PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage Admendment



DolFan31
07-23-2004, 04:09 PM
Failed to get enough votes to pass. What do you guys think?

ABrownLamp
07-23-2004, 04:23 PM
First time in history a Constitutional amendment was created to takeaway individual rights. I mean really, who cares. The REP foundation lies in taking government out of people's lives, yet here is a stark contradiction to what they stand for.

Maintaning the sanctity of marriage...

First of all, sanctity is a religious term, so this shouldn't matter
Second, in a nation where I can get married to a hooker in Las Vegas after knowing her for 10 minutes, or where we have tv shows like "Who wants to marry a Millionaire" or "Who wants to Marry a Midget." or "Joe Millionnaire." Don't tell me about sanctity.

Marriage is about loving someone, not about sanctity. It's about equal rights for equal people. (i.e., don't talk about marriage with box turtles as the "next step") Gay people have the right to be miserable for the rest of their lives just like we straight people do...

iceblizzard69
07-23-2004, 04:36 PM
Having an amendment against gay marriage would be awful. There should be no amendment that takes away rights from people. Gay marriage should be legalized.

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 05:31 PM
Why isn't there a poll response for "against it"?

Bling
07-23-2004, 05:40 PM
I don't care if they get married. I wish there was a Abortion Amendment though.

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 05:51 PM
I don't care if they get married. I wish there was a Abortion Amendment though.


How so? You will never get 2/3rds of the country to agree one way or the other.

ABrownLamp
07-23-2004, 06:13 PM
I don't care if they get married. I wish there was a Abortion Amendment though.
I can't even imagine what measures women would take to get rid of their FETUS if this was ever passed.

pwn3dyo
07-23-2004, 09:19 PM
Poll Is A Little Bias Buddy.

t2thejz
07-23-2004, 09:52 PM
For it means your against gay marriage

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 11:25 PM
I understand that, but there are other options. The one I like best...make ALL marriages "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned. Legally that's all marriage is anyway. Reserve the term "marriage" for the religious status. That way those who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds don't have to recognize it...on religious grounds. Legally there should be no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage.

ohall
07-23-2004, 11:32 PM
I understand that, but there are other options. The one I like best...make ALL marriages "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned. Legally that's all marriage is anyway. Reserve the term "marriage" for the religious status. That way those who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds don't have to recognize it...on religious grounds. Legally there should be no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage.

But there should be. That's one is marrige and one would be called gay marriage.

Sorry, gays are not losing any rights here, because they didn't have the right to be married before in the 1st place. This is something new. It's just another attempt to remove religion from our nation. Bit by bit step by step that's where this leading.

I have no problem with leaving this up to each states, so long as judges stay the heck out of it. This whole mess started when LIBERAL judges started doing things they had no business doing in the 1st place. This is the only reason the President was forced to speak out about this. If those LIBERAL judges did not over reach none of this would have been an issue.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 11:55 PM
But there should be. That's one is marrige and one would be called gay marriage.

Sorry, gays are not losing any rights here, because they didn't have the right to be married before in the 1st place. This is something new. It's just another attempt to remove religion from our nation. Bit by bit step by step that's where this leading.

I have no problem with leaving this up to each states, so long as judges stay the heck out of it. This whole mess started when LIBERAL judges started doing things they had no business doing in the 1st place. This is the only reason the President was forced to speak out about this. If those LIBERAL judges did not over reach none of this would have been an issue.

Oliver...

Religion has no place in setting the law. THAT is what the Constitution is designed no prevent. It's illegal to impose YOUR religios beliefs on others. 10 Commandments in courthouses is nothing, THIS however is a direct violation. BTW, black people didn't have the right to ride in the front of the bus a few decades ago. They weren't "losing" any rights then sither because they also never had them before.

ohall
07-24-2004, 12:07 AM
Religion has no place in setting the law. THAT is what the Constitution is designed no prevent. It's illegal to impose YOUR religios beliefs on others. 10 Commandments in courthouses is nothing, THIS however is a direct violation. BTW, black people didn't have the right to ride in the front of the bus a few decades ago. They weren't "losing" any rights then sither because they also never had them before.

You have a point about seperation of religion and state, but this has nothing to do with race IMO. Riding a bus to where someone wants to go is totally different than marriage. Further inter-racial couples could always have children in the past if they were allowed to be together. The problem was assanine cultural laws that stopped that from being accepted. Same sex couples will never be able to have children of their own. This will never change. If this was meant to be same sex coupling would create off-spring.

The moment we weaken the bond of marriage that is the moment we will be like I believe Sweden. They have an alarming out of wed lock birth rate, something like 70+% of all children born there are born out of wed lock. If you change the definition of marriage pretty soon same sex couples won't see the point of even getting married. What would be the point? At that point it's just a peice of paper, it has no value it has no meaning, no tradition.

I still feel this is a LEFT WING agenda to remove religion from all of our lives. Slowly but surely they have attacked religion, and day by day religion is slowing dieing.

Oliver...

Karl_12
07-24-2004, 12:13 AM
I understand that, but there are other options. The one I like best...make ALL marriages "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned. Legally that's all marriage is anyway. Reserve the term "marriage" for the religious status. That way those who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds don't have to recognize it...on religious grounds. Legally there should be no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage.Couldn't agree more. I could care less if two people of the same sex got married, it doesn’t bother me one bit.


But there should be. That's one is marrige and one would be called gay marriage.

Sorry, gays are not losing any rights here, because they didn't have the right to be married before in the 1st place. This is something new. It's just another attempt to remove religion from our nation. Bit by bit step by step that's where this leading.

I have no problem with leaving this up to each states, so long as judges stay the heck out of it. This whole mess started when LIBERAL judges started doing things they had no business doing in the 1st place. This is the only reason the President was forced to speak out about this. If those LIBERAL judges did not over reach none of this would have been an issue.

Oliver...Then why didn't Bush say this in his first campaigne?



In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, saying, "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]
Personally I think it is a smoke screen by the White House to divert attention to what is happing in Iraq.

ohall
07-24-2004, 12:15 AM
Then why didn't Bush say this in his first campaigne?


Say what?

Oliver...

Karl_12
07-24-2004, 12:19 AM
You have a point about seperation of religion and state, but this has nothing to do with race IMO. Riding a bus to where someone wants to go is totally different than marriage. Further inter-racial couples could always have children in the past if they were allowed to be together. The problem was assanine cultural laws that stopped that from being accepted. Same sex couples will never be able to have children of their own. This will never change. If this was meant to be same sex coupling would create off-spring.

The moment we weaken the bond of marriage that is the moment we will be like I believe Sweden. They have an alarming out of wed lock birth rate, something like 70+% of all children born there are born out of wed lock. If you change the definition of marriage pretty soon same sex couples won't see the point of even getting married. What would be the point? At that point it's just a peice of paper, it has no value it has no meaning, no tradition.

I still feel this is a LEFT WING agenda to remove religion from all of our lives. Slowly but surely they have attacked religion, and day by day religion is slowing dieing.

Oliver...
How is same sex marriages weakening traditional marriage? 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway.

Karl_12
07-24-2004, 12:21 AM
Say what?

Oliver...
You said:


This is the only reason the President was forced to speak out about this.
I was just wondering why he feels the need to speak out against gay marriage now.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2004, 12:23 AM
You have a point about seperation of religion and state, but this has nothing to do with race IMO. Riding a bus to where someone wants to go is totally different than marriage. Further inter-racial couples could always have children in the past if they were allowed to be together. The problem was assanine cultural laws that stopped that from being accepted. Same sex couples will never be able to have children of their own. This will never change. If this was meant to be same sex coupling would create off-spring.

The moment we weaken the bond of marriage that is the moment we will be like I believe Sweden. They have an alarming out of wed lock birth rate, something like 70+% of all children born there are born out of wed lock. If you change the definition of marriage pretty soon same sex couples won't see the point of even getting married. What would be the point? At that point it's just a peice of paper, it has no value it has no meaning, no tradition.

I still feel this is a LEFT WING agenda to remove religion from all of our lives. Slowly but surely they have attacked religion, and day by day religion is slowing dieing.

Oliver...


#1-barren people can get married, so it isn't about procreation.

#2-If we were concerned about the bond of marriage, divorce would not be legal. Are you REALLY going to talk about marrigae being "sanctified" when J-Lo is working on marriage #27?

Bottom line, if your argument for a law begins and ends with "Gods law says...", than that law has NO place on our NATIONS books. Again, keep the law the law and the religion the religion.

ohall
07-24-2004, 12:24 AM
How is same sex marriages weakening traditional marriage? 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway.

I think it's even higher, something like 65% of all marriages fail these days. The more relgion has been removed from our culture the more our culture has suffered. Now of days children are more likely to be home alone rather than having a parent home to supervise their after school hours.

If you think about it logically, I think you'll see what I'm saying. Ask yourself when was it when marriages started failing near to the level it is today? When you answer that question you'll have your answer.

Oliver...

ohall
07-24-2004, 12:30 AM
#1-barren people can get married, so it isn't about procreation.

#2-If we were concerned about the bond of marriage, divorce would not be legal. Are you REALLY going to talk about marrigae being "sanctified" when J-Lo is working on marriage #27?

Bottom line, if your argument for a law begins and ends with "Gods law says...", than that law has NO place on our NATIONS books. Again, keep the law the law and the religion the religion.

#1 I never mentioned anything about the minority of same sex couples who cannot have children. There's no reason to blur this issue. You know exactly what I was saying. If you get right down to it, if things got so bad only ppl who could have children would survive. Think logically 1227. If it was meant to be same sex couples could produce off spring. They cannot and never will be able to without the help of sience or adoption.

#2 Ja Lo is just another symptom of the root problem. As I keep saying I believe the LEFT WING has an agenda to remove all relgion from our culture. Since they've been successful life styles like Ja Lo's, over abundant divorce and same sex marriage has started to be accepted by most Americans. Slowly our culture, our nations foundation, religion is being destroyed.

Bottom line is, once we do what you say, pretty soon they are going to remove the word "God" from our money and in time from our lips. God will become an out lawed word if these ppl are allowed to ruin our culture. I know for me I'm NOT going so softly into the night when it comes to this subject. Anyone who has any religious belief knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Oliver...

ohall
07-24-2004, 12:34 AM
You said:


I was just wondering why he feels the need to speak out against gay marriage now.

It's my understanding that some LEFT WING judges over stepped their authority by allowing and sanctioning these same sex marriages. In particular in California they recently had a state wide vote about same sex marriage and the state voted to not allow it. This didn't stop the LEFT WING judges from sanctioning them in San Fran I believe. I know there was a similar situation in the Boston area, but I'm not as familiar with that as the one with California.

What the President is saying is because these LIBERAL judges are removing the states authority the federal government has to step in. As a REP I'm sure he has no problem with allowing states from decideing for themselves. The problem is city governments are ignoring the law of the state. That is a HUGE problem.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
07-24-2004, 12:43 AM
But there should be. That's one is marrige and one would be called gay marriage.

Sorry, gays are not losing any rights here, because they didn't have the right to be married before in the 1st place. This is something new. It's just another attempt to remove religion from our nation. Bit by bit step by step that's where this leading.

I have no problem with leaving this up to each states, so long as judges stay the heck out of it. This whole mess started when LIBERAL judges started doing things they had no business doing in the 1st place. This is the only reason the President was forced to speak out about this. If those LIBERAL judges did not over reach none of this would have been an issue.

Oliver...
Gays will be receiving rights that they should have had in the first place. There is nothing wrong with that. Equal right for equal people. Nobody wants to remove religion, just religion from making legal decisions.
The problem with leaving it up to states is that people will go to another state to get married.
The reason the President started speaking about this was to proclaim his religious stance and to divert attention from important ssues. He was pandering to his base.
Personally I don't care what you call a "marriage" between two men. As long as they get the same priviliges that straight people get.

ABrownLamp
07-24-2004, 12:45 AM
It's my understanding that some LEFT WING judges over stepped their authority by allowing and sanctioning these same sex marriages. In particular in California they recently had a state wide vote about same sex marriage and the state voted to not allow it. This didn't stop the LEFT WING judges from sanctioning them in San Fran I believe. I know there was a similar situation in the Boston area, but I'm not as familiar with that as the one with California.

What the President is saying is because these LIBERAL judges are removing the states authority the federal government has to step in. As a REP I'm sure he has no problem with allowing states from decideing for themselves. The problem is city governments are ignoring the law of the state. That is a HUGE problem.

Oliver...
He does have a problem with states stepping in. Because people will go to different states to have their rights upheld.

iceblizzard69
07-24-2004, 09:04 AM
It's my understanding that some LEFT WING judges over stepped their authority by allowing and sanctioning these same sex marriages. In particular in California they recently had a state wide vote about same sex marriage and the state voted to not allow it. This didn't stop the LEFT WING judges from sanctioning them in San Fran I believe. I know there was a similar situation in the Boston area, but I'm not as familiar with that as the one with California.

What the President is saying is because these LIBERAL judges are removing the states authority the federal government has to step in. As a REP I'm sure he has no problem with allowing states from decideing for themselves. The problem is city governments are ignoring the law of the state. That is a HUGE problem.

Oliver...

Well, apparently he does have a problem with the states deciding for themselves because if he didn't want that to happen he wouldn't call for an amendment. If a state wants gay marriage, they should have it.

Gay marriage won't "ruin" marriage. It won't have any effect on straight people marrying. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married no matter what their genders are. Not allowing gays to get married is discrimination.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2004, 09:34 AM
#1 I never mentioned anything about the minority of same sex couples who cannot have children. There's no reason to blur this issue. You know exactly what I was saying. If you get right down to it, if things got so bad only ppl who could have children would survive. Think logically 1227. If it was meant to be same sex couples could produce off spring. They cannot and never will be able to without the help of sience or adoption.

#2 Ja Lo is just another symptom of the root problem. As I keep saying I believe the LEFT WING has an agenda to remove all relgion from our culture. Since they've been successful life styles like Ja Lo's, over abundant divorce and same sex marriage has started to be accepted by most Americans. Slowly our culture, our nations foundation, religion is being destroyed.

Bottom line is, once we do what you say, pretty soon they are going to remove the word "God" from our money and in time from our lips. God will become an out lawed word if these ppl are allowed to ruin our culture. I know for me I'm NOT going so softly into the night when it comes to this subject. Anyone who has any religious belief knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Oliver...


Once again Oliver, there is a WORLD of difference...GIGANTIC, HUGE, difference, between having God in our government, having God in our society, and IMPOSING ONE religion on everyone. Again, if you are justifying a law by saying that, "well, St PAul said that homosexuality is wrong, so gay people can't marry", than you are SHATTERING the 1st Ammendment. As for society disolving, the divorce rate started soaring after WWII. Religion was still a huge part of America then. In fact, it was at that time that "Under God" was ADDED to the Pledge. But the divorce rates started going up because women had been exposed to the work force. They had their expectations raised, and that meant that fewer of them were willing to stay in bad marriages. You want to reduce divorce, make it harder to get married in the first place. But all gay marriage does is allow homosexuals to live a more MAINSTREAM life. People complain that gays are too promiscuous, and too flamboyant. Guess what, allow them to live as "normal paople", and they will act more like "normal people". But the REAL bottom line is that you are ALSO violating the Constitution if you provide differing levels of protection to different people. Again, just like with Segregation. You can't hold marriage in the eyes of the law up as something sacred, or divine, when the law already allows it to be flaunted by easy divirce, and remarriage. You want marriage to be about procreation, and a lifelong commitment in the eyes of the law? Fine, than MAKE it about procreation and lifelong commitment in the eyes of the law. But until you DO, than you can't use those as excuses, because THEY DON'T APPLY. Once again, legal unions are nothing more than an economic agreement. That's ALL the law establishes. Religion is about everything else...love, commitment, etc. So make "marriage" the status that religion talks about, and ACCEPT the fact that all the law does is establish a Civil Union ANYWAY.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2004, 09:46 AM
It's my understanding that some LEFT WING judges over stepped their authority by allowing and sanctioning these same sex marriages. In particular in California they recently had a state wide vote about same sex marriage and the state voted to not allow it. This didn't stop the LEFT WING judges from sanctioning them in San Fran I believe. I know there was a similar situation in the Boston area, but I'm not as familiar with that as the one with California.

What the President is saying is because these LIBERAL judges are removing the states authority the federal government has to step in. As a REP I'm sure he has no problem with allowing states from decideing for themselves. The problem is city governments are ignoring the law of the state. That is a HUGE problem.

Oliver...

Once again, Alabama voted to maintain Segregation. LIBERAL judges ruled that they were violating blacks rights. Same thing here. A rational judge looked at the law and said you can't have a double standard. You can't allow married people to enjo certain rights and not give those same rights to everyone who wants to marry. Again, no double standard is allowed.

muscle979
07-24-2004, 10:47 AM
I am not a Bush supporter or a republican at this point, but I don't really feel like i can support gay marriages. I don't know it just doesn't seem right.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2004, 10:48 AM
I am not a Bush supporter or a republican at this point, but I don't really feel like i can support gay marriages. I don't know it just doesn't seem right.


Wow...that's certainly an in depth argument for restricting your fellow citizens rights.

ohall
07-24-2004, 12:18 PM
Wow...that's certainly an in depth argument for restricting your fellow citizens rights.

And that's all someone has to believe in. Your standards are your standards, and other ppl's standards are their standards.

I'm with him. If it was meant to be same sex marriages would be able to produce off-spring. As we all know this is not a reality without help from modern science. It just doesn't seem natural or meant to be. Science, religion and common sense tells anyone that without a doubt.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
07-24-2004, 01:40 PM
But they are unhealthy beliefs. When your basis for judgement is..I don't know, it just doesn't seem right...

Marriage is not about reproduction, I don't know why you keep saying that. It's about loving someone so much that you are willing to spend the rest of your life with them. And it's about equal rights for equal people. Again, I don't care if it is a "civil union" or a "marriage," as long as they get the same rights that come along with it.

iceblizzard69
07-24-2004, 02:36 PM
And that's all someone has to believe in. Your standards are your standards, and other ppl's standards are their standards.

I'm with him. If it was meant to be same sex marriages would be able to produce off-spring. As we all know this is not a reality without help from modern science. It just doesn't seem natural or meant to be. Science, religion and common sense tells anyone that without a doubt.

Oliver...

So do you think people shouldn't be married if they don't want to have kids or if they can't have kids? The ability to have offspring within a couple is totally irrelevant.

Bling
07-24-2004, 02:42 PM
I can't even imagine what measures women would take to get rid of their FETUS if this was ever passed.

so abortion is the answer to sex that shouldn't have happened? Don't believe in taking responsibility for your actions? You definitely are a liberal.

ABrownLamp
07-24-2004, 03:03 PM
Dude, it's illegal to get an abortion in the third trimester. What else do you want? It's not a life when the sperm enters the egg, I'm sorry. That's ridiculous.

You REPS keep acting like you don't believe in abortion because you care so much about the life of the baby. BS. You don't give a crap about me or my kid. The only thing you care about is pushing your beliefs onto me. And that is exemplified by the fact that once this baby is born, you guys are nowhere to be found. But I'll sure find you guys outside of a clinic. Stop acting like you care about my kid.

As far as liberalism goes. I guess that's the new dirty word for DEMS. I don't consider myself a liberal, because I really don't care about anyone else but myself and those close to me. I'm really apathetic towards the well being of others. But I can still tell the difference between right and wrong. And making abortion completely illegal will do nothing for society.

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2004, 03:00 AM
And that's all someone has to believe in. Your standards are your standards, and other ppl's standards are their standards.

I'm with him. If it was meant to be same sex marriages would be able to produce off-spring. As we all know this is not a reality without help from modern science. It just doesn't seem natural or meant to be. Science, religion and common sense tells anyone that without a doubt.

Oliver...

Guess what...same EXACT argument for Segregation...it "just didn't seem right" for whites to mix with blacks. If they were meant to mix God would have made everyone the same color. People can ALWAYS find excuses for bigotry.