Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

Flackbait, you quoted my post but obviosly did not read it. I'm not saying that they can't have equal rights, I'm not saying that their relationship should not be recognized. I said to call it a civil union, I said to give them equal rights, give them the same benefits, call it a 'marriage' if you will. But to change the very definition of a marriage is preposterous.

And yes Flackbait, they are asking the world to change. And for a very small minority to ask to the world to change because they want a word to mean something different is ridiculous. This is simply a ploy to get attention.

Tele, how does me not wanting gays to change the meaning of my marriage make me close minded?

Why should the definition of a word matter? If you truly take YOUR marriage seriously, you would focus on the bond between you and your wife and not worry about what the definition is. If the definition of marriage allowed you to have a mistress on the side or it allowed you to be the dominate member of the union, would you conform to this simply because that's the "definition"? I sure hope some Webster dictionary term doesn't dictate how a marriage is honoured.

You are also saying yourself that they can have a "marriage" and every other benifit that comes with marriage, so whats the difference if it's written somewhere? You are offering everything except the acknowledgement. The problem is they are not allowed to be in a legal union. It needs to be written somewhere so that they can form this pact. What you are saying is, "they can act married like me, but I'm the "good married" and not the "fake married". Tell me whats so preposterous about changing the definition and how it makes a difference in what you are talking about.

[QUOTE=Spectra]I am pointing this out as a general comment and not that it was you who said it.

If this is an arguement against gay marriage, that marriage was initially to form a union between man and woman to procreate, I would like to disgree. Many heterosexual couples can not have children or choose not to have children. Does this mean the marriage is invalid or flawed or even illegal? Of course not. That would be too black and white. But its not held against them. Two men cannot naturally have a child. Neither can two women (naturally), but that does not mean they are any less of a provider or a loving environment for an adopted child. The initial ideas of what makes a marriage or a union are changing. These are not biblical times.

Let me put it to you this way. Just because you create a great website that functions perfectly and does the job, doesn't mean it will withstand the tests of time. Things become dated, opinions change and we evolve as a species. That beta website may have worked back in 1990, but it sure isn't going to cut it today. That is the same with marriages. It's time to restructure what is considered acceptable.[/QUOTE]

evolution happens over a long period of time. homosexuality has become socially acceptable in less than the last 30 years, and because of that you want to redefine a term that's existed for millenia? redefining something on a trend just doesn't make too much sense. homosexuality isn't a new idea. its existed throughout history in a variety of cultures, widespread in roman times for one. so why wasn't marriage redefined then? why is it time now? it HAS withstood the test of times for thousands of years.

as an aside, my point with the roman society is that their sexual degeneration followed a downward spiral leading to their demise. ancient greece follows a similar pattern. i personally don't want to follow that trend, tho as great societies have rarely lasted past 250 years our time may be coming. how long til we decide that incest, or something similar, is ok? after all, they were "made" that way, they can't help it.

btw, i'm curious where marriage originated from if it wasn't in the jewish culture for whoever mentioned marriage predating biblical texts.

chris

It's an interesting point being made about the collapse of Rome and other great societys due to "sexual degeneration". Let's not say it entirely led to the collaps of these civilizations, although it very well may have helped. But I think that deals more with incest then it does homosexuality. Inbreeding does effect species, even humans, but its not something that is practiced on the level homosexuality is. With all respect due to the past, we live in different, more enlightened times. Now there is no way to predict the future, but I have to believe it will be something other than gay sex that will lead to our demise.

You talk about it only being 30 years as socially acceptable, but look at the rate we are evolving now. It's such an exponential rate, that 30 years of technology and knowledge today would be that of many, many generations in the past. 40 years ago we put someone on the moon. 10 years before that it wasn't being thought of. A few years before that there weren't tv's in the average household. Prior to this, "nigger" was a common word used amongst the public. Personally, I hope that in less time then that, gay people, (who are in fact productive members of our society), can feel free from discrimination. That they can form a loving, healthy union that the state recognizes. It's really not too much to ask. And once again, as I will ask in every single post I reply to in here. How has a gay couple affected your day to day life? Don't be ashamed to admit it if it has. Because if they haven't done something to you, what business is it if they are married or not legally by the state? I don't get all the fuss over a silly definition.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Flackbait, you quoted my post but obviosly did not read it. I'm not saying that they can't have equal rights, I'm not saying that their relationship should not be recognized. I said to call it a civil union, I said to give them equal rights, give them the same benefits, call it a 'marriage' if you will. But to change the very definition of a marriage is preposterous.

And yes Flackbait, they are asking the world to change. And for a very small minority to ask to the world to change because they want a word to mean something different is ridiculous. This is simply a ploy to get attention.

Tele, how does me not wanting gays to change the meaning of my marriage make me close minded?[/QUOTE]

Sorry I hate making mistakes like that. I did read your post but I read it the wrong way. I have trouble sometimes envisioning how people are saying what they post.

I don’t agree with you on the whole definition of marriage thing you brought up. But I think Spectra did a good job challenging that, so I won’t beat a dead horse and babble.

Geebejizuz...Now, I have'nt got the knowledge of US constitution or the grand total of US politics in all, but isn't this really a basic question of letting poeple living their lives as they please ?

I'm not gay, can't really understand the attraction to my own sex, but when someone do and wants to live their lives with a partner of the same sex, why on God's green earth shouldn't they be able to do just that ?

Bush is just "votefishing"...If I understand it correctly 2/3 of the american population condemns the idea of gay people getting married (read that somewhere, dunno if it's correct.), and he migtht even think that they shouldn't. I can appriciate the opinion, but I condemn the suggestion to make it a law.

In my head there is no question about wether people should have the right to marry whom ever they want. It is discriminating, and I guess even US has a law against that ? dicriminating minorites, I mean and isn't the gay community just that ?

In Sweden it is against the law to discriminate people from different ethnic backgrounds aswell as women, gay or handicapped people. And I can't see that this issue is anything else but pure discrimination of gay people.

Let them get married if they want to, The straight community won't go under, and there is prolly, as someone said, more important issue's to attend to...Like gunlaws, the increasing violence in society, the economic structure, taxes, and not the least terrorism on a global level...

P...

Rosie got hitched.
Rosie

to answer your first question, no gay couple has done anything to me personally. i do however, believe in the sanctity of marriage and have a desire to preserve it as i believe it was intended, as a union between a man and a woman. some of that is for a moral/faith reason, and its not necessarily fair for me to impose my beliefs on you so i have to look at other reasoning as well.

[QUOTE=Spectra]It's an interesting point being made about the collapse of Rome and other great societys due to "sexual degeneration". Let's not say it entirely led to the collaps of these civilizations, although it very well may have helped. But I think that deals more with incest then it does homosexuality. Inbreeding does effect species, even humans, but its not something that is practiced on the level homosexuality is. With all respect due to the past, we live in different, more enlightened times. Now there is no way to predict the future, but I have to believe it will be something other than gay sex that will lead to our demise.[/QUOTE]

considering how history tends to repeat itself i don't know how far ahead of the curve we are, but i'll digress for now.

so we have our "enlightened" culture that accepts homosexuality. in these hyper-accelerated times (which i don't necessarily agree with when you look at philosophy and other fields that evolved over thousands of years, its simply a different type of knowledge) where do you draw the line? what if over the next 20 years transgenerational or incestual relationships become more accepted? bestiality? polygamy? its not hurting anyone, right? do we continue to redefine marriage to fit the trends of society to make sure the minority is being accounted for?

my answer to that (and probably others' answers as well) would be of course not, those things are just wrong. ooh, we just legislated morality...

chris

[QUOTE=Spectra]It's an interesting point being made about the collapse of Rome and other great societys due to "sexual degeneration".[/QUOTE]
There were many more, and more important reasons leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire. In my opinion, "sexual degeneration" is just something people with the same mindset attach onto the reason to further their arguments. Most of the Roman Emporers engaged in homosexual activity. It was accepted practice and it was more for a love of the human body rather than some sexual attraction.

And who are we to say it's "degeneration"? We made up the standard. There are animals that engage in homosexual activity, one such species is closely related to the Chimpanze which shares 99% of the genetic information with humans.

Incestual relationships hurt people because the resulting child often has defects.

Plus homosexual couples don't contribute to the overpopulated earth with children.

just to make a point on the one thing that is itching me...

And for a very small minority to ask to the world to change because they want a word to mean something different is ridiculous. This is simply a ploy to get attention.

Mahatma Ghandi. Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X. I could go on and list a shizload of (not even single groups but merely) single people who made a difference.

Just because you don't have a lot of people in your group doesn't mean you can't make a difference.



I really don't care about gay people, as long as they stay the hell out of my way. Let em do what they want.

And besides, maybe the decline in procreation will help the problem of world hunger