marriage Constitutional amendment

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
Why do gays and lesbians actually care if they are "married"? If they aren't the ones who care about the religious nature of the marriage nor the tradition behind it, I don't see why they don't just shut up and live together.

As some folks around here are so fond of saying...Prove your assertion.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
My sexuality is QUITE fine!

My self worth couldn't be at a higher level.

Gay marriages still aren't allowed.

They can keep their filth in their closets.

Deal with it.

Testy, aren't we?

And...Are you sure?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
AIDS is the result of a promiscuous sexual life, and straights as well as gays are at risk. It isn't, and never was a "gay" disease.

And if you remove gay people from the list the percentage of AIDS patients will probably drop by about 95%. Sex with monkeys then sex with other men, now we're all at risk. Thanks, queers!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Testy, aren't we?

And...Are you sure?

Couldn't be more positive.

And I'm not testy, I'm getting my way! Gay marriages still aren't recognized anywhere near me.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Homophobia arises from a basic insecurity in ones own sexuality just as racism arises from a basic insecurity in one's own self-worth.

What are feeling insecure about today?

The ludicrous word "homophobia" means nothing to me. I am not fearful of homosexuals nor do I doubt my own sexuality. The fact is that homosexuality is as regpugnant to a moral society as beastiality and sex with dead people (forgot the technical term for that!) are. Trying to label those who are against beastiality as beastialphobes is just as stupid and pointless.

 

[jimnyc]

That would be 'necrophilia'. Let's let them marry the dead too.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
As some folks around here are so fond of saying...Prove your assertion.

Prove what? You are the one who said that using religion and tradition was not persuasive to keep homosexuals from performing such an act. Well, marriage is and has always been a traditional religious practice. From christianity, judaism, buddhists, muslims, etc. They all have some sort of marriage ceremony. If homosexuals weren't trying to be a part of that ceremony, this debate wouldn't be happening. They are the ones who are trying to advocate for a change in an historically religious tradition. If they don't want to be a part of religion, they shouldn't be advocating for marriages between the sexes. Simple and plain as that.

If, you counter by saying that they want to be allowed the legal rights of married couples, they already are. There is no law that says one man can't will his estate to another and vice versa. There is no law which says that one woman can't buy a house with another. So what is the point of wanting to be married?

 

[Jeff]

Hmmmmm Iwonder if homo sex wouldnt be considered a promiscuous sexual life style???? l If I remeber right Aids was first found in Homo's... & yes spread quickly threw the dregs of socitey!! The problem is that it now effects innocent ppl.
As for you bully boy you can have all the homo sex you want as I told you before just keep it at your house cause not all of us agree with it or approve !
Jeff

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Jeff & Laura
Hmmmmm Iwonder if homo sex wouldnt be considered a promiscuous sexual life style???? l If I remeber right Aids was first found in Homo's... & yes spread quickly threw the dregs of socitey!! The problem is that it now effects innocent ppl.
As for you bully boy you can have all the homo sex you want as I told you before just keep it at your house cause not all of us agree with it or approve !
Jeff

Why do people think if gays are allowed to marry, they will have sex in the street? I would hope you would expect heteros to keep their sexual activities in their house as well. Funny thing is alot of the guys I talk to who are against rights for gays were very interested in seeing Britany Spears french kiss Madonna and not only was that outside their house, it was on national TV.

Hypocrites....


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Why do people think if gays are allowed to marry, they will have sex in the street? I would hope you would expect heteros to keep their sexual activities in their house as well. Funny thing is alot of the guys I talk to who are against rights for gays were very interested in seeing Britany Spears french kiss Madonna and not only was that outside their house, it was on national TV.

Hypocrites....


-Bam

And those same guys would have been just as aroused watching Britney or Madonna kiss a frog. Besides, did Britney or Madonna state they wanted to get married? I'd be againts them getting married too.

 

[bamthin]

But you have no problem watching them get it on?


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
But you have no problem watching them get it on?


-Bam

Nope. It's the fantasy of a lot of men to be involved in a 3 way with 2 beautiful women. Seeing 2 beautiful women together adds to a mans fantasy. A mans fantasy of being with 2 women at once has nothing to do with agreeing with same sex marriage.

 

[Jeff]

LOL...I agree with ya about Brittney.lol.... but they wernt getting married....As for the Homo's having sex in the street.... A few yrs back the gays fought with NY about getting in the St Patricks day Parade ( almost didnt have it) when they won there fight that is exactly what they did !!! they came down the road kissing & fondling ... well it was nasty... I seen one guy with a condom over his whole body( that was cool...lol... seems he didnt take the time to think guys like me would say yup thats what ya are)it seems as though when they are placed in the public's eye they make asses out of themselves... if kept behind closed doors I surley wouldnt have as strong of opion on this.
Jeff

 

[Isaac Brock]

Reading this debate now for sometime, I've found that some of the idea have gone way out of control. Can't let them marry because they have AIDS? Comparisons to necrophilia? Sending people to islands to bomb them essentially suggesting genocide? Pardon me, if I find these suggestions ridiculous and in cases somewhat offense, not becoming of a people who pride themselves in liberty and fairness.

I think GOP_jeff has still the best argument why they should not be allowed to marry or form civil unions.

So what exactly is a civil union supposed to be, exactly? A marriage without a church blessing? Who can enter into it? Can me and my five college buddies all enter into one big civil union just for the tax and inheritance benefits? Would we be able to adopt kids for our civil union commune?

(incredulous sarcasm off)

Changing the name from 'marriage' to 'civil union' is only a ploy to make people think that it is something different, when in fact, homosexual activists want civil unions to be exactly like a marriage, the only difference being the sex of the two partners. IMO, this is not right. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle (yes, I opened that can of worms) does not entitle you to any kind of special right to a civil union with your partner.

You make an excellent point on the potential flaws of civil unions. I suppose any two adults, in theory, could get a union. That being said, I simply don't agree that this would be very big problem and a few simple checks and balances could eliminate most forms of abuse. You may disagree and that's fine too.

It find it difficult however to read many of the posts on this thread which state that allowing "civil union" confirms the rights of gays by government and views as an abhorrent use of government. I do agree entirely that the government has no place sanctifying gay marriage. However, if the tyranny of majority is allowed to take place allowing a position of the government to be for or against gay marriage, we are openning a slippery slope in allowing the government to choose what is morally right or wrong in realms of the spiritual which I think marriage falls under.

I think the idea of civil unions with even with the potential flaws (as all ideas so often have) sidesteps this issue and lets the core value of marriage be decided by the churches, allowing the US (and i suppose I'm talking for Canada too) to maintain the institution seperating church and state.

 

[Moi]

With all due respect, Isaac, I fail to see why the posts I've made are ludicrous or deserving of dismissal. Firstly, necrophelia is a valid comparison. Why is it illegal? According to the supreme court rulings in this country those who are not alive aren't human and subject to any rights. Therefore, if I choose to have sex with the dead it is no different than having sex with a tree. It should be allowed according to those who claim that private acts cannot be mandated by law. Absurd? Possibly. But then so is the argument for abortion being legal and homosexuality being legal. If they are private events not to be touched so is necrophelia.

Secondly, as I've said before, all laws pose morality limitations. Why is it that I have to wear a seatbelt? Because in someone else's mind, I don't have the right to gamble with my life. Why is it that I cannot snort coke? Again, because in someone else's discretion it's bad for me. Why are there laws to force me to use modern medicine on my child? Because someone decided that I did not have the right to decide my own child's fate. They are all morality based decisions.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by bamthin
Why do people think if gays are allowed to marry, they will have sex in the street? I would hope you would expect heteros to keep their sexual activities in their house as well. Funny thing is alot of the guys I talk to who are against rights for gays were very interested in seeing Britany Spears french kiss Madonna and not only was that outside their house, it was on national TV.

Hypocrites....


-Bam

I for one am not a hypocrite. Not only did I find that display distasteful, I fail to see why something wasn't done about it being on TV at prime time for weeks...on the news, on entertainment programs, etc. I don't want my son to see that and think that it is acceptable to display that all over the TV and newspapers. Mind you, I don't think it's acceptable to show that between men/women on national TV at prime time either. the amount of sex which is splashed across the media is appalling, no matter who's doing it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
With all due respect, Isaac, I fail to see why the posts I've made are ludicrous or deserving of dismissal. Firstly, necrophelia is a valid comparison. Why is it illegal? According to the supreme court rulings in this country those who are not alive aren't human and subject to any rights. Therefore, if I choose to have sex with the dead it is no different than having sex with a tree. It should be allowed according to those who claim that private acts cannot be mandated by law. Absurd? Possibly. But then so is the argument for abortion being legal and homosexuality being legal. If they are private events not to be touched so is necrophelia.

Secondly, as I've said before, all laws pose morality limitations. Why is it that I have to wear a seatbelt? Because in someone else's mind, I don't have the right to gamble with my life. Why is it that I cannot snort coke? Again, because in someone else's discretion it's bad for me. Why are there laws to force me to use modern medicine on my child? Because someone decided that I did not have the right to decide my own child's fate. They are all morality based decisions.

Moi, as always you're posts were articulate and arguments becoming of civil debate. It was the idea of homosexuality being compared necrophilia that i found repulsive. Homosexuality, either you agree with the act or not, that you can't change from personal moral ground. Personally I find the act disgusting, but the again I'm quite straight. However I can see that it is an act that is done, consenually between two adults that does not harm anyone else in society. If two gay people are monogomous and well, love each other, all the better! Monogamy is always preferrable and should be supported.

Necrophilia is not consensual, nor is it done between two adults (as one is dead and hence not person). I'll extend the same argument to comparisons with pedophilia, bestiality, canabilism (that was an unpleasant conversation).

As for laws and imposing moral implications, of course you are right. There is indeed a link. However, in most cases it is due to personal safety and since personal safety has broader implications on the health and social, burdens of society, many times personal implications diverge to that of society of a whole. Arguments aside on whether homosexuality is safe, which I take the position that it can as long as its monogomous (not so different that hetrosexual relations), I believe that the core to this debate is not the safety, but rather the ethical consideration of homosexual.

Since ethics is not a science, or at least not yet anyways, I do not think it is appropriate for government to support or be against homosexuality, but rather they should support a monogomous union of two people of which the benefits show little doubt.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Moi, as always you're posts were articulate and arguments becoming of civil debate.

I do not think it is appropriate for government to support or be against homosexuality, but rather they should support a monogamous union of two people of which the benefits show little doubt.

First, thanks for the clarification of your previous post.

Secondly, how in any way would banning gay marriages impact the monogamy of homosexuals? There is no law that says that only married people can be monogamous nor, I might add, is marriage any guarantee of monogamy, sadly.

The very act of a homosexual commandeering what is a religious act is in and of itself reprehensible. I couldn't care less if people are gay- let them do what they want. But what's more offensive is that those who appropriate something from a religious background then vilifying those who believe in that religion. The law should not aid and abet this type of misappropriation.

It seems to me that the entire argument for allowing gay marriage and/or a civil union sanctioned by the government is much ado about MONEY. There is no other justification for people who do not believe in the tenets of a religion lobbying to become able to enter into its privileges.

 

[wonderwench]

Certainly money is a factor, as are sharing health benefits and other considerations.

But you are missing a major point in a legally recognized union: the right to be involved in decisions affecting one another. I do believe this issue has escalated due to the AIDs crisis. Living in the Bay Area, there have been frequent news stories over the years about homosexual men being denied the ability to visit their dying partners in the hospital due to them not being relatives. This is horrible.

Another issue is that of child-rearing. One of the main purposes of marriage is for the raising and protection of children. Again, there have been many stories about horrible custody battles when lesbian couples split. If one of the women is the biological mom, the other is often completely severed from contact with the children. This has got to be hurtful for the kids - to all of a sudden have someone they thought of as a parent disappear.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Certainly money is a factor, as are sharing health benefits and other considerations.

But you are missing a major point in a legally recognized union: the right to be involved in decisions affecting one another. I do believe this issue has escalated due to the AIDs crisis. Living in the Bay Area, there have been frequent news stories over the years about homosexual men being denied the ability to visit their dying partners in the hospital due to them not being relatives. This is horrible.

Another issue is that of child-rearing. One of the main purposes of marriage is for the raising and protection of children. Again, there have been many stories about horrible custody battles when lesbian couples split. If one of the women is the biological mom, the other is often completely severed from contact with the children. This has got to be hurtful for the kids - to all of a sudden have someone they thought of as a parent disappear.

I'm not actually forgetting either. But in order to have any say in someone's medical care doesn't REQUIRE marriage nor should it ever.

I can't see how gay couples could have children anyway unless one of them acquires it outside the union. In those cases, whichever is the biological parent is obviously going to be the custodian.

Mind you, I am against having chidren in any way other than biologically so to proffer these means as a way to reproduce is against what I believe in to begin with. In the cases when people pursue this type of procreations, I really don't care what happens to them. Whether married or not, the only thing that should be the determining factor in custody cases is what's best for the child- end of story.