• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

State or Consitutional Amendments or neither?

  • I believe we should have a Federal Constitional amendment to combat the activist judges.

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • The state has sole responsibility and all states should recognize every states marriages.

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • Marriage is adopted by the state - no state should have to recognize other states marriages.

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • I really do not care.

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In many states this year, we have a descision to make.

Are you for or against these proposals?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
For. All they want is recognition, give them Civil Unions and not "ruin the sanctity of marriage." Let them get the same benefits of a married couple.
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I'm still going to have to say that we should ditch civil marriages altogether.

As absurd as this might sound, giving special rights to married couples descriminates against people whom are completely incapable of attracting a mate of the opposite gender.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
I might be flamed here and unfairly loose my conservative status, but I just don't see an adequate constitutional or social argument against gay marriage.

It's equality for all.
 
G

GerryP

I do not see how allowing gay marriage will corrupt marriage as it stands now. Most marriages today are doing a pretty good job of corrupting their own. It is about equality and justice for all exactly what our consitution is based on. :cool:
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Welcome to Debate Politics GerryP. :wcm
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
I just think homosexuality is wrong. Well wrong for me anyway, I'm not a homosexual. As for whether it right or wrong for other's I'd say that's their call.

I find several thing amazing about this issue. First that the idea of two same sex individuals getting married is going to put my marriage at risk. I've been with my wife for going on 25 years now, Sue and Sally getting hitched isn't going to effect that. Here in Oregon we just passed one of these bans and the stuff the anti-gay people were sending out was saying stuff like "this is your last chance to save your marriage." Boy sure gald it passed the little woman and I were moments away from court.

Second I find it interesting that the anti-gay movement picks passages from the Bible and tend to want to follow them without exception while other passages don't seem so important. One of the main books of the Bible I've heard quoted when it comes to homosexuality being a sin is Deuteronomy. Well, Dude have you read Deuteronomy? Some of the tidbits it contains is rather striking. How about 17: 12-13 that basically says "Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest." Or 22:28-29 which tells us that a rapist must buy his victim from her father for 50 shekels. There's a whole bunch about killing this person or that whore. There's even one about eating your children. Oh, and it turns out oysters aren't allowed either. So there goes my Saturday Bar-b-que's. Of course if I'm really going to start following the Bible word for word I'll probably be spending my Saturdays killing somebody. Probably a whore, though maybe a preist. Here's a link that goes through a ton of these very bizzare Bible passages.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/notes.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/notes.html

That's what gets me about these anti-gay people. The Bible says it wrong. Okay if you say so. And another one I hear all the time "God thinks it wrong" How do these people know what God's thinking? Talk about your elitist attitudes. When I think of God I'm not sure I even know if God thinks. My perception of God is that God is an all powerful being that we mere mortals are basically uncapable of completely understanding. For all I know God may be beyond thought and thinking. And if God does indeed think I'm not going to profess that I know what it is that God is contemplating.

As for the Bible. There's a lot of good stuff in there. But if you're going to cherry pick certain items how about starting with "Judge not least ye be judged" and "God works in mysterious ways."
 

IronTongue

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
I think the ultimate question here is the source of homosexuality. Some people believe that it is a chosen lifestyle, others believe it's genetic. If it's a chosen lifestyle, then these people don't deserve any special treatment for it. However, if homosexuality is genetic or inborn, then some form of civil unions should be used.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I am going to reply by copying an earlier post I put up.



OK time for CSA to chime in with his $.02. First off I consider myself to be a very tolerant person. I know many Gay couples if thats what you want to call them I personally call them the beaver bumpers and **** gobblers and yes I have called that to there faces and the BBs laugh and say I'm just jealous and the CGs just get a shit eating grin on there face and give me a teasing giggle. I have been around Homos since I was about 10 yrs old. I am from California and my Mother is a hairdresser So of course I have been around a butt load of homos( no pun intended)
I am also comfortable enough in my own life and sexuality to not have any HOMOPHOBIA. There are others on this board that I think could be a little homophobia due to there unrelized potential of being CG however that could be a personal attack and I might get warned. (anyone up for a quickie)
SO back to the post at hand after explaining my unbiased opinion.
Should gays be allowed to be married. I am actually torn on this one. My gut instinct says hell NO! However the declaration of independece and the constitution state that all men are created equal and that everybody has the same rights. So If marriage is recognized by law how can you deny some citizens there due process. However if marriage is a religous belief between you, your spouse and god then do to case law the government needs to stay the hell out of it. So first it must be decided what the definition of marriage is. Talk about a debate that should be a good one.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Once again I find myself agreeing with Mr. CSA.

In my earlier post I got off more on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Basically my thought on that was I know I don't know, but I know it's not right for me. Whether or not it's right for someone else, don't know, honestly don't care. But I entertain the idea that just as sicking the thought of a homosexual encounter is to me, it's possible that a hetrosexual encounter might be just as sicking to a homosexual. I don't think I choose to be a hetrosexual and I think there a real chance that homosexual are making no choices either.

As for CSA_TX's post. I agree- what is the involvement of the government and the church in regards to marriage? I see marriage in a couple lights. First the union that the church grants to two people who love each other and vow to do so for the rest of their lives. Then there's the union that the states acknowledges. That is basically a business contract between two people joining them financially. I think now that the right has began to push this issue so hard there's areal chance that this may end up being a seperation of church and state issue. I also think it's sad that they choose to put some much energy into this when there are so many real problems in the world and in our country that could use their attention.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I also think it's sad that they choose to put some much energy into this when there are so many real problems in the world and in our country that could use their attention
I couldn't agree with you more Pacridge. I had a conversation with someone who shall rename nameless regarding this a few months ago. The person told me that the social issue of Janet Jackson's nipples on TV and gay marriage were the biggest issues facing our nation. I was in shock and still am that these minor issue dominate issue like the war on terror etc.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
I couldn't agree with you more Pacridge. I had a conversation with someone who shall rename nameless regarding this a few months ago. The person told me that the social issue of Janet Jackson's nipples on TV and gay marriage were the biggest issues facing our nation. I was in shock and still am that these minor issue dominate issue like the war on terror etc.
Yep! I am far more concerned about people who want to blow us up then I am with people who want to blow each other.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Yes, I strongly supported the homosexual marriage ban in Ohio, and support a federal amendment.

For my opinion, I turn to history.

Personally, I think that we ought to be tolerant of a person's personal viewpoint, but there is something that is societally wrong with homosexuality. Why?

Because, the collapses of the Greek empire, and later the Roman Empire, both occurred after those two respective societies began to acknowledge homosexual unions as equal to traditional marriage. It affects the institution of family, which is the building block of society, and removes the purpose for that society's existence.

Not even looking at the religious viewpoint that I hold, which is strongly opposed to homosexuality, as an idea, it is wrong because of its adverse effect on society.

Think about it...
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
So both the Roman and Greek empires were brought down by their acceptance of homosexuals? Interesting take, not accurate, but interesting.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Here's what I said: "the collapses of the Greek empire, and later the Roman Empire, both occurred AFTER those two respective societies began to acknowledge homosexual unions as equal to traditional marriage."

The empires were not brought down merely by the acceptance of homosexuality, but it is indicative of the direction of a society, as it was in those cases.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
bryanf said:
Here's what I said: "the collapses of the Greek empire, and later the Roman Empire, both occurred AFTER those two respective societies began to acknowledge homosexual unions as equal to traditional marriage."

The empires were not brought down merely by the acceptance of homosexuality, but it is indicative of the direction of a society, as it was in those cases.
That statement is true in that both societies began to collaspe if both societies were always collapsing. Homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world was almost universally practiced and almost universally accepted as a part of everyday life. Yet it did not exist at all in the sense in which we understand it today. Neither in Greece nor in Rome were there groups of people classifying themselves or each other as 'homosexuals' or 'heterosexuals' and regarding each other with disapproval or incomprehension. This bisection of human sexual potential seems to be a modern invention. Both Greek and Roman men and women practiced homosexuality and heterosexuality in different social circumstances, at different times in their lives and according to different religious, political and ritual obligations, without drawing any kind of ethical distinction between them. Both of these societies had long histories of homosexuality and an acceptance of it.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
This question is symptomatic of the spaghetti spine syndrome among politicians, the judiciary, and the law enforcement community.

As an example, more than 20,000 laws, having to do with the ownership, possession, and use of firearms, are currently in force. Can anyone imagine that, within that vast number of restrictions, there can be a single facet of gun control that is not covered multiple times? The problem is not a lack of laws. The problem is that the laws are not enforced as the legislators who enacted them intended.

Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

So, as the late Clara Pella used to intone in the Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?"
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
I didn't know that, Fantasea. That's incredibly interesting and useful information.

The gun law thing is mind boggling.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hello everyone,

Here's the bottom line....

In the past 200 some odd years of our nation's history, we have had 17 admendments to our US Constitution.
Each of these admendments was, basically, to uplift the rights of the people...things like abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote...etc.

This gay marraige amendment would be the first to place a limit on the rights of the people, therefore it has no place in our constitution!

As Cheney believes, I also believe that this is an issue for the states to decide. Keep big government off our backs! Hasn't this always been the Republican mantra?

Why is it the Republicans and the far right insist on messing with our constitution and dictating morals?!

Hoot
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Welcome to Debate Politics!

:wcm

The way I see it, the ACLU and company will attempt to thwart any other attempts at aboloshing gay marriage. States may decide not to condone this marriage, but somehow or another activist judges will make it relivant for gay marraige to all states .

An amendment, would keep that from happening.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
>The way I see it, the ACLU and company will attempt to thwart any other attempts at aboloshing gay marriage. States may decide not to condone this marriage, but somehow or another activist judges will make it relivant for gay marraige to all states .

An amendment, would keep that from happening. < Vague

Nonsense...we just had 11, or was it 13 states (?), that said no to gay marriage, so what possible danger is there?

As a heterosexual, what possible risk is it to me if a gay couple moves next door? What possible threat is it to me and my lifestyle?

Bottom line, once again, DO NOT mess with the US Constitution. It's fine the way it is. I live in fear anytime anyone wants to start amending our constitution.

Hoot
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Nonsense...we just had 11, or was it 13 states (?), that said no to gay marriage, so what possible danger is there?

This is my point. Those 13 states will soon be outed by an activist judge because their STATE amendments will be dubbed "unconstitutional", thus all those votes will be thrown away.

I give it less 6 months before all these voters are spat on.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
>This is my point. Those 13 states will soon be outed by an activist judge because their STATE amendments will be dubbed "unconstitutional", thus all those votes will be thrown away.
I give it less 6 months before all these voters are spat on. <Vague

I don't mean to make light of your concerns, but I think there are more pressing things to worry about in our nation than whether two people, who love eachother, choose to spend a life as a married couple.

Personally, I think this whole gay-marriage thing was a well-played diversion by Bush to take the focus off his record and the war in Iraq.

Hoot
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Hoot said:
I don't mean to make light of your concerns, but I think there are more pressing things to worry about in our nation than whether two people, who love eachother, choose to spend a life as a married couple.

Hoot
I' couldn't agree more. I said it before and I'll say it again- I'm much more concerned about people trying to blow us up, then I am about people trying to blow each other.
 
Top Bottom