Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

...there aren't any gay spieces...

To oppose that I quote: Unknowncountry

Dinitia Smith writes in the February 7 New York Times about two gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, who have been inseparable for six years. Both have rejected female companionship, and females aren't turned on by them, either.

Bruce Bagemihl, who wrote the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity," says homosexual behavior has been documented in at least 450 species. His book was used by lawyers to strike down the Texas law against sodomy. Some people say animal homosexuality occurs in animals that are unnaturally confined to zoos, but Bagemihl says it actually happens more often in the wild.

And further more we have this

I also have seen a documentary 'bout dolphins wich was about "the things one don't know about dolphins, and that scientists rarely speak of"...

that program was about homo dolphins and hotheaded dolphins who raped other dolphins in order to make them understand that they where more of...alphamale's than the other. they also raped female dolphins, but I can't seem to remember why...

So I think one should think twice before stating that gay spieces do not excist ;)

Patric.

Meh...
People talk about marriage as it'd be something of a guarantee for that couple to have kids. And about sex that "is meaningless"....give me a break. You never used a condom? You never masturbated? Anal sex? Oral sex? It's all about pleasure, and it's ok. Why can't people just do what feels good for them, even if it means humping a person of the same sex?

And as for the marriage part;
From a religious standpoint, I see that gays marrying is wrong.
But from an economic standpoint, gay marriage is obviously only fair.
Marriage isn't "holy" anymore, hasn't been for ages... I'm sure -- if god had seen it coming -- god would've ordered NOT to allow marriages being bonded in f****ng Las Vegas while drunk. :rolleyes:

Also, what's with the thinking I see here -- suddenly there will be MORE gay people if the marriage thing is allowed? ......why would there be more?

"Daddy, why are those two men kissing each other?"
"Well, son, they're homosexual" <-------- Too hard?
With all the crap children get to see these days -- porn, superviolent movies/games, war being about FREEDOM and PEACE, etc etc -- explaining that two people of the same sex loving each other "like mummy loves daddy" can't be that big of a deal.

Can't concentrate, I'll be back later on. :D

[QUOTE=Fig]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.

chris[/QUOTE]

Well I think people are a little wiser today don’t you think? There’s no way I’m living my life exactly to how people did in the past. I think we’ve developed and learned to be more tolerant of other people than back then. Jefferson was a hypocrite what can I say?

how are we wiser exactly? not sure about all states, but as an example the texas constitution has 200-something amendments to it to try to keep things running smoothly. by contrast the document our founders crafted has 27 total amendments. i'd say they did something right

i'm also curious how, by the definition of where separation of church and state came from and how it was intended, jefferson is a hypocrite?

chris

My money argument still holds true. It's not about divorces, it's about insurance. Nobody can argue that point. Greed + bigotry = banning ______ (fill in the blank).

The separation of Church and State is very valid and very crucial to our freedom. (Ironic, since I don't really think the right to bear arms is, but that's my own hypocritical opinion...)

Fig, you don't think the very existence of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA didn't stem one bit from escaping religious tyranny, as well as taxation without representation? In my opinion, the very mixture of Church and Government puts a death sentence on a country's civilians - look no further than the middle east for several examples of how ugly the religious war can be. Jefferson and the rest of the founding slave own-er, pot smoker-er, I mean fathers, knew how crucial that very statement is to the survival of a country. But, in all fairness, to compare our current government to men with the integrity of our founding fathers would be like comparing apples to oranges.

Congress cannot force religious beliefs on it's people. It will open a can of worms that we really, really don't want to get into. Although, in several places in America, they already do. GOD BLESS! :(

[QUOTE=Fig]how are we wiser exactly? not sure about all states, but as an example the texas constitution has 200-something amendments to it to try to keep things running smoothly. by contrast the document our founders crafted has 27 total amendments. i'd say they did something right

i'm also curious how, by the definition of where separation of church and state came from and how it was intended, jefferson is a hypocrite?

chris[/QUOTE]

The way we view different races and accepting different types of people are a lot different than the time of Jefferson don’t you think? I do think we’re wiser.

Jefferson a Hypocrite?

1). Not actually supporting the Revolutionary War by fighting as a soldier.
2). Starting the first political party of this nation after saying, "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all."
3). Loosely interpreting the Constitution as President after arguing for a strict interpretation throughout the 1790s.
4.) Constantly deriding Hamilton throughout the 1790s as corrupt ( Hamilton was continuously vindicated) yet using Federal funds to finance an anti-Hamilton / anti-Washington newspaper and using funds to add to his wine collection and other personal habits.
5.) Denouncing Hamilton's brilliant Report on Manufactures and proclaiming America must become the land of the citizen farmer, yet he opened a nail factory (not for use on his estate but for outside sale) which was worked by his slaves.
6.) Firing upon American citizens who were violating the Embargo Act after expressing that his greatest fear was a tyrannical gov't who enforced its will upon its people through the use of arms instead of allowing the people to choose the proper course for this nation.

This is the year 2004 and slavery’s over, we’re becoming more open to different cultures all the time.

Letting gays marry is just another stepping stone towards progress and acceptance.

[QUOTE=zerimar3]And if gays are not allowed to marry, does that stop gay couples from being together. Nope.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't stop them from being together, but it prevents them from enjoying the tax and other financial benefits of being married.

And comparing homosexuality with love of an inanimate object is just stupid. It proves nothing. An inanimate object or an animal is incapable of consenting to the love and reciprocating.

Gay people just want to live normal lives with their partners. They are not out to corrupt the culture (if you can twist homosexuality into corruption), and they don't want more rights than everyone else (they just want to be able to marry their mate, like anyone else).

I find it amazing that this is even an issue. The same people who are arguing against gay marriage would have been against desegregation. It's the same thought process of hysteria that repeats itself over and over. In 50 years people will look back at the opponents of gay marriage as fools and reactionaries.

gg, i realize that escaping a state-run church is a large part of the reason that people left england to settle here, and that right IS guaranteed. imo there's a huge difference between somewhere like afghanistan where the taliban has instituted a repressive forced religion vs elected officials who make some decisions based on their faith. that being said, i don't think we can necessarily legislate based on a certain person's faith if that were the only reason for a stance on an issue. there are a variety of reasons that one could vote one way or the other on this issue however, one of them being an individual's personal morality. while some have argued that you can't make legislate morality, we can and do legislate morality in various ways, whether it be saying that certain material is obscene or deciding that you're not allowed to kill another person.

flackbait, if you have other reasons to criticize jefferson (which it appears you do) then i'm with you, i thought you were calling him a hypocrite based on the definition of separation of church and state which i wasn't following. neither this or gg's comments are necessarily relevant tho, i've said from the beginning that i agree that i can't impose my beliefs on you and that i would have to have other reasons, which i've provided. you may or may not agree with them, but there's definitely two sides to the argument.

yes tele, i would've been against desegregation because i'm completely closed-minded and a reactionary :rolleyes: for someone who seems to feel stereotyped at times you seem to flip the coin there quite a bit. why is it then if i don't agree with your opinion that i'm closed-minded, but you have every right to shut me down without any consideration?

whatever the case, i go back to my original comments that we have to draw a line somewhere defining marriage, that that line already exists and that there's no need to redraw it and then repeat this argument in another 20 years for another sexual minority that wants to push the envelope further. i have no desire to keep gay partners from being together if that's what they want, but i don't want to redefine a word that i believe means something for their financial benefit.

chris

nicely said Fig, I see some of your points now.

But,

but i don't want to redefine a word that i believe means something for their financial benefit.

then, let me ask you this: Why is it okay for our government to supress the right to gay marriage based on financial benefit?

I'll reiterate, from my first post on this topic: (never quoted myself before! )

the fact is - this gay marriage thing opens up a big can of worms - INSURANCE. More marriages mean more beneficiaries. Period. Insurance lobbyists are funding this one, folks. The real question is this: why shouldn't gay people receive benefits? Maybe because of the AIDS epidemic in the gay communtiy? The price of prescription drugs comes into the picture. Adoption issues come into the picture for gay couples whom may want to have families. Straight people will have to pay more for insurance, so that creates anger & fear.

[QUOTE=Telemakhos]And comparing homosexuality with love of an inanimate object is just stupid. It proves nothing. An inanimate object or an animal is incapable of consenting to the love and reciprocating.[/QUOTE]

You might think it's stupid today. But when it hits the news, in the not too distant future, and we make a thread for an issue like this, "Hey did you guys hear about that crazy nutt marrying his computer."

I'll be back to remind us all how stupid it is, and what it was that led to it, when a new movement rises up...and you can bank on that one.

My earlier post is about how things lead to other things, and how we continue to accept things based on "the open minded" concept. So are we looking for rights, whether right or wrong, or are we looking for truth?

Paavo stated earlier that there's nothing wrong with doing what feels good. From oral sex to the whole nine yards. And that if a guy wants to get laid by another guy, then what's the problem.

Here's my problem. You're setting grounds by which you must be held to the standards of that declaration. Therefore, if it feels good to kill someone's mother, why stop me. If it feels good to beat your wife and rape her, don't stop me. If I feel good dominating your sister and severing her, don't stop me.

Now you're going to argue and say, "We're not talking about murdering, we're talking about same-sex marriage." And that's fine, cuz I'm not talking about murdering either, those are illustrations to show, that on the same grounds that you find nothing wrong with doing what feels good, then you can't say one thing against what my interpretation or manifestation is about "doing" what feels good.

And if you want to argue the point of morals and laws, what is right and wrong, then we're back to the beginning of what is right and wrong concerning what is already settled that marriage should be.

So you can throw those arguments out the window because you have your own interpretations, and I have my own. So then we have no choice but to return to what it was that was in the beginning that made things work. In the case of the United States, it would be holy writ, what it is in other countries, I can't speak for.