What KIND of a COUNTRY do we live in......

[shartley]

[Barfly]

actually for christians marriage has it's roots in religion. Some old king back in the day wanted a divorce and the Catholic church (I think) didn't believe in divorce, so he created his own religion. In the end he got his divorce. That is all I can remember and I don't have enough time to look it up on the internet.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Barfly
actually for christians marriage has it's roots in religion. Some old king back in the day wanted a divorce and the Catholic church (I think) didn't believe in divorce, so he created his own religion. In the end he got his divorce. That is all I can remember and I don't have enough time to look it up on the internet.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by PissedGodzilla
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard barfly!

I hope you learn to be more tolerant of yoru fellow citizens...

tolerance . . . the god of this age, and a god I refuse to follow.

Almost ANYTHING can have a case for tolerance made for it and that disgusts me.

I'm voting FOR the amendment that protects the institution of marriage and defines it exclusively as the lifetime union of ONE mand and ONE woman. If that amendment is written such that it allows gay marriages, then I'll vote against it. If it doesn't read like that and instead reads as defining marriage as to what it IS and should ALWAYS BE (according to the Bible, for one), then I will vote FOR it.

Fact of the matter is that a MAJORITY of U.S. citizens will vote in favor of this amendment. And that will show that this is what the people want.

I fully intend to fight this ridiculous struggle that homosexuals want to fight. They made a choice, whether consciously or unconsciously, to go against the way God made them, and have engaged in perverted sexual practices with a member of the same sex. Now they want to get married. Not on my watch, thank you.

[Thordic]

Freedom of speech & opinion includes being intolerant. The constitution doesn't say everyone has to like each other. And it doesn't give anyone the right to not be offended.

It also set up a country run by the majority. If the majority is against gay marriage, well then, sorry but the majority has spoken.

Do you want to use the moral arguement that people should make law based on what is RIGHT?

Oh, good, well, a lot of people would argue that homosexuality is morally wrong, so that ought to be a fun debate.

I'm still undecided on the issue myself, as I have some gay friends, but I'm leaning against it. Civil unions, perhaps, but it definitely shouldn't be marriage.

[PissedGodzilla]

OK, let me try and break this down because, as always, Sam is very eloquent and I want to reply to his good post:

Originally posted by shartley


Why do you keep coming back to this being a discussion about anarchism in today's society. I am not proposing that we have NO laws, but equal rights!


Societies DO deserve the right to determine what is acceptable or not. Societies DO deserve to define social norms. Societies DO deserve to determine what they sanction and support and what they do not. That is what being a part of a society is all about. And if some of those standards or norms happen to be mirrored in religion, so be it.

I agree with you here sam, but I have a different point of view from the side of Equality. Sure we have the right, as a democracy to decide our own fate, and we have self determination. My Opinion is that this right of marriage (in the law, Civil Union) should be available to all consenting adults of all sexual orientations It's a freedom many of us enjoy, and it is a way of being close to your partner, saying hey, this is the person I choose to spend the rest of my life with (at least that's how it is supposed to be )whether it be man or woman! Anything less than having this freedom to choose you partner for life is a mistake. That's all I am saying


Just becuse It does not yet exist in every aspect of life, should we stop trying to achieve it??


Civil Unions are also part of this ban, as I read it. If I am incorrect on this, please let me know. I apologize for not having this fact.


Just wanted to interject this, I am Roman Catholic, and for my religion, it is not that homosexuality is a sin. We are told that being homosexual is a part of life for some people, but the sin is ACTING upon that feeling. that's according to the Pope.

And before everybody gets on me and sarts calling me a bad catholic for saying what I am saying, I am separating my religious beliefs from those beliefs of what a country should have as law. I cannot make everyone believe in my religion, and my religious beliefs are strong. I am keeping that entirely separate from this issue of state discussion.

Sam, there are many times that I agree with what you said here. Especially on stuff like women getting into men only clubs and etc. However, we can't make a law across the board that segregates society, Our constitution states that all men (today that means everyone, I believe) are created equal. To deny someone the right of choosing a public ability is against that Right. Private clubs are another story. They have the right to make these choices as to who is allowed to be a member because they are not public domain. In private, if you want to make these divisions, you certainly have the right to, but a public charter like marriage CANNOT hve this delineation. That is what I am trying to say.

Well Said, but I will comment...
I believe that debate and having this kind of discusssion is what makes our country strong, that we are able to voice our opinions and express ourselves to each other makes us a stronger Union. But WE CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE. If you think that it is Immoral, Fine, I have no problem with your opinion, but you can't make me believe that it is. All I am doing is speaking about my moral opinion on this issue as a constitutional right, and all you are doing is speaking about your moral opinion. All we are doing is trying to get the other to see our side of the topic. that's what debate is about.

Sam, there will always be those who are still childish at heart, no matter where you have a discussion. It's part of life, and it's part of the freedoms we have a citizens of the United States. Sure nothing is really going to come of my rants and raves here on AO, but so what, It's not about that, It's about doing your best to make a difference, and that is what I am trying to do: not only here on AO but also in my life.

A well done argument sam, and I hope I did it justice with my argument.

[dansim]

but isnt a "civil union" and "marrige" the same thing

[impostal22]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What KIND of a COUNTRY do we live in......

Originally posted by shartley

don't even start trying to tell us what everyone's morals are. <I>SOME</I> people believe that homosexuality is immoral, and some do not. i'd love to hear an argument against its morality that is NOT based in religion. and by using the word "sin" you are NOT only implying religion but you are implying a certain denomination of religion.

it's really funny that you used terms like "high morals," "right and wrong," when your definition of these things is probably at least slightly different from the next guy, and his slightly different from the next guy.

you can't say religion doesn't play a huge role in our government. just look at JFK. how many people were seriously worried about having JFK as president because he was the first catholic (and the first non-protestant) president? why so many? because religion is a HUGE deal.

and you say that it's convenient for people to use the separation of church and state argument. well ya, it is. because it's even MORE convenient for the opposers to use the religious argument, and THEY DID!

Don't like current laws? Fine, Elect like minded legislators and have them change it. Only when the majority agrees with you should it/will it be changed.

it's funny that you use "majority rule" in the same sentence as "legislators." going through the legislature, as i stated before, is not the answer anymore. in order to circumvent the corruption that has emerged in the legislature (which there, and you CANNOT refute it), how else is one supposed to get change? throuuughhh the judicial system! and if the laws the activist judges are SO heinous and SO unconstitutional, then they WILL be challenged and declared as such by future courts! you see, the problem is, THEY AREN'T unconstitutional, and that is why people who are against it are afraid of judicial activism. because it gets things done. and if what is done is "wrong," the judicial system will weed it out!

[PissedGodzilla]

Originally posted by dansim
but isnt a "civil union" and "marrige" the same thing

That's what I am saying... isn't the proposed amendment banning both?

[cphilip]

And when the Judicial system gets out of line with what the people want...then the legislative Branch passes laws to bring them back into line. Checks and balances. A very good system our fore fathers put in place. One that while not perfect is the best one ever placed on earth...

I remind you that the Judicial System is only supposed to enforce and interpret law. Not make it. By interpretation they make "Case law" but that is never superceeded by Legislated law unless earlier laws and constitutional laws prohibit legislated laws. Very complex dance there.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by PissedGodzilla
1DE, I have to say I agree with what you said when yuo stated, "if you don't like a law, elect a like minded official and have it changed".

That's kinda what I am trying to say I would try to do in the future. I apologize for not knowing enough about the "Judge" issues to really comment on it, but basically you are right. These amendments to the constitution brought forth to the people of the USA more equality. I think that in the future a similar amendment would be made for g&L people, if in fact Pres. Bush's current ban amendment is put in place.

Let's be clear about this. The Gay Marriage Ban Ammendment will never pass. Remember the Flag Burning Ammendment? This is all politics. As I have said before, I could give a crap one way or the other about gay marriage. What I do oppose strongly is their methods. As THordic stated we are governed by the majority, not the minority. For any minority to try to create new rights which do not exist by circumventing the legal process is flat out wrong!!!!

I simply believe that it is wrong for us as american citizens to say some people have less rights than others, Unless they gave up their rights through crime (i.e. prisoners should have less rights than a normal guy)

They never had the right to begin with. They are trying to create a new right. They want to circumvent our democracy and be ruled by a group of elitist judges who think the same way they do. This is not democracy.

You're da man 1DE, i just guess we disagree on this one in some ways, and I'm fine with that, that's part of what makes this country strong, everyone is going to try and tell you what's right or wrong, but it is up to the person to make his own decisions.

No problem, we all have the right to disagree.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass


tolerance . . . the god of this age, and a god I refuse to follow.

Almost ANYTHING can have a case for tolerance made for it and that disgusts me.

I'm voting FOR the amendment that protects the institution of marriage and defines it exclusively as the lifetime union of ONE mand and ONE woman. If that amendment is written such that it allows gay marriages, then I'll vote against it. If it doesn't read like that and instead reads as defining marriage as to what it IS and should ALWAYS BE (according to the Bible, for one), then I will vote FOR it.

Fact of the matter is that a MAJORITY of U.S. citizens will vote in favor of this amendment. And that will show that this is what the people want.

I fully intend to fight this ridiculous struggle that homosexuals want to fight. They made a choice, whether consciously or unconsciously, to go against the way God made them, and have engaged in perverted sexual practices with a member of the same sex. Now they want to get married. Not on my watch, thank you.

that entire post screams religion...which is just going to encourage more church vs. state banter. keep religion out if it, and if you can't defend your point without using religion, then don't bother. we can all agree religion needs to stay out of this debate, because religion is irrelevant when discussing this issue.

[CasingBill]

Originally posted by cphilip
And when the Judicial system gets out of line with what the people want...then the legislative Branch passes laws to bring them back into line. Checks and balances. A very good system our fore fathers put in place. One that while not perfect is the best one ever placed on earth...

I remind you that the Judicial System is only supposed to enforce and interpret law. Not make it. By interpretation they make "Case law" but that is never superceeded by Legislated law unless earlier laws and constitutional laws prohibit legislated laws. Very complex dance there.

This is the problem. Liberal judges are coming up with their own interpretations. Marriage was ordained by God from the beginning. It says a man and a woman would leave their parents and become one flesh. Marriage is wholly based on early judeo-christian values. The same values that this country was founded on. You may not like it but this is the way it is. Its an institution that goes back for thousands of years. Homosexual marriage does not fit into this institution. The vast majority of the world over believes its wrong. In other countries homosexuals are killed. It is wrong. I disagree with homo marriage. I disagree with these judges making laws from the benches.

[shartley]

impostal22- Dansim-

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
They never had the right to begin with. They are trying to create a new right. They want to circumvent our democracy and be ruled by a group of elitist judges who think the same way they do. This is not democracy.[/B]

kinda like blacks and women appeared to not have equal rights. good thing we cleared that up, huh?

and to make an interesting point, the 19th amendment says that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." what "sex" is is not defined. look it up in a dictionary and you'll find that one of the definitions is "The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior." so i guess one could interpret the 19th amendment as considering all rights of homosexuals equal to rights of heterosexuals.