Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on July 12, 2004, 03:10:24 PM
-
Posted By Senator Wayne Allard, co-author of FMA
FACTS ON THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Five of my Senate colleagues and I have introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. Our amendment would define the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This topic that has generated an enormous amount of information, some credible and some not. I want to set the record straight here on my website so citizens know exactly what my amendment will do, and what it will not do.
The language I introduced is simple and direct: the institution of marriage “shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman.” This definition is neither new nor radical. It is a concept embraced by a majority of Americans of all religions, races and political affiliations. A recent national Wirthlin poll revealed that 62 percent of Americans agree with this definition and that 57 percent support an amendment to the Constitution protecting marriage. The Amendment further reads that no law, at any level, “be construed to require that marital status or legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.” Simply put, this means that only a marriage between a man and a woman will be legally recognized as a marriage. This does not prohibit state legislatures from creating other types of legal unions.
Opponents of this amendment argue that it is not that simple. I submit that it is. Opponents argue that a Constitutional definition of marriage threatens to undo existing state authority to allow for the creation of civil unions. This claim is absolutely false.
My Amendment is specific to the traditional union of marriage. Regardless of alarmist interpretations by those with broader political agendas, that definition does not seek to define or negate any power held by state legislatures to create civil union statutes and any benefits that may apply to that status. With a Constitutional definition of marriage, democratically elected state legislators would remain free to define civil unions without having the courts thrust those definitions upon them. Further, the institution of marriage remains sacred and protected from activist courts as well. While I have long advocated keeping the federal government out of the homes of citizens, I prefer the courts stay out of their homes as well.
There are no hidden intentions behind my proposal. The Amendment is a scant 52 words dedicated solely to defining the union of marriage in the way all 50 states already agree upon.
The Amendment reads as follows: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
By defining marriage, but going no further, the Amendment does not impose on the authority of the states. A series of courts - not state legislatures, but courts - have sought to redefine the institution of marriage in recent years. This in a country where not one state legislature has sought to change the definition of marriage.
This Amendment is an expression of the legislative process – as it exists in every state in the union – over judicial activism that is allowing lawyers and courts to dictate public policy without a single vote.
As it does in every session, Congress faces a number of foreign and domestic challenges in the coming year. As in every session I remain optimistic that the Congress, working with the President, will tackle these challenges with appropriate vigor. The Senate must remain vigilant and focused on the War on Terrorism, the status of troops deployed in the Middle East, and the fiscal realities of these and numerous other priorities. For generations of Americans and their children it is my belief that protecting the tradition and union of marriage is among the important policies the Congress should address.
-
Grab those core Neo con supporters as the polls drop . That is what this is about.
-
Stupid waste of time and money.
-
Bundle it with the Flag Burning amendment, knock out 2 non-issues with one stone.
-
so what happend to state rigths and **** ? :)
-
Complete sillyness. Don't your legislators have anything better to do?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
so what happend to state rigths and **** ? :)
They went away in May, 1865. ;)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Grab those core Neo con supporters as the polls drop . That is what this is about.
2 minutes for misuse of political terminology.
-
You need only look to the 18th and 21st amendments to see what you get when you try to legislate morality.
The constitution is a tool to limit government, not the governed.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They went away in May, 1865. ;)
Yeah, ain't that something ? :)
Smaller government, no goverment in personal lives... unless for Jebus that is :D
-
I only need to point to the quote in my sig to highlight why this amendment is needed to strengthen state's rights. As it stands right now, the will of the people in this matter, in state after state, is being overturned by un-elected activist judges. The institution of marriage in Scandinavia is crumbling as we speak, a result of the liberalization of the definition of marriage. A majority of USA citizens do not want to see that happen here, and have passed both state and federal laws to prevent it. Judges keep over-ruling the will of the people. The Defense of Marriage Act was supposed to stop this, but continues to be circumvented in the court systems.
I for one have written to my senators to make my opinion know to them. I encourage all US citizens, regardless of which side of this issue you fall on, to insure that the FMA recieves a fair hearing. To allow it to be defeated if you support it -- or passed if you oppose it -- without making your voice heard is to give over your right to complain.
-
Constitutional ammendments are swords, not scalpels. This is a bad idea, in addition to being a ridiculous power play of the religious right over everyone else.
-
Marriage doesn't need strengthening by Congress.
-
Election-motivated. By this time next year it won't even be on the radar screen.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
My marriage doesn't need help from congress either. Perhaps the people who support this are having trouble keeping theirs together? Maybe we should, instead of objecting, have sympathy to the thousands of marriages that are in danger of being dissolved because a gay couple might marry somewhere.
We should bake cakes and meals to bring to crying christians that are doubled over with emotional pain because two women in a neighboring state have pledged to spend the rest of their lives together.
Brothers, sisters, feel compassion in your hearts for the oppressed religious people in our country who cry out to the empty sky above for one, just one, lightning bolt to strike down the sinners. For they are people too, and it's sad to be sad.
-
My Amendment is specific to the traditional union of marriage.
How can they possibly claim that this won't affect civil unions yet it will be specific to "traditional marriage" without violating the separation of church and state?
-
One nation under god!
You heathens too!
-
marriage should be illegal, anyway.
-
I don't know, we allowed gay marriage in Ontario and look what happened...oh wait nothing did. :rolleyes:
-
That doesn't look like less government to me.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know, we allowed gay marriage in Ontario and look what happened...oh wait nothing did. :rolleyes:
It's not that anything will "happen". Marriage was legalized here in Massachusetts, too. Nothing has "happened".
That isn't the issue. Traditionalists are concerned, legitimately, that it changes what marriage for them is all about. That concern isn't right or wrong. The problem doesn't lie with people's views, it lies with the state's involvement in marriage.
The state should be legitimizing unions for tax and rights reasons. Leave the marrying up to the church.
-
What do you mean, leave it up to the church? My wife and I were married completely a-religiously. Are you suggesting that since we didn't go to a church or have church officials preside, we aren't married?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The state should be legitimizing unions for tax and rights reasons. Leave the marrying up to the church.
I'll buy that for a dollar!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How can they possibly claim that this won't affect civil unions yet it will be specific to "traditional marriage" without violating the separation of church and state?
Because it does not define nor ban civil union. It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The english text in it is very simple.
I'd rather have congress making laws than radical judges and the aclu.
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'll buy that for a dollar!
sign me up for that one also. sadly the homosexuals aren't satisfied with mere tolerance they want us to embrace their lifestyle. I could care less what you do in your home but if you try to impose your deviant lifestyle upon me we have a fight.
Public homosexuality is an imposition.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Because it does not define nor ban civil union. It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The english text in it is very simple.
I'd rather have congress making laws than radical judges and the aclu.
Hear, hear
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know, we allowed gay marriage in Ontario and look what happened...oh wait nothing did. :rolleyes:
I thought you might be the product of a homosexual union.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Because it does not define nor ban civil union. It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The english text in it is very simple.
I'd rather have congress making laws than radical judges and the aclu.
Marriage is a religious institution. Especially if the state provides a separate definition for civil unions. The state needs to keep its flat round little pignose out of peoples religion and lives.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Marriage is a religious institution. Especially if the state provides a separate definition for civil unions. The state needs to keep its flat round little pignose out of peoples religion and lives.
sure but then the state "minority" makes laws that are totally repugnant to alot of religious institutions....what to do
this sounds like a solution to me....make it known by the fed that marriage is between a man and a woman....then let the states decide wether they want to establish "civil unions" or such.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
What do you mean, leave it up to the church? My wife and I were married completely a-religiously. Are you suggesting that since we didn't go to a church or have church officials preside, we aren't married?
Obviously I'm not suggesting that at all, since my suggestion isn't the current state of affairs. For the sake of your question, though, let's assume that my suggestion was law.
Nothing would change. You and your wife aren't married in the eyes of the church now anyway. You're married in the eyes of the state. Your union would be called something other than marriage. Who cares what.
-
Why do conservatives want to get government out of their lives until it can be used to suppress the life of a rival? Hypocritical nonsense. What do you care if 2 guys get married? Do you love your wife less?
-
Originally posted by storch
I thought you might be the product of a homosexual union.
and you a product of in-breeding
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
What do you mean, leave it up to the church? My wife and I were married completely a-religiously. Are you suggesting that since we didn't go to a church or have church officials preside, we aren't married?
I think that's what you're hoping he said. Just as easy to say your church IS the state and leave it at that but, then again, that'll probably be taken just as offensively.
But if you wanna nitpick ... "marriage" has traditionally been considered a sacred union between husband and wife in both Western and Eastern cultures for a veeeeery long time now. If you want to get incensed over it, the people you need to take it up with became wormfood long ago.
Better to be thankful that the U.S. offers civil unions as an option, I would think, and not be easily offended at those who still see marriage as something that needs God's sanctification to have half a chance (Lord knows marriages struggle more than ever to keep intact nowdays be they conducted by pastor, priest or JP).
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why do conservatives want to get government out of their lives until it can be used to suppress the life of a rival? Hypocritical nonsense. What do you care if 2 guys get married? Do you love your wife less?
I care becuase it repulses me and it is an obomination. No I dont love my wife any less but it is a seculare intrusion on my way of life.
Yes we are for less govt and less govt regulation......but when you have judges write the laws on behalf of the ACLU it is time for the fed to step in. I dont see what's so hypocrytical about it.
A gay man has the same rights as me.....he can MARRY a woman....if a state wants to allow him a civil union with his "partner" than by all means let it be.
-
I am not for it, but the law is ABOUT maintaining the divided roles of Government. The bench is legislating, and that is not their mandate.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
and you a product of in-breeding
hehe it's sister responds for it.
-
What some people see as a decline in morality others see as social evolution. Regardless of which side you take, the fact that modern society is more jacked up than it has ever been is plainly evident and irrefuteable. This didn't happen overnight, either..it's been a slow and steady process over the years.
Well, now you know my take on the social evolution theory. In short: keep it in the closet. Our nation was a better place when everyone pretended this kind of freakish behavior didn't exist, or, at the very least, had the courage to call it what it is.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why do conservatives want to get government out of their lives until it can be used to suppress the life of a rival? Hypocritical nonsense. What do you care if 2 guys get married? Do you love your wife less?
*sigh*
Look to scandanavia to see the result from blurring the lines.
63% of all children are born out of wedlock. In scandanavia that may not be a problem ..... yet. scandanavian countries combined have fewer citizens than the State of Florida but have very high minimum standards of living and very high per capita incomes. They can for now offset the cost and mitigate the damage that those kids are likely to suffer.
It is proven that the best way to raise the next generation is in a stable environment with the child's biological mother and father.
Look at the dilema in Black America since The Johnson Administration's policy of rewarding illegitimate child birth. It has destroyed the Black Family.
The children living below the poverty line in America has increased 144% since 1964. What will occur when, as scandanavians exemplify people just say Fu*k it, why get married I mean we still care about each other. Where is the obligation for a man to not be a tomcat as it were? It will devastate the nation, we will have further governmental intrusion as the government then will be forced to excert pressure on biological fathers to help deferr the cost of child rearing through the courts. How well are the dead beat dads programs working where you live. In Florida they don't work very well at all.
I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes but allowing a selfish and vocal minority who's proclivities are abnormal and abhorrant to dictate nation policy is just plain wrong. Moreso when it is being put into effect by activist judges who are not accountable to the will of the people.
-
American Taliban.
-
Well, MZ, so far, I haven't seen anyone try and limit behavior, just the legal codification. That, my freind is what the Taliban did. So, in fact, the lobby for "gay marriage" is much closer to the Taliban than those who wish to preserve states rights.
-
You want to use the power of government to force others to comply with your fundamentalist religous beliefs.
-
Reasons to Outlaw Gay Marriage:
1. It's an Abomination!! God told me so!
2. Kids do better with 2 parents of the opposite sex.
3. It's an Abomination!! God told me so!
4. We don't wanna be like the scandinavians.
5. It's an Abomination!! God told me so!
6. It makes my marriage cheaper.
7. It's an Abomination!! God told me so!
Now lets take these points one at a time...
1. So what?
2. So what? We gonna mandate 2 parent families too?
3. So what?
4. Last thing we need is that high scandinavian crime rate around here.
5. So what?
6. I think every divorce makes your marriage cheaper. Should we outlaw divorce too?
7. So what? Your God has no say in our laws... that's one of the cool things about America.
8. Oh wait.. no 8
-
So... the church basically wants ownership rights for the term, "marriage"?
Okay... whatever. Have it their way. Just make sure that the word "marriage" doesn't show up in any legal documents and we'll be fine. Call it "civil union" or some such. Just make it available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.
-
How about because I dont want what I have with my wife to be equaled to what 2 men may have with each other.
What's wrong w/ civil unions?
Why do you imediatly brush off somthing that might be associated with faith?
Sandman our laws are designed to keep govt. out of religion not religion out of govt.
what about the people that dont approve of a gay lifestyle....you just write them off as inbread rednecks?
How about the fact that I dont want a minority opinion deciding what is considered normal?
Do I not have the right to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman?
You guys immediatly stick your heads in the sand as soon as something smacks of religion or being from a republican.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about because I dont want what I have with my wife to be equaled to what 2 men may have with each other.
Legally, there should be no difference.
What's wrong w/ civil unions?
Nothing. Should be open to all, hetero or otherwise
Why do you imediatly brush off somthing that might be associated with faith?
Because I am a godless heathen.
Sandman our laws are designed to keep govt. out of religion not religion out of govt.
Actually, the 1st Amendment works both ways.
what about the people that dont approve of a gay lifestyle....you just write them off as inbread rednecks?
I never used the term, but what the hell... I like it. ;)
How about the fact that I dont want a minority opinion deciding what is considered normal?
The Consitution was written to avoid tyranny by the majority.
Do I not have the right to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman?
Within your own home, sure. Knock yourself out.
You guys immediatly stick your heads in the sand as soon as something smacks of religion or being from a republican.
Bush is Hitler? ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about because I dont want what I have with my wife to be equaled to what 2 men may have with each other.
What's wrong w/ civil unions?
Why do you imediatly brush off somthing that might be associated with faith?
Sandman our laws are designed to keep govt. out of religion not religion out of govt.
what about the people that dont approve of a gay lifestyle....you just write them off as inbread rednecks?
How about the fact that I dont want a minority opinion deciding what is considered normal?
Do I not have the right to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman?
You guys immediatly stick your heads in the sand as soon as something smacks of religion or being from a republican.
You cannot go to some beaches in South Florida with small children unless you are prepared to answer why those two boys are kissing. Thankfully we have boats and can go to places inaccesible otherwise. That is an infringement upon my civil rights.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Legally, there should be no difference.
Nothing. Should be open to all, hetero or otherwise
Because I am a godless heathen.
Actually, the 1st Amendment works both ways.
I never used the term, but what the hell... I like it. ;)
The Consitution was written to avoid tyranny by the majority.
Within your own home, sure. Knock yourself out.
Bush is Hitler? ;)
wow not even an effort. Well, OK a little effort. ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about because I dont want what I have with my wife to be equaled to what 2 men may have with each other.
So to you the phrases, "with liberty and justice for all" and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." mean nothing to you. You feel that homos are less equal to you, just as many Southern whites felt that blacks are less equal. Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What's wrong w/ civil unions?
Aside from the word, what is the difference between that and a civil marriage?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Why do you imediatly brush off somthing that might be associated with faith?
Sandman our laws are designed to keep govt. out of religion not religion out of govt.
And where do you draw the line? If you are trying to legislate morality based on religious preference, then is it OK to provide fewer rights to non-Christians? Aren't non-Christians immoral and therefore fair game for discriminatory legislation?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
what about the people that dont approve of a gay lifestyle
I don't approve of that lifestyle either, but what are you proposing to do with those who are gay, if you don't approve of them? Second class citizenship? Pink triangle arm bands? Concentration camps?
I also don't approve of the behavior of a lot of Christians...should my views take precedence over theirs?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about the fact that I dont want a minority opinion deciding what is considered normal?
So you are saying that it is OK for the majority to discriminate against a minority?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Do I not have the right to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman?
For yourself...sure. Why do you feel you should have the supreme right to define it that way for people you have never met and have committed no trespass against you?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You guys immediatly stick your heads in the sand as soon as something smacks of religion or being from a republican.
Actually, it seems to me that you are sticking your head in the sand and trying to believe that homos don't exist. It looks like you think that by Constitutionally defining marriage that it will somehow discourage gays from being. That seems awfully nieve. I may not approve of their preference, but it is apparent that they have existed since at least Biblical times and long before.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I care becuase it repulses me and it is an obomination.
Think about how frightening this concept is. This is a very dangerous reason to create laws. You can justify any law or behavior with this line of thinking. This is practically the foundation of many of the most corrupt laws ever under any government/regime.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Curval
Complete sillyness. Don't your legislators have anything better to do?
:aok
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
:aok
well our expresident had lots of time for fellatio
-
Show me a man who doesn't want his knob polished by young ladies and I'll show you a homo.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Show me a man who doesn't like to want his knob polished by young ladies and I'll show you a homo.
I used to like to get slobbed by a young lady but she's older now so an old lady will do for me thanks.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
So to you the phrases, "with liberty and justice for all" and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." mean nothing to you. You feel that homos are less equal to you, just as many Southern whites felt that blacks are less equal. Is that what you are saying?
So how does a gay man have any less rights than me. He has the same right as me.....he can marry a woman but chooses not to. This is a basic fundamental of nature. I'm not saying lock them all up and ship them to camps. I'm saying quite redefining human existance.
Aside from the word, what is the difference between that and a civil marriage?
aside from the word why do they have to redefine an institution that's thousands of years old?
And where do you draw the line? If you are trying to legislate morality based on religious preference, then is it OK to provide fewer rights to non-Christians? Aren't non-Christians immoral and therefore fair game for discriminatory legislation?
Sorry but I do not want my kids growing up in a society were immoral behavior is redefined as normal. Yes I consider homosexuality as immoral. That has nothing to do w/ my religious beliefs....again they have the same rights as me.
I don't approve of that lifestyle either, but what are you proposing to do with those who are gay, if you don't approve of them? Second class citizenship? Pink triangle arm bands? Concentration camps?
now you are reaching here.
I also don't approve of the behavior of a lot of Christians...should my views take precedence over theirs?
I dont either....I'm not basing this on christian views but of on mine
So you are saying that it is OK for the majority to discriminate against a minority?
so you are saying its ok for the minority to rule over the majority by creating laws were they werent meant to be created in the first place
For yourself...sure. Why do you feel you should have the supreme right to define it that way for people you have never met and have committed no trespass against you?
why should they feel they have the supreme right to redefine something I've beleived in for a long time.
Actually, it seems to me that you are sticking your head in the sand and trying to believe that homos don't exist. It looks like you think that by Constitutionally defining marriage that it will somehow discourage gays from being. That seems awfully nieve. I may not approve of their preference, but it is apparent that they have existed since at least Biblical times and long before.
I dont approve of them....that doesnt mean I want all them tattood and boot stomped by skin heads.
Look I can answer all of your questions with questions all night long. We live in a country were our laws should be written by the legislative branch and not by the judicial branch. This amendment garuntees that CONSTITUTIONAL right.
I agree with this amendment and will support any govt official with my vote who beleives in it as well. Its not a number one deciding factor for me but a big one.
You write off my beleifs as religious or old fasion but than who are you to say what I beleive it. All I did was announce my support for the amendment and why and out came the concentration camp remarks. what about people like me WHO ARE A MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY.....you can just write us off as Nazis?
-
Sabre couldnt have said it better
funny thing people dont understand any more ,if you let the unelected get by with doing things the elected are suppose to do,one day the unelected will puncture your goard, then what will u do.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So how does a gay man have any less rights than me. He has the same right as me
He/she does not have the right to marry the person they love and desire as a sexual partner. You and I have that right. They do not.
Are their benefits to the legal recognition of marriage? If so then they are denied those rights as well.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sorry but I do not want my kids growing up in a society were immoral behavior is redefined as normal.
Well, teach your children about the behaviors you find moral. But otherwise, get used to it and stop meddling with other people's lives...there are lots of legal behaviors out in the USA --and world for that matter-- that your kids are going to be exposed to, which you may find immoral. I'm sure you are a good parent and role model, so studmuffins getting married shouldn't effect them at all as adults. What are you afraid of regarding your kids should Dick and Peter get married?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so you are saying its ok for the minority to rule over the majority by creating laws were they werent meant to be created in the first place
How are the minority curtailing your rights in this case?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
why should they feel they have the supreme right to redefine something I've beleived in for a long time.
They are not redefining your beliefs...have your beliefs changed since a few of them got married in SF? It seems they are asking to recieve the same privalages and legal recognition that hetro married couples get. Rights that they are currently denied.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It's not that anything will "happen". Marriage was legalized here in Massachusetts, too. Nothing has "happened".
That isn't the issue. Traditionalists are concerned, legitimately, that it changes what marriage for them is all about. That concern isn't right or wrong. The problem doesn't lie with people's views, it lies with the state's involvement in marriage.
The state should be legitimizing unions for tax and rights reasons. Leave the marrying up to the church.
Traditionalists is way to nice a term for those who want their beliefs forced on others.
And the "Christian" marriage must be in real trouble if they are concerned that someone they dont know may affect their marriage.
Hetero's , Homo's and bi's have been part of mankinds makeup since the beginning. So if you happen to be a believer then it must be your Gods plan.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
aside from the word why do they have to redefine an institution that's thousands of years old?
Well, I hate to be a stickler, but civil marriage in the United States isn't thousands of years old. And that's what this is about, civil marriage.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
He/she does not have the right to marry the person they love and desire as a sexual partner. You and I have that right. They do not.
How are the minority curtailing your rights in this case?
They are not redefining your beliefs...have your beliefs changed since a few of them got married in SF? It seems they are asking to recieve the same privalages and legal recognition that hetro married couples get. Rights that they are currently denied.
THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.
The Majority of this country does not wish same sexes to be able to marry. No one is trampling their rights they choose to be different. If the Majority does not feel something should be allowed in a democracy it does not.....
you may argue that a person doesnt choose to be gay and was born this way....
So if a man is sick enough to love children and he was born this way and did "choose it" Should we let pedophelia become a way of life.....why trample on their right to love.....what about bestiality?????? were do you stop?
You can write this off as silly all you want but 40 years ago you would have thaught the same thing about a Gay marriage. Well today we have groups that advocate pedophilia and are even task themselves with providing legal deffense for offenders
were does this end. Give them civil unions and all the same benies associated with it and be done with it.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Traditionalists is way to nice a term for those who want their beliefs forced on others.
And the "Christian" marriage must be in real trouble if they are concerned that someone they dont know may affect their marriage.
Hetero's , Homo's and bi's have been part of mankinds makeup since the beginning. So if you happen to be a believer then it must be your Gods plan.
Silat what about non-traditionalist forcing their views on me. That seems to be what's happening here. If its christian it must be bad right?
I just had de ja vu really bad right now :confused:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So if a man is sick enough to love children and he was born this way and did "choose it" Should we let pedophelia become a way of life.....why trample on their right to love.....what about bestiality?????? were do you stop?
Oh man, there it is! Yay! Now say it, you know you want to . . . First word starts with an "s" and so does the second...
BTW...What do you suppose the difference between an underage human or a goat, and an adult human is?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat what about non-traditionalist forcing their views on me. That seems to be what's happening here.
Don't listen to him. I don't want to marry you.
Really... I don't.
:D
-
Repeat after Karl Rove and me, kids. It's political. It's an election ploy. It has nothing to do with the ACLU or "activist" judges.
Any marriage amendment is doomed to fail in the Senate (Frisk admitted as much two weeks ago). We can debate the constitutional merits of it all day, but why not debate the political merits? Why now? Why the amazing urgency prior to the election? Why the new emphasis out of left field after months of nothing? Consider context and circumstance.
Discuss.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
So, Bush wants to get married to Cheney after they get re-elected?!
-
Originally posted by SOB
So, Bush wants to get married to Cheney after they get re-elected?!
Bush is a pretty good pitcher from what I've seen of him at opening games, but Cheney seems like a dominant guy. So... who pitches and who catches?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
It's still baseball. :D
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Bush is a pretty good pitcher from what I've seen of him at opening games, but Cheney seems like a dominant guy. So... who pitches and who catches?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Well, I've heard it said that Cheney is the man behind the man, so I'm guessing he'd be the pitcher. :D
-
Originally posted by SOB
Oh man, there it is! Yay! Now say it, you know you want to . . . First word starts with an "s" and so does the second...
BTW...What do you suppose the difference between an underage human or a goat, and an adult human is?
With respects to the goat.....it depends on how drunk the FDB is and if he thinks he's in the sheep pin. :lol
This subject is pretty personal to me so I think I will just bow out gracfully and leave it at that......not to mention there is a hijack taking place.
-
FDBs don't need to be drunk to nail a goat, just randy.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat what about non-traditionalist forcing their views on me. That seems to be what's happening here. If its christian it must be bad right?
I just had de ja vu really bad right now :confused:
Well guns Im not looking for an amendment forcing Kook christians to stop believing or having the same rights that I have.
But they are trying to stop others from having the same rights they have. Pure and simple that is the issue. Not your religious beliefs which mean absolutely nothing when it comes to equal rights for all.
-
"He has the same right as me.....he can marry a woman but chooses not to. "
I'm so ****ing sick of this one.
"He has the same right as me.....he can marry any woman within hist race."
People like you lead to segragation and worse.
-
Hey man..You only live once...Don't let other people tell you how you are to form relationships or be happy...It's your freedom that gets trampled if you do.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.
Do you have the right to marry the person you love that you have chosen as a partner? Do they have that same right?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The Majority of this country does not wish same sexes to be able to marry. No one is trampling their rights they choose to be different. If the Majority does not feel something should be allowed in a democracy it does not.....
And 40+ years ago the majority said that blacks could not marry whites...are you saying that was not discrimination?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So if a man is sick enough to love children and he was born this way and did "choose it" Should we let pedophelia become a way of life.....why trample on their right to love.....what about bestiality?????? were do you stop?
Now you are reaching...
The difference is consent. A child cannot give informed consent. And an animal cannot give consent at all.
A person's rights end when it enfringes upon another's who does not consent to the enfringement.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
were does this end. Give them civil unions and all the same benies associated with it and be done with it.
If it gives them the same rights as married people then, I'm all for it. But from what I understand of the issues, partnered gays want the same benefits that married couples enjoy, but not every state has civil unions as an option. Nor does every state recognize the civil union laws of other states. Plus, the Fed government does not recognize civil unions...Social Security benefits can only be passed to survivors if they were married.
I tell you what...support a Constitutional amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions are between same sex; and both marriage and civil union shall have the same legal rights.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Traditionalists is way to nice a term for those who want their beliefs forced on others.
And the "Christian" marriage must be in real trouble if they are concerned that someone they dont know may affect their marriage.
Hetero's , Homo's and bi's have been part of mankinds makeup since the beginning. So if you happen to be a believer then it must be your Gods plan.
No, "traditionalists" was a term I used to describe the people who would like to maintain the long standing and accepted definition of marriage. They aren't trying to force their beliefs on others at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
I haven't stated my opinion on same sex marriage. I just asserted that I can understand both sides of the argument and can appreciate their reasoning, whether or not I agree. You obviously can't.