rates are for straight couples. perhaps i can email mel gibson to get his view on why Jesus will accept someone who has remarried 4 times, but will damn the gay fella. then when i get home ill ring sven to get the scoop on how the gays that moved in down the street ruined his happy marriage. i have cheap long distance so it shouldnt put me out too much.

you know flag burning is not a real popular item either, and i would bet 8 out of 10 americans are against that too. is it illegal? unless you want to amend the constitution to prohibit homosexuality, i just cant see how banning gay marriage is "american". its not about asking the good clergy to admit gays in their churches for marriage. its not asking that you invite a different gay couple over for dinner every sunday. its simply asking that couples who are in love and commited to each other be treated the same, regardless of their sex.