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

[Navy Pride]

15 -3 against so far. That's about right.

Yeah I kind of knew it would be like this...I had a hard time voting for the amendment myself........Like i said the vote in the senate is much more important............It gets the weasel flip floppers on the record on the issue....

 

[Navy Pride]

First of all, last I heard (and its been a while), Massachusetts law prevents any non-residents of ANY gender combination from getting married in the state.

And have the governments of any other states recognized same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts? Not yet. So perhaps you're overreacting.

I don't think so.........first of all eventually this is going to the SCOTUS and each state better have their own amendment by then.........

 

[jennyb]

then this country should get ready for this, this country of freedoms, and equal rights for all should, when it comes to the equal rights for all, ditch the bible,,,,,after all, it isnt everybodys textbook,

 

[Stace]

Personally I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Leave that to the churches and let them do as they best see fit, but put all of the rights to couples into a contract that doesn't use the word marriage in it.

I've gotta disagree with this one. What about those of us with no religious affiliation? I didn't get married in a church, though I didn't just go down to the courthouse, either. My marriage is no less significant than that of a couple who were married in a church, nor is it more significant than that of a couple that did just go to the courthouse.

I have a major problem with two three of the arguments presented by those that are against gay marriage:

1. The bickering over the definition of marriage. Depending on what dictionary you use, some specify that it is a union between a man and a woman, and others merely say that it is a union between two consenting individuals of legal age. So the whole "changing the definition" thing is at least partially crap. Besides, there are plenty of words whose meaning has changed/been modified over the years.....

2. The religious angle. See above. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, I have no problem with that, but the fact is, marriage is NOT strictly a religious thing, and therefore, this argument holds little weight.

3. The "sanctity" of marriage. Please. As has been pointed out numerous times in numerous debates, here and elsewhere, concerning gay marriage.....do you really consider Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage one that upheld the sanctity of the institution? Hardly. I'd rather see more committed couples being married, regardless of the gender mixture, than see more of these quickie marriages, or folks that marry simply for the benefits, etc.

 

[PricoNy]

Well , seeming I'm new to this political forum... this would be an appropriate topic for me. I am a bisexual man, I pay taxes, I live in a positive light of life, believe in a higher power (god.) I'll be damned if i were to be denied equal rights and protection in regards to the legalities of marriage or to be told that god does not except two men or two woman to have life long committments and to be noted like a heterosexual couple. Even the right to have a divorce if we wanted LOL... when it comes to this social issue i lean to the left, otherwise most other topics i tend to be centrist or slightly liberal.

 

[zymurgy]

Well , seeming I'm new to this political forum... this would be an appropriate topic for me. I am a bisexual man, I pay taxes, I live in a positive light of life, believe in a higher power (god.) I'll be damned if i were to be denied equal rights and protection in regards to the legalities of marriage or to be told that god does not except two men or two woman to have life long committments and to be noted like a heterosexual couple. Even the right to have a divorce if we wanted LOL... when it comes to this social issue i lean to the left, otherwise most other topics i tend to be centrist or slightly liberal.

Would you feel the same outrage for being denied earned income credit?

It may sound like a stupid question but it isn't. People without children are discriminated against in favor of those with kids. Why? A family with kids would place a heavier burden on goverment services then a single person, at least theoretically.

So what's the deal. Why is one form of discrimination acceptable and others are not?

I could understand if the fight was over being allowed to practice homosexuality, but at its core marriage does nothing but provide a few social benefits that wouldn't exist otherwise.

 

[jujuman13]

I personally abhor the sexual activities that so called gays get up to, SODOMY is not a good thing to practise.

Why are HOMOSEXUALS called gay, their is nothing gay about them.

Having said that,
The more Laws / Constitutional changes that get made means that the ever increasing administration gets larger and larger, this in turn costs more and in actual fact reduces the amount of independant thought you are permitted to have.

I suppose it is quite possible that Mr. Bush may well propose a change in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from joining or voting Democrat. Ok just joking.

Mr. Bush is merely trying to get his conservative base more involved in those States where a Republican is more likely to be removed from office.

This latest proposal is unlikely to be passed as it requires some 67 Senate votes and 2/3 of the States to agree the measure.

I would feel a whole lot happier if Mr. Bush set his time to try and solve the problem of an ineffective Iraq Government that is giving every indication of being unwilling to rule it's own country.
He might also find the time to deal with an ever increasing budget deficit that will leave our grandchildren paupers.

 

[jfuh]

Come on man get real...did you ever hear of activist liberal judges in Mass making law instead of interpreting it........

Activist Judges? Where in the constitution or any other law for that matter that says marriage between adults of the same sex is a destruction of the sanctity of marriage, thus illegal.
Why are you not screaming about incest? Incest is legal you know?

 

[George_Washington]

I personally am with Navy Pride on this one. I think marriage should be preserved between a man and a woman.

 

[FallingPianos]

absolutly not.

 

[jujuman13]

Homosexuality should be banned.
It is unatural, it is unhealthy (note number of AID's cases), it is abhored by the Bible as well as banned by most religions.

 

[Stace]

I personally abhor the sexual activities that so called gays get up to, SODOMY is not a good thing to practise.

Really? In case you never noticed, homosexuals aren't the only ones that practice sodomy. And from what I hear, it can be quite pleasurable.

Besides, why is it any of your business what two people choose to do in their bedroom?

Why are HOMOSEXUALS called gay, their is nothing gay about them.

That's funny, the homosexuals/bisexuals that I know are also some of the happiest folks I know.

 

[Stace]

Homosexuality should be banned.
It is unatural,

:roll: So are a lot of other things in this world...go pull something out of your pantry and take a look at the ingredients. Yup, plenty of unnatural stuff there. Hair dye? Not natural. Makeup? Not natural. Heck, even driving around in a car isn't natural. But homosexuality? Don't see what's so unnatural about it; sex is sex, regardless of the gender of the parties involved.

it is unhealthy (note number of AID's cases),

Note the number of AIDS cases in Africa. Anyone could contract AIDS; and not just through sexual activities, either.

it is abhored by the Bible as well as banned by most religions.

Whoop de doo. Religion is not the end all, be all in this world. More and more folks are choosing not to even practice a religion these days.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

the sancttity of marriage .....

There has never been any such thing. It's a dream. Look at the married people since the beginning of history who have had affairs, mistreated each other, separated etc. Some people stay together, some don't, and the fact of being married is nothing more than legal protection.
Why should that legal protection be denied to gay loving couples? Hatred is the only reason I can think of.

Bush is pushing this because he's a bigot. But then he's fuelled by religious fundamentalism, so that's hardly surprising. Shame he wasn't president when he was still being fuelled by alcohol. He'd have made some wiser decisions.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Really? In case you never noticed, homosexuals aren't the only ones that practice sodomy. And from what I hear, it can be quite pleasurable.

:rofl Nice one Stace!

 

[massive_attack]

Wow, what a "debate" LOL

First off : If god abhors gays I think maybe, just maybe he shouldn't have created them. That's just a thought.

Secondly : The bible is clear that basically all sins are equal so why all the hub-bub over this one (minor) sin ?

Thirdly : The bible is also clear that thou shalt not judge.

Fourth : The bible also says "render unto ceaser that which is his" or something. Basically saying, hey, the government wants to do stuff, don't fight it. So why all the fighting ?

Fifth : I expect all yall "oh no not gays/not gay marriage" folks were out there protesting and crying in the streets when you found out bush was calling for the death of thousands of innocent iraqis and afganistanians.

Sixth : I expect yall religious types are equally as outraged that america bombed the crap out of the japanse civilian population during WWII.

Seventh : I expect that same group is also near sick to their stomach over capital punishment. Not exactly following Jesus's teachings there, NOW IS IT ?

Eighth : It is strange that God would put a bunch of nerves that cause pleasure in the anus when he doesn't want you to stimulate them !

Ninth : It's just homosexuality, seriously - get over it already.

Tenth :I take it for granted that you know about homosexuality/bisexuality in other parts of the animal kingdom ? LINK, LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK

Man if you don't think that's funny I don't know what is.
​

How many observe Christ's birth-day! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.
Benjamin Franklin


note : I see nothing in the rules prohibiting the posting of such an image. Enjoy.

 

[jfuh]

Note the number of AIDS cases in Africa. Anyone could contract AIDS; and not just through sexual activities, either.

Add onto that India, Thailand, Russia, the US that are contracted through bad hygine, ignorance, accidents and so on.

 

[George_Washington]

It seems some of you guys are saying that because relations between two sexes are allowed, therefore, marriage should also be allowed. But that's really not the issue. I don't care what two people do together by themselves in their own rooms. Is it immoral or not immoral? Who knows. That's just not the issue. We could sit here and debate the moral implications of homosexuality all day but it wouldn't get us anywhere.

The issue is whether or not marriage, the legal definition of the term, should be preserved between a man or a woman. I think it should. I think the fundamental thing that has usually been typical of marriage throughout all cultures and all history is that it has been between a man and a woman. I think we should preserve marriage as defined in the legal sense between a man and a woman, if not only to simply things. We already have enough divorce with the way things are now. Introducing a whole new meaning to marriage would inevitably result in more divorces, more laws, more paper work, and more taxes. If we, "bend the rules" this time, who's to say we won't bend them again in the future? Something that has existed for so long and so rooted in our culture would be very erronous and dangerous to change, in my opinion. The typical argument to this would be, "Well, look how it worked in countries like Holland!" Well, guess what. I would argue that it didn't really work that well. You have tons of people over there now wanting to practice polygamy. You have people in Denmark now wanting to marry children and animals. It would certainly seem that the results of same sex marriage in those countries have created a whole anarchial mess of people wanting to constantly change the definition of marriage. Where do we draw the line?

Plus, think of it this way. Why should we change around something that the vast majority of the population, probably 98% of the population supports just for around 2% of the population? I mean seriously, think about it. I think only about 2% of the population is gay. Why should that two percent change something that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population thinks is working just fine? Furthermore, why should a person's lifestyle dictate a major change in a society's framework?

Is not the majority of a nation's populace the maximum driving force of the most rational methodology?

I believe that the most moral, accurate, and logical solutions to problems almost always rests with the majority of people.

It is as plain as day that the majority of people in a nation are not criminals or violent people. It is also quite evident that most people in any given country are casual, laid back, hard working, and kind to their fellow peers. It is only the minority that are evil, corrupt, and mentally ill.

Therefore, I do not believe that such a small percentage of the population should have such power as to change a social element that is practiced by such an overwhelming majority of the population, almost certainly not because of a lifestyle or a sexual practice.

 

[Kandahar]

The issue is whether or not marriage, the legal definition of the term, should be preserved between a man or a woman. I think it should. I think the fundamental thing that has usually been typical of marriage throughout all cultures and all history is that it has been between a man and a woman.

So what? Times change.

I think we should preserve marriage as defined in the legal sense between a man and a woman, if not only to simply things. We already have enough divorce with the way things are now. Introducing a whole new meaning to marriage would inevitably result in more divorces, more laws, more paper work, and more taxes.

People who file for divorce have to pay for their own legal expenses, so how would legalizing gay marriage lead to more taxes?

By that same logic, we should ban straight marriage too, to reduce the amount of divorces, laws, paperwork, and taxes associated with divorce to zero.

If we, "bend the rules" this time, who's to say we won't bend them again in the future?

We aren't talking about bending the rules. We're talking about rewriting the rules. And why is it a BAD thing if we do that again in the future? Laws aren't set in stone, and for good reason. Are you really so arrogant as to assume that everything is perfect now, and future societies couldn't possibly have different values?

Something that has existed for so long and so rooted in our culture would be very erronous and dangerous to change, in my opinion.

We already changed it for interracial marriage. Was that also a mistake?

The typical argument to this would be, "Well, look how it worked in countries like Holland!" Well, guess what. I would argue that it didn't really work that well. You have tons of people over there now wanting to practice polygamy. You have people in Denmark now wanting to marry children and animals. It would certainly seem that the results of same sex marriage in those countries have created a whole anarchial mess of people wanting to constantly change the definition of marriage. Where do we draw the line?

Please provide a source to the rampant wave of polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality in Holland and Denmark that has begun in the last few years. This is so absurd it's almost laughable, but I'll give you a chance to back your claim up.

(By the way, same-sex marriage is illegal in Denmark.)

Plus, think of it this way. Why should we change around something that the vast majority of the population, probably 98% of the population supports just for around 2% of the population? I mean seriously, think about it. I think only about 2% of the population is gay. Why should that two percent change something that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population thinks is working just fine?

Let's summarily execute the poorest/sickest 2% of Americans every year, to reduce welfare taxes for the rest of us. :roll:

Also, are you suggesting that 98% of people oppose gay marriage? The polling data does not support that conclusion.

Furthermore, why should a person's lifestyle dictate a major change in a society's framework?

Because in a free society the burden of proof is on those who favor NOT allowing something.

Is not the majority of a nation's populace the maximum driving force of the most rational methodology?

No. God no. But HELL NO.

It is as plain as day that the majority of people in a nation are not criminals or violent people. It is also quite evident that most people in any given country are casual, laid back, hard working, and kind to their fellow peers. It is only the minority that are evil, corrupt, and mentally ill.

Therefore, I do not believe that such a small percentage of the population should have such power as to change a social element that is practiced by such an overwhelming majority of the population, almost certainly not because of a lifestyle or a sexual practice.

But they aren't changing a social element that is practiced by an overwhelming majority of the population. They aren't saying that YOU have to marry a dude.

 

[FallingPianos]

It seems some of you guys are saying that because relations between two sexes are allowed, therefore, marriage should also be allowed.

I dont think anyone at all is saying that.

The issue is whether or not marriage, the legal definition of the term, should be preserved between a man or a woman. I think it should. I think the fundamental thing that has usually been typical of marriage throughout all cultures and all history is that it has been between a man and a woman. I think we should preserve marriage as defined in the legal sense between a man and a woman, if not only to simply things.

history is no justification. think of all the things that were considered justified for thousands of years until recently. slavory and the oppression of women are the two biggest things that come to mind.

the issue is whether or not denying people the right to marry based on sex is right or wrong. its that simple.

We already have enough divorce with the way things are now. Introducing a whole new meaning to marriage would inevitably result in more divorces, more laws, more paper work, and more taxes.

more marriages means more divorces, yes. I'm not sure what you mean with the rest. doesnt matter anyway. justice can be inconvienent, thats life.

If we, "bend the rules" this time, who's to say we won't bend them again in the future? Something that has existed for so long and so rooted in our culture would be very erronous and dangerous to change, in my opinion. The typical argument to this would be, "Well, look how it worked in countries like Holland!" Well, guess what. I would argue that it didn't really work that well. You have tons of people over there now wanting to practice polygamy. You have people in Denmark now wanting to marry children and animals. It would certainly seem that the results of same sex marriage in those countries have created a whole anarchial mess of people wanting to constantly change the definition of marriage. Where do we draw the line?

we draw the line wherever it is right to do so, and certainly it would be wrong to draw it before gay marriage.

Plus, think of it this way. Why should we change around something that the vast majority of the population, probably 98% of the population supports just for around 2% of the population? I mean seriously, think about it. I think only about 2% of the population is gay. Why should that two percent change something that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population thinks is working just fine?

1) the vast majority doesnt think its working just fine, or all this debating would not be happening. 43% of oregon does not think its working just fine.

2) because the majority is wrong. justice cannot be based on the majority opinion, otherwise we might as well set up our government as a pure democracy.

Furthermore, why should a person's lifestyle dictate a major change in a society's framework?

the change has been long due, they have the right to it.

I believe that the most moral, accurate, and logical solutions to problems almost always rests with the majority of people.

just wait until you are a minority, im sure you are in some way. do you really think justice can be properly served by allowing the majority, i.e. the people with power, decide everything?

It is as plain as day that the majority of people in a nation are not criminals or violent people. It is also quite evident that most people in any given country are casual, laid back, hard working, and kind to their fellow peers. It is only the minority that are evil, corrupt, and mentally ill.

but we are not talking about people that are evil, corrupt, mentally ill, criminals, violent, uncasual, unlaid back, unhard working, and unkind. we are talking about homosexuals.

 

[hipsterdufus]

33-4 let's move on to something that matters....

 

[zymurgy]

33-4 let's move on to something that matters....

Go ahead. We aren't the borg.

 

[Hoot]

The focus shouldn't be on religious beliefs, or whatever the term marriage means to you, but whether the constitution, which was written to preserve and defend the rights of the people, such as, women's suffrage, right to bear arms, right to a fair trial, abolition of slavery, civil rights...etc...etc...

Whether the constitution should have a 'negative' amendment? Something designed to limit, or qualify rights of a certain group of people?

An amendment like this has no place in our constitution.

 

[FallingPianos]

33-4 let's move on to something that matters....

if only the congress felt the same way...

 

[jfuh]

if only the congress felt the same way...

The senate seemed to agree today. They essentially killed the bill.