Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[M]

You have it all wrong. I am held accountable to God for all of my actions. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is not morally permissable because it is an abomination to God. My purpose, as a Christian is to please and glorify God. As a member of this particular gonvernmental body, it is my belief that I should cast my vote in such a manner that would be pleasing to God. Not casting a vote is unacceptable, as is voting into office those who would seek to grant homosexual's a type of marriage. Therefore, I will seek to vote those into office who will vote in favor of my views, as they are pleasing to God.

However, if my reps lose, I can live with it because I understand how our government works, and at the same time I will not be held accountable for whatever laws or amendments will come from it.

It does effect me. It effects all of us. Even those who are not homosexual.

Hey why dont we ask God 'himself'? Who are you, or I to judge what "pleases" "Him" ? You get me a note or a letter or a phone call from the Almighty one regarding "his" stance on this issue. Saying that you are doing something because you Think it pleases someone, with out knowing for sure, seems kinda like a risky idea.

maybe god just wants everyone to love one another.

why dont you leave the Judgement and all that up to the big guy?

retorical question, not entirely posed to cap.

[Frogacuda]

Hey why dont we ask God 'himself'? Who are you, or I to judge what "pleases" "Him" ? You get me a note or a letter or a phone call from the Almighty one regarding "his" stance on this issue. Saying that you are doing something because you Think it pleases someone, with out knowing for sure, seems kinda like a risky idea.

That really isn't relevant.I think CV would argue he has a pretty lengthy and detailed note on what is and isn't pleasing to the lord already. But we can still disagree over what place that has in government.

You're not going to get anywhere arguing over what God thinks and who's ancient document is correct. It's just not the issue here.

[burgundy]

You're not going to get anywhere arguing over what God thinks and who's ancient document is correct. It's just not the issue here.

This and pretty much everything else you've said this morning is right on the money.

[g0zen]

I don't think "gays molest kids".

Homosexuality has historically been deeply intertwined with pedophilia, which is a reality. It was a reality during ancient greece, and it is a reality now. What replaces the traditional deeply held cultural beliefs that have for the most part prevented heterosexual incest for the past few millenia?.

What history book do you have that says shows every case of homosexuality in a culture is tied with the rise of pedophilia? If you want your argument to have any steam, you're going to have to back it up. As far as 'traditional' beliefs, you are adding heterosexual in there just to help make your case. In truth, incest and pedophilia are social mores across the board, even amongst the gay community.

I'm (hopefully obviously) not trying to claim that gay marriage is going to lead to roving platoons of abusive gay fathers, lustfully ransacking orphan houses. However, I do think there is a hell of a lot of ancillary evidence that leads me to believe that gay marriage/adoption isn't something our society needs to promote, some net good that we need to force down our collective throats..

Where is this evidence? Because you've yet to present anything but bigotry and prejudice. Gay marriage isn't being shoved down your throat, it's a right the gay community wants and you're trying to stop them from having because you don't think they deserve it.

Heterosexual couples who do not want to reproduce have the capability to traditionally reproduce.

But, by not indulging that capability they are a non-child producing couple, no different than an infertile couple or a gay couple. Marriage is not solely about producing children, its about two people who love each other coming together (at least that's what I always thought, if marriage is just a 'baby farm' license then I want no part of it).

Heterosexual couples who are infertile could normally reproduce, if not for X. They are equal in capability to heterosexual couples who do want to reproduce. Equal protection - same thing goes for interracial couples.

This makes no sense either scientifically or to the topic at hand. If they cannot reproduce, then under your line of thinking, they aren't entitled to marriage. Gay couples could reproduce if not for X ('X' being the fact that they are the same sex), so anything could be placed in a variable. Your argument that denying gays the right to marry simply because they cannot produce children is flawed if not altogether irrelevant.

Let's talk realistically about heterosexual marriage, and by that I mean 'divorce'. You remember divorce right? Thats how about 60% of your glorious baby farms end, and if you want proof backing that up I'll gladly provide it. What should happen to single-parent homes, Stone? THEY aren't getting the 'wide range of ideas and viewpoints' are they? Should single and / or divorcee parents be stripped of their children because they don't have a 'traditional' family to raise them in? Again, your arguments are proved antiquated if not completely nonsensical.

We are not talking about a civil rights issue, we're talking about an issue involving social mores. In a case like this, the majority should rule. The majority does not approve of defining marriage to include homosexuals, and because of that, marriage should not include homosexuals.

The civil rights struggle began by fighting social mores, racist mores. The homosexual community deserves the same rights anyone else has. This is not something that will destory the world. There is no credible reason to deny gay marriage.

[Calliander]

Look:

1) The government should stop legally recognizing marriage. If they want to give benefits for having children, that's fine. Let each church decide whether or not it wants to let gays marry and what traditions they want to uphold. The ability to produce children and raise them should have no connection to marriage in the anyone's eyes. I realize that's the case, but that's the way I feel.

2) The benefits currently attributed to marriage by the government should be attributed, instead, to civil unions. Instead of marriage licenses, we have civil union licenses. If two people are certain that they love/whatever each other enough to be legally dedicated to one another for the rest of their lives, then they should be able to have those benefits.

This is beneficial all around for several reasons - lavish ceremonies are attributed to marriage. You've got the rings, the wedding, the reception, after parties, all of that stuff; which are all fiscally irresponsible expenditures. The only halfway decent expense there is the ring, but they generally don't increase in value like a home or a mutual fund or something. With a civil union, you can say to your significant other, "Will you join me in civil union?", you don't need rings or ceremonies (because there's no tradition with civil union) and then you can put all that money you would have normally spent on tradition into something useful - such as a savings fund of some sort, stocks, the down payment or closure on a home, etc.

Let gay people find the churches that don't prohibit their marriage if they want it. I don't see any problems with my solution. A gay couple unites under law and then they can go to whatever church lets them marry and waste their money on a wedding, and maybe get divorced in a few years just like hetero couples.

Simple as that.

[burgundy]

Last two posts are also on the money.

Veggie: I'm curious why you care whether *the state* permits gays to marry. Do your Christian beliefs require you to object to the union of two gay Sikhs or atheists when their union occurs entirely outside the sphere of your church?

I don't think anyone is arguing that independent churches should have to marry gays. At least, no one should be.

[Calliander]

You know, if the government came out and said my solution, and then got rid of alimony, I'd ask my girl to join me in civil union tomorrow.

[bbobb]

Whatever, man. Kick, whine, and scream all you want. The majority rules, no matter what you think is "right, fair, and just."

Good good, so does that mean that we can start segregation again? Oh and outlaw interracial marriage? Cause that's what the majority wanted at the time. And if the majority rules over right, fair and just then those laws should never have been overturned.

[Calliander]

Interracial marriage is bad because us white guys can't have those fat, ugly white girls anymore - all the black guys take 'em!

[bbobb]

Wake up already, dude. There was nothing to hope for in the first place.

He's got a good point there.

Burgundy - equal protection guarantees equal rights to equal people, right?

Equal protection guarantees equal rights to all people.
No people are equal. This isn't socialism here.

But what the Hell do they need an amendment for, anyway?! They go and break the law like it was nothing in order to get their marriage licenses, so they don't really need an amendment, because they'll just go and do what they want, law be damned, regardless.

Civil Disobedience, if a law is unjust then go out and break it to make your point. It's an idea that this fine nation is founded on.

In a case like this, the majority should rule. The majority does not approve of defining marriage to include homosexuals, and because of that, marriage should not include homosexuals.

See above about your majority rule.