Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't choose to enter into a partnership with my wife that would have the same cooperative status of two men, nor would I want to. While gay rights activists claim that their "right" to marry doesn't affect anyone, in fact it does.
You never really indicated how it would affect your “partnership” with your wife? If I hate my neighbor but the neighbor bought the same car as me, did the neighbor adversely affect my ownership of my car? No one has ever really said how it affected their relationship other than they “didn’t like it”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser
Nobody has the "right" to join a group that doesn't approve of it's membership.
What about those who don’t care and don’t mind allowing them admittance? When there were laws against interacial marriages, there were plenty who approved of the laws. There still are those who disapprove of interacial marriages. Because there are still those who disapprove does that mean we should go back to banning interacial marriages? Does an interacial marriage hurt a marriage where both partipants are the same race/ethnicity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser
So my argument is this: gays don't have a "right" to get married.
What about the “pursuit of happiness”? That’s a broad statement by our forefathers. It encompasses rights that were not enumerated in our constitution or bill of rights. It’s a fluid individual concept. My pursuit of happiness may be my marriage to my wife, and it may be the same for a gay couple, well their mate not mine, hopefully.
[quote=FistFightingHairdresser;306143They would only if a) those who are married consent to the re-definition of their partnership and b) those who are married consent to the introduction of gay couples into their group. [/QUOTE]
Ok, what if we do mind the redefinition. I’m married and want to call it a marriage and don’t care if a gay couple wants to get married and call it a marriage. Also as far as consent goes, what is the magic number? Does it have to be unaminous consent? What if one person objects? What if millions object?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser
I, for one, don't. I know that there are millions more like me.
Yes there are many millions who agree with you and there are many millions who disagree.
Really couldn't help myself but, to answer this one for you try Colossians Chapter 2 verse 16. Called correct reading!!
Everyone has had good comments on this one it's just a tough one when gays have been in the closet for so long and seems like some that have chosen to step forward flaunt it as more of a circus as those in San Francisco. I think that it makes it harder for some to take the issue serious.
ok, so it say "let no man therefore judge you" but that does not equate to being a reversal of an edict by god on an abomination. However I'll take the tactic that is used by so many who choose to only focus on a small statement and use that. I'm going to say the bible says "let no man judge you". I like that, will it work?
I've seen heterosexual people act more bizarre than gay people. Does that mean we shouldnt be taken seriously because of how certain straights act?
I can see the dispute as follows: Most Christian denominations preach that homosexuality is an immoral sin that destines one for an eternity of brimstone. As such, by turning around and allowing same-sex couples to wed in holy matrimony in "God's house", they'd be sending mixed signals to their congregations. in their communities, be they straight or...gasp...even not straight. ...
I look at it this way. If homosexuality truly is a sin worthy of damnation, then allow those of us who are GLBT to dig our own graves and jump down into hell. Who are any of you to decide that you can take away that option for us just because "God wouldn't want it that way?" You Conservative Republicans aren't the "moral watchdogs" of America; if my partner and I wish to be entitled to the same financial and legal benefits that our straight counterparts do at some point down the line, then we should be afforded that option. You can call it "marriage", "civil union", or even
"the gay knot" for all I care. Words mean nothing; it is the action behind them that speaks volumes about those involved. If my future boyfriend and I are hellbound, then what right do people like President Bush have to try to stop us?
I recall reading somewhere about somebody responding to indignation about "immoral acts, committed man with man" with, "Oh, you mean two guys conspiring to pollute peoples drinking water, or steal from schoolchildren?"
Plenty of both of that going on around here.
I can see someone getting from the teachings of Christianity that homosexuality is a sin. What I can't see is it being regarded as a really big sin.
I see it from the pollyanna viewpoint, if 2 people are in love and want to commit, why not let them get married?
On a colder point, it's not going to make a hoot of difference in my life or my marriage if gay people can make the same commitment I did (11 years tomorrow btw!). I've yet to hear any compelling reason why anything would change in the world.
Furthermore, the idea of a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage is
ludicrous. Each state sets marriage/divorce laws. If anything, it should be left up to the states to decide. The constitution is supposed to be an INCLUSIVE document.
I have a question, before we had kids, we were socked with some kind of marriage penalty every year. Is that still true?
But marriage isn't a right. It's a legal & social construct. Being an American doesn't confer any right at all to get married. It does grant you right of free association, which we violate if we force married people who don't want their partnership changed against their wishes.
Being an American absolutley gives the right to anyone of consentual age to get married. As long as it is a religious issue, this is a moot point, only semantics. But, once legal rights are involved, health care, social security, inheritance, etc., then restricting marriage becomes problematic. You are denying the rights to choose a partner who would be entitled to these rights. The idea of defining marriage as between a man and woman, in a legal sense, is the same as determining that a slave is 3/5 of a citizen. Very shaky ground.
ok, so it say "let no man therefore judge you" but that does not equate to being a reversal of an edict by god on an abomination. However I'll take the tactic that is used by so many who choose to only focus on a small statement and use that. I'm going to say the bible says "let no man judge you". I like that, will it work?
I've seen heterosexual people act more bizarre than gay people. Does that mean we shouldnt be taken seriously because of how certain straights act?
But, it says let no man judge you by what you eat or drink. Because, it was taken to the cross. I was only commenting on the eating part. Man is not a part of judgment and if you are comfortable with what you are doing then, that is how you must live your life and don't worry about what your neighbor thinks. But, it also tells us not do anything that would offend others.
Which, we know that can be pretty easy some are offended by all.
Being an American absolutley gives the right to anyone of consentual age to get married. As long as it is a religious issue, this is a moot point, only semantics. But, once legal rights are involved, health care, social security, inheritance, etc., then restricting marriage becomes problematic. You are denying the rights to choose a partner who would be entitled to these rights.
I don't deny anyone the right to choose their partner, what I do suggest is that their relationship with their partner is not the same as the time-tested, well-established marital partnership of a man and woman.
And if the issue is that of legal rights to property, we've no argument there. Any adult of sound mind has the right to dispose of property however he or she sees fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jest721
The idea of defining marriage as between a man and woman, in a legal sense, is the same as determining that a slave is 3/5 of a citizen. Very shaky ground.
I fail to see the comparison. A marriage is a legal construct, a slave is still a person.
You never really indicated how it would affect your “partnership” with your wife? If I hate my neighbor but the neighbor bought the same car as me, did the neighbor adversely affect my ownership of my car? No one has ever really said how it affected their relationship other than they “didn’t like it”.
Your comparison isn't valid. First, the car is an object so no partnership is involved. Second, the fact that your neighbor owns a car doesn't change the terms of your car ownership. So, if anything, you and your neighbor have the exact same relationship with your car. But the comparison still doesn't fit the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000
What about those who don’t care and don’t mind allowing them admittance?
Then you're not affected either way. But that doesn't change the fact that there are those of us who do care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000
When there were laws against interacial marriages, there were plenty who approved of the laws. There still are those who disapprove of interacial marriages. Because there are still those who disapprove does that mean we should go back to banning interacial marriages? Does an interacial marriage hurt a marriage where both partipants are the same race/ethnicity?
Now you've made a challenge to my argument. Here's how I'd respond: the original argument against interracial marriages presupposed an inferiority of some races vs. others. So those who were against it apply the same argument as Sen. Santorum -- you recall his riotous "man on dog" speech, right? That is was a partnership between a human & sub-human, and was therefore illegitimate.
But you blow apart the falsity of racial inferiority and the argument fails.
Unlike the interracial marriage issue, I'm not arguing that gays aren't people. But being of the same gender their partnership is not the same as mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000
What about the “pursuit of happiness”? That’s a broad statement by our forefathers. It encompasses rights that were not enumerated in our constitution or bill of rights. It’s a fluid individual concept. My pursuit of happiness may be my marriage to my wife, and it may be the same for a gay couple, well their mate not mine, hopefully.
Happiness comes in many forms. We don't necessarily have the right to pursue all of them. There are people who are happy with heroin, some are happy with S&M, some are happy with matchbook collecting. But the pursuit of happiness doesn't say anything about allowing anyone to enter into any legal association they feel like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000
Ok, what if we do mind the redefinition. I’m married and want to call it a marriage and don’t care if a gay couple wants to get married and call it a marriage. Also as far as consent goes, what is the magic number? Does it have to be unaminous consent? What if one person objects? What if millions object?
That's why we vote, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000
Yes there are many millions who agree with you and there are many millions who disagree.
But the millions on my side aren't the ones trying to change the terms of partnership for the millions on the other side.
I don't deny anyone the right to choose their partner, what I do suggest is that their relationship with their partner is not the same as the time-tested, well-established marital partnership of a man and woman.
And if the issue is that of legal rights to property, we've no argument there. Any adult of sound mind has the right to dispose of property however he or she sees fit.
I fail to see the comparison. A marriage is a legal construct, a slave is still a person.
It's an arbitrary label. A man can marry a woman, a man cannot marry a man. All white citizens can vote. All black citizens cannot vote. It's applying arbitrary labels and denying rights to people who wear those labels, simply because they are objectively identifiable.
Once you take the moral element out of marrriage, you are left with the legal rights entailed in a legal marriage. Everyone has a right to choose who the benefactor of that bundle of rights should be.
I think the key is, in the US, though not in the debate between the two of us, morality is inherrent in marriage. And it is easy to change laws compared to changing beliefs, minds, and hearts.
I just wanted to interject here in the middle of this debate now to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for keeping this touchy issue very civilized! As I've seen with some other issues, especially with illegal immigration, meaningful discussion can quickly deteriorate into mindless drivel of random personal attacks to the point where Markablue, Yac, or the Administrator have to dive on in and close the thread. (I had a similar experience to this on a discussion about the rising cost-of-living in NJ on their state forum, and that's exactly what happened!) One person insulted me. I shot back. Another person came to their defense, and then one supported me, etc. to the point where we were just downright hostile and nasty towards one another with red dots galore! That's the reason why I've vowed to avoid the NJ forum from now on.
I must say that is refreshing that I have yet to see any "hate" speech in this thread, which I was expecting to come across. On the AOL Message Boards, some people will relate any news story to gays. "Oh? A plane went down in Walla Walla? Must have been dem der gays gettin' hitched that caused the pilot to have a heart attack and crash the plane!" You've all inspired me that there are still people out there capable of rational discussion and conflict with civility! I'm enjoying reading these replies immensely! Keep up the good work!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Words mean nothing; it is the action behind them that speaks volumes about those involved. If my future boyfriend and I are hellbound, then what right do people like President Bush have to try to stop us? 
Thank You All
That's the reason why I've vowed to avoid the NJ forum from now on.
