Do you believe there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

[Deegan]

Finally we're parting in opinion - got scary there for a moment.
But with reference to the bolded portion, that sounds like "seperate but equal" to me.
The argument over marriage is not simply over the semantics of what is seen as marriage by any particular group, but since by law, the definition of marriage is of that for the purpose of property, visitation rights, child custody and so on, it extends beyond the religious contexts of. There for by law, there should be no limitation whatsoever of marriage between any of the sexes.
If churches deny to wed, so be it, the government has no right whatsoever to interceed on such matters.
However, nor does the government have the right to interceed in establishing law because of religious beliefs.

Yes, in as the example you so elouqently described, seperate but equal was a battle of shades, today we might even be close to grey. This is man and woman, hardly the thing you just cast aside, and pretend dosen't exist, I know my wife wouldn't let me get away with that. It deserves it's own title, it's own definition, if it can't stand alone, it's not real, and I don't believe that.

Just let it go, let it be, let the people decide what we should call it. I don't think were together on that right now, but I hope we don't label things as much in the future. Perhaps if we stop labels like gay, straight, left, right..........maybe we can end labels like rapist, murderer, child molesters, maybe just maybe, we can erase those as well.

 

[jfuh]

Yes, in as the example you so elouqently described, seperate but equal was a battle of shades, today we might even be close to grey. This is man and woman, hardly the thing you just cast aside, and pretend dosen't exist, I know my wife wouldn't let me get away with that. It deserves it's own title, it's own definition, if it can't stand alone, it's not real, and I don't believe that.

Just let it go, let it be, let the people decide what we should call it. I don't think were together on that right now, but I hope we don't label things as much in the future. Perhaps if we stop labels like gay, straight, left, right..........maybe we can end labels like rapist, murderer, child molesters, maybe just maybe, we can erase those as well.

The problem with letting the ppl decide is look at how the ppl decided on segregation? Yet how do we look at that same concept today after it was forced through as unconstitutional by the courts.
In the yesteryears women had no rights either and for women to express an opinion was seen as insane as well, again, how was it voiced in popular opinion?
In the religious sectar, sure it can stand alone in any definition you would like. However in the public and legal sectar, there is no seperate but equal. Marriage in the eyes of the law is nothing more then a union between two consenting individuals. The "real" that you mention has nothing to do with the piece of paper that city hall hands down to you. But everything to do with the true emotions and trust between you and your spouse.
The paper is merely a recognition by the state of your union which automatically affords upon you a variety of benefits and rights shared between the two of you.
I too would rather not debate this issue, because to me it's not an issue that needs discussion anymore, homosexuals should be allowed to marry without and prejudice or bias from anyone else.

From what I see the only reason this issue was brought up by one of the fundamentalists of this site was to flame and entice emotional response as a rallying cry in favor for a specific political party.

 

[Deegan]

The problem with letting the ppl decide is look at how the ppl decided on segregation? Yet how do we look at that same concept today after it was forced through as unconstitutional by the courts.
In the yesteryears women had no rights either and for women to express an opinion was seen as insane as well, again, how was it voiced in popular opinion?
In the religious sectar, sure it can stand alone in any definition you would like. However in the public and legal sectar, there is no seperate but equal. Marriage in the eyes of the law is nothing more then a union between two consenting individuals. The "real" that you mention has nothing to do with the piece of paper that city hall hands down to you. But everything to do with the true emotions and trust between you and your spouse.
The paper is merely a recognition by the state of your union which automatically affords upon you a variety of benefits and rights shared between the two of you.
I too would rather not debate this issue, because to me it's not an issue that needs discussion anymore, homosexuals should be allowed to marry without and prejudice or bias from anyone else.

From what I see the only reason this issue was brought up by one of the fundamentalists of this site was to flame and entice emotional response as a rallying cry in favor for a specific political party.

Come on now, we are not of the mind set of 1812, or even 1912, to make those comparisons are not at all honest, nor are they helpful. I agree, all need to be equal, all as they are male, female, and life creating beings. Their future decisions mean little in the grand scheme of this, but they must be, what they must be. I could live without the title, but life couldn't, and we all know that we depend on our breeders. Our breeders deserve a name, and when they do it well, and do it to the best of their ability, they deserve a medal.

I think we can all agree that this is a world all to it's own, and can respect that unit.

 

[jfuh]

Come on now, we are not of the mind set of 1812, or even 1912, to make those comparisons are not at all honest, nor are they helpful. I agree, all need to be equal, all as they are male, female, and life creating beings. Their breeders deserve a name, and when they do it well, and do it to the best of their ability, they deserve a medal.

I think we can all agree that this is a world all to it's own, and can respect that unit.

With respect to women's rights, racial minority rights, no we're not in the mind set of those back then anymore. However it is the same mentality of segregation against gays today as it was against race back then. With respect to race we need not go back all the way to 1912 or 1812, but simply to the 1950's~1970's. Who's to say that in 10~20 years from now, you and I won't be looking back on this and reflecting on another issue (I don't know, genetically enhanced humans?) and thinking the seperation on homosexuals is rediculous?

On issue with reproduction, in todays day and age, even immaculate conception is completely possible - in vitro fertilization. As is the case with gay's having offspring through either surrogate carriers or genetic fusing of the parent's genes (all the offspring would be female though).
Additionally, marriage does not neccessitate reproduction. As you say there should be another word for it, well don't like to say this, but that's a semantics argument and you've presented the word already, that being breeders.

 

[Deegan]

LOL, you guys are kidding yourselves here, gays have moved on, they are stars in our Hollywood movies, represented on our everyday programs, and have become a much accepted part of this society. But to suggest that once you choose a gay lifestyle, that you always have to choose that lifestyle, is not at all the truth, but we try hard to legitimize it, rationalize it, and criticize it, but it's all about choice, and it should work both ways. Even if someone
was born with a gene that makes them attracted to the same sex, if that gene was so certain, so certain that life had not skipped a beat, or become weak in it's progression, how do explain that, do you now return to nature, or the grand scheme to explain all of this, you now sound like the same dreamers you so often dismiss.

 

[jallman]

LOL, you guys are kidding yourselves here, gays have moved on, they are stars in our Hollywood movies, represented on our everyday programs, and have become a much accepted part of this society. But to suggest that once you choose a gay lifestyle, that you always have to choose that lifestyle, is not at all the truth, but we try hard to legitimize it, rationalize it, and criticize it, but it's all about choice, and it should work both ways. Even if someone
was born with a gene that makes them attracted to the same sex, if that gene was so certain, so certain that life had not skipped a beat, or become weak in it's progression, how do explain that, do you now return to nature, or the grand scheme to explain all of this, you now sound like the same dreamers you so often dismiss.

Okay, I have to step in and say something now...no we are not stars...everytime a movie comes out with anything remotely homosexual in nature as its premise, we have to take a lot of flack just for enjoying the idea that a movie was made about us at all. Look at the whole brokeback mountain bs...the movie had barely any sexual overture...most of it was the two of them arguing...but what was discussed right here on this very forum..."oh I dont want to go see two homos doing it".

And its true...it is all about choice...all about the right to make a choice to live your life true to your feelings and to have peaceful enjoyment of that life. I dont personally give a damn about a gay gene because that is not what it comes down to...it comes down to the right to make whatever choice you feel like so long as you are not harming another. Currently, as the law stands, we dont enjoy that right to choice and peaceful enjoyment...and there is a movement in our society to preemptively define that right away before it ever even exists.