Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

You could have made that argument to put down the Civil Rights struggle. Colored people were 3/5 of a person for hundreds of years in the United States and they fought and protested for their rights.

This situation is analagous to that one. Just because it has been done for a long time does not mean it's beyond scrutiny.

[QUOTE=Fig]
also, why is everyone applauding these random mayors who are directly going against their states' laws that they've sworn to uphold when an alabama judge was removed from his bench for something that had far less direct legal guidelines?

chris[/QUOTE]

Because their not acting like little political puppets. What their doing is fair and something that needs to be done.

Wow! I just went through reading many of the posts. So I thought I’d go ahead and throw in my two cents here, if that’s alright. Well of course it is, I’ve got the mic now.

I do have a question. Is this issue really about gay marriages or is it about love between two people? So then if the issue is love between two people, how long will that run before we “evolve” to marriage being the love between person and thing?

For instance, let’s say I love my shovel, or that I love my couch. What happens when I find another 10,000 people who feel the same way? Do I fight for my rights? And then what do I do when I find a better shovel or a softer couch and want to divorce the one I married?

I believe it was Spectra who said, that we have evolved or needed to evolve in our society, or something to that affect. (I’m just lazy to go back and look for that post now that I’m at the end). But as Mattboy Slim stated, marriage goes way back before any religion.

So what if marriage had originally started between same sex, and had evolved into the union between man and woman? And why didn’t it start that way.

Can we love inanimate objects, or can we marry our family members? No. But does that mean that incestual relationships do not exist? Of course not. Does that mean some people don’t love beer? Of course not. And if gays are not allowed to marry, does that stop gay couples from being together. Nope.

So then if it is about love, and love is reciprocal, wouldn’t that love seek to produce something outside of itself to continue loving? In other words, when I marry (and in my case that would be fine lookin’ lady) I would look to have some type of production out of that love. I would be looking to have fruit of that love. In this case it would be child. That’s got to be the most beautiful thing, to have a being come as one, from the two.

Everything that you plant, or labor to, has to produce a result. Our result for working is the money we earn, the result of doing drugs is becoming an addict. The result of being lazy is lacking in responsibility, and that leads to result in so much more. So what is the result of being gay or involved in a same sex marriage, or engaging in same sex? Nothing. There is no fruit to bear. What male carries an egg? How many women can fertilize the egg of another woman? None. A same sex marriage can’t say, “This is my son, or this is my daughter, she/he carries the both of us within.”

So if it’s about simply marrying who you love, is that all that love is? Because if it is, then anyone can be allowed to marry anything and end up confused, or confusing others as the result. If that’s not confusing, concerning marriage, then what is? And if love is not about producing anything, then why even have commitment, hell, why even have marriage.

Others have argued that the opposition against same-sex marriage comes from the religious side. I would have to say the reason for that being is because it is written in the bible, and for those who read the bible, they know, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and any other form of marriage was not acknowledged, and in fact was spoken against biblically. Not only marriage, but sex in itself, such as men with men, or women with beasts. So of course religion opposes same-sex marriage. However, what religion lacks, is the love they should show towards those who choose to live outside of biblical truth.

God on the other hand, is not religious. God is God, and is able to look beyond so much to love a person. And while the bible states that God is not a respecter of persons, He is a respecter of principles. Therefore, what has been decreed as whole and complete would not need to be changed.

There are many absolutes and variables in life, and some things remain as absolute. And it’s true, absolutes will not always be honored or respected and there will always be some who challenge with variables. But does that mean it’s true, or that it should be honored? No. Because then it opens a door for so much that can confuse so many and we end up wondering what it is that we should believe.

So please read carefully what I’m writing if you decide to comment on it. Because while I may sound like a close minded traditional fool, you need to really look at what is being said, I’m just having a hard time wording what I’m thinking right now.

But I am throwing out some questions and thoughts in hopes of encouraging more thought on this to discover truth. Not what should be accepted, not about rights or infringing upon someone else’s rights, but about truth. The truth and the power of love, which is pure and unadulterated.

Cheers!

You could have made that argument to put down the Civil Rights struggle. Colored people were 3/5 of a person for hundreds of years in the United States and they fought and protested for their rights.

This situation is analagous to that one. Just because it has been done for a long time does not mean it's beyond scrutiny.

negative. they were doing nothing different, they simply wanted the rights that every other person doing the exact same thing that they were already had. homosexual couples are asking for special treatment by the changing of a word that's defined to mean the joining of a man and woman. i'll return to my earlier question, where do we draw the line with who or what can be married? a line has to be drawn somewhere, and there's a very established line that's been there for thousands of years.

Because their not acting like little political puppets. What their doing is fair and something that needs to be done.

you don't think the judge in alabama felt the same way about what needed to be done? i've actually heard the guy speak, i'm pretty sure he did. and the law he supposedly broke was a lot more obscurely worded, and he was removed from office. doing something that "needs to be done" that directly breaks a law passed by a vote of 85% of the people in a state would seem to be a dangerous precedent, don't you think?

chris

a law passed by a vote of 85% of the people in a state

OK, fine, let the American public vote. That's the democratic way, let's all take a vote. Numerous polls have confirmed that the majority (usually about 60%) of Americans are against gay marriage.

2/3 of the american population condemns the idea of gay people getting marrie

Even if a mojority are against gay marriage, does not make it rigth to ban gay marriage. The majority is not always rigth...
When hitler was in power in Germany the vast majority where for the jewish extermination... would you say they did the rigth thing?

For instance, let’s say I love my shovel, or that I love my couch. What happens when I find another 10,000 people who feel the same way? Do I fight for my rights? And then what do I do when I find a better shovel or a softer couch and want to divorce the one I married?

We are taliking about same sex marriage... between adults who are not commiting incest... Allowing gay marriage will not make it ok to commit incest They are very far appart...

And, to the ones claiming the definition of marriage is the Union betwen a man and a women... YOUR defintion does not exclude incest!!!!

Tp Zeminar, Im not interested with wath you do with you showel... I don't want to hear about-it... :D

Just because it has been done for a long time does not mean it's beyond scrutiny.

AB-SO-frickin-LUTELY. Thank you. The thousands of years thing goes nowhere with me.

homosexual couples are asking for special treatment by the changing of a word that's defined to mean the joining of a man and woman. i'll return to my earlier question, where do we draw the line with who or what can be married?

First. You're partially right on the marriage definition, but incomplete. Here:
(from Dictionary.com)
mar·riage n.
1.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2.The state of being married; wedlock.
3.A common-law marriage.
4.A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
5.A wedding.
6.A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

I don't think homosexuals are asking for anything but the RIGHT to marry their lover. This issue is about insurance money (I'm still sticking to that, BTW - see pg 1) and religion. Which, as earlier stated in this thread - cannot be mixed (someone tell GW Bush this, please) Our constitution calls for the separation of church and state. So, throw out the insurance union lobbyists and the holiest of the holy, and this becomes about two people who love each other. Pretty simple.

Second. If someone really wants to marry a shovel. Let 'em. They'll probably take it much more seriously than most human marriages in America. (from www.divorcereform.org) Probably, 40 or possibly up to 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction. Probably be a hell of time getting that little sucker to say, "I do," though.

[QUOTE=Delisk]
Tp Zeminar, Im not interested with wath you do with you showel... I don't want to hear about-it... :D[/QUOTE]

My points are to show what things can lead to. And you may not want to know what I do with my shovel, but the way things are going, you just might have to...eventually. :D

Cheers!

[QUOTE=Fig] you don't think the judge in alabama felt the same way about what needed to be done? i've actually heard the guy speak, i'm pretty sure he did. and the law he supposedly broke was a lot more obscurely worded, and he was removed from office. doing something that "needs to be done" that directly breaks a law passed by a vote of 85% of the people in a state would seem to be a dangerous precedent, don't you think?

chris[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about the judge that wouldn’t take down the Ten Commandments statue? Didn’t they want him to remove that because it violated the separation of church and state?

Not allowing gay marriage would be a violation of church and state don’t you think? Why is it wrong for the mayors to make gay marriage legal? Seems like they’re doing what’s good for the people.

Its not like they’re trying to write into the constitution there can’t be any statues of the ten commandments. They’re trying to write into the constitution that gays can’t marry though. People out weigh a statue.

The judge was an idiot in my opinion. He let his religious beliefs get in the way. Why couldn’t he just do his job?

Our constitution calls for the separation of church and state.

yeah, actually it doesn't. that was originated by thomas jefferson in a letter to some people in connecticut to a group who had heard a rumor that a certain religious denomination was going to be established as a national religion. jefferson assured them that it wasn't and that there would be a "wall of separation" between church and state, specifically that the government could not establish a national religion or govern how men had to worship God. that's it. this has been widely misinterpreted as that any kind of religous expression has to be kept out of public forums, and that's totally inaccurate. jefferson himself used christ's name in a prayer not far after that.

Even if a mojority are against gay marriage, does not make it rigth to ban gay marriage. The majority is not always rigth...
When hitler was in power in Germany the vast majority where for the jewish extermination... would you say they did the rigth thing?

ok, i'm guessing from this that you're suggesting that people in germany a) knew about the concentration camps and b) supported the idea with some sort of popular opinon? you need to do a LOT more history reading.

i never at any point said that accepting homosexual marriage would directly lead to incest. however, there is a downward spiral of morality and sexual behavior that's been repeated throughout great societies in history. we simply need to draw a clear line somewhere, and if we already have a clear line that has existed unchanged since the origination of the word why attempt to redraw it?

i am still curious btw, anyone figure out yet where marriage originated if not in the jewish culture?

‘Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today.’
Arnold Toynbee, noted historian who died in 1975

chris

[QUOTE=infamous]what kind of example are they setting for young kids? seeing two males, or two females fondling each other outside, at the park etc. so much for not letting them watch raided R movies because of the sex content now its going to be on the streets. Will you tell your son its ok to be gay, go ahead introduce me to your gay partner. If they dont ban gay marriges it will be cause of money as someone said earlyer, they way they see it is, More marriges , more divorces, more money....... and on the religious issue its simple it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...being gay is wrong

Although i must say my supervisor and other workers here where i am employed are gay, i dont have a problem with them but i dont agree with the whole issue of being gay, but thats another topic...[/QUOTE]
Wow you are an ignorant fool - Have you ever thought that gay people didn't choose to be that way? Why would someone want to put themselves through all the hatred out there. It not something one chooses to be, they were BORN that way. Just like you can't force yourself to love another person of the opposite sex - it's the same with a gay person. It's not their fault! Put yourself in their shoes for just ONE second.

Plus another thing - if you don't believe that gay people are born that way, then think about this. You know men can't control there *cough* You know what I mean. It will pop up (no pun intended :rolleyes: ) at the worst times even when u want it to go away. So you KNOW that is something u can't control. Well a gay man sees a naked girl - nothing happens... but they see a naked man... BOING! Get it? It's something one doesn't choose in life. And there is NOTHING that can be done about it. How would you like to try and PRETEND your entire life that you were totally attracted to men (Assuming you're a guy) you would be MISERABLE.

Just because it's DIFFERENT and it's something you're not used to doesn't mean you have to ruin their lives. If it is disgusting to you - look the other way. Let them live their lifes and be happy and you live yours. Bush and the government should do the exact same thing :mad: