Federal anti gay marriage amendment moves forward.

[Navy Pride]

[Who said anything about conviction? I was responding to your post:/QUOTE]

And I was pointing out that they have all not been convicted..Only about 1% have......

Which is false since 4% were accused, and not only for homosexuality but pedophilia.

no argument there

I would love to see your source of none Catholic churches having accusations of homosexuality and pedophilia.

There is no vendetta against other churches like there is the Catholic church but believe me what has happened there is a reflection of the whole society........

 

[YamiB.]

We are treated equal wjen it comes to marriage.......a man or a woman can marry anyone of the opposite sex......Gays and Polygamists and other groups want special rights..............

So interracial couples were asking for special rights when they fought for their right to marriage?

 

[Navy Pride]

So interracial couples were asking for special rights when they fought for their right to marriage?

Interracial people marry the opposite sex.

 

[debate_junkie]

As I have said many time To me it has very little to do with religion.....

Isn't it ironic though becasue when someone has a difference of opinion on the issure the liberals like you start with the homophobe and bigot name calling.....

That is the sad part.....

wow, I'm at a loss for words, Navy. I seem to recall you doing the exact same thing, on various different issues. hmm, a little of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality going on here?

 

[aps]

There is a great editorial in today's New York Times about this issue. The author suggests that if the republicans want to write in a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, since they feel that such should be in the Constitution, why can't the democrats seek to amend the Constitution to include a right to privacy? Some conservatives believe that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Well, for those of us who believe that there is a right, let's amend the Constitution to provide a right to privacy.

This way, the conservatives can get their amendment and we can get ours. I think that is totally fair.

Here is the link to the article. I believe that you have to be a member to access it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/opinion/16savage.html

 

[Binary_Digit]

What the heck is "sanctity of marriage" anyway? My dictionary defines sanctity as "holiness; sacredness" so what part of marriage is sacred? The 1 man & 1 woman part? Why? Why that, and not all the other personal criteria that someone could add on?

Ok, here. To protect the "sanctity of marriage," I propose an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, of the same race, same economic class, same religion, both fertile and capable of having children, and neither having any STD's or other serious illnesses. For the sanctity of marriage, put that in the Constitution quick! :roll:

 

[UtahBill]

[QUOTE

There is no vendetta against other churches like there is the Catholic church but believe me what has happened there is a reflection of the whole society........

Actually, there are groups all over the place that have vendettas against other religions. The internet is full of them. There are even athiest groups that are against all religion. That part is strange to me, but I am for allowing people their beliefs (aka freedom of religion) as long as their beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others.

I think the real issue for the Catholic Church situation was the attempt to cover up the offenses. If the church leadership had acted swiftly and decisively to defrock and excommunicate the priests as soon as these abuses came to light, the public opinion would have probably been positive towards the church. The whole issue would have been over decades ago.

 

[Navy Pride]

wow, I'm at a loss for words, Navy. I seem to recall you doing the exact same thing, on various different issues. hmm, a little of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality going on here?

Other then calling someone a lefty or a liberal can you cite and example where I did that?

thanks

 

[Plain old me]

Interracial people marry the opposite sex.

Just to throw in my preverbial two cents here...

...I would argue that this whole arguments is extremely subjective. You clearly see it that we all have the same rights...as in to marry the opposite sex...but what about someone who would instead define the right as 'the right to marry someone of the gender you are attracted to'

By the interacial bit, people could have argued that in the old days interacial couples had the same right as non-interacial couples...that is to marry someone of the same 'race'....and that by asking to marry someone of a different 'race' were asking for an extra right.

again, just my :twocents:

 

[UtahBill]

paraphrasing Rodney King, and Bobby McFerrin

why can't we just all get along, and live together, with or without marriage, to opposite or same sex, to same or other colors and races, and just be happy?

Why do so many of us have to stick our noses into the pursuit of happiness of others?

Why do athiests attack religionists?
Why do religionists attack each other just for having a slightly different interpretation of the same damn book?

I think the answer lies in that it is the worst part of our human nature, the part that causes so many of us to be just plain old everyday assholes.

 

[jallman]

My problem with this "amendment" isnt so much in what it espouses. I believe marriage is a religious institution and so, is defined by the timeless traditions of the religion. Civil union, however, is the domain of the government and should be offered as an alternative.

What does bother me about this amendment is that it is a continued blurring of the lines separating church and state. It seems the religious right (and admittedly are responsible for this legislation) are hijacking our constitution and using it for their own ends. I also dont like the blatant intent to exclude inherent in the bill. It just seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

 

[UtahBill]

My problem with this "amendment" isnt so much in what it espouses. I believe marriage is a religious institution and so, is defined by the timeless traditions of the religion. Civil union, however, is the domain of the government and should be offered as an alternative.

What does bother me about this amendment is that it is a continued blurring of the lines separating church and state. It seems the religious right (and admittedly are responsible for this legislation) are hijacking our constitution and using it for their own ends. I also dont like the blatant intent to exclude inherent in the bill. It just seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

If you keep attempting to bring logic and reason into this thread, I am going to have to go elsewhere.:lol:
I would like to see more separation between church and state, so I cannot be a good conservative, and have been told that on another forum. On the other hand, I don't think employers should have to provide benefits to same sex spouses. There might be an answer to that last issue, and that is having the insurance companies come up with a plan that allows the employee to buy, through the employer, benefits for his/her spouse of whatever gender, likewise for the children of the marriage/civil union.
That is the only financial issue here that I can think of.
As far as exclusion goes, that is a major unwritten, and often denied, tenant of most Christian religions.

 

[Deegan]

Please Mommy, make it stop!!!

I am so tired of this issue I could puke, I don't know why a logical conclussion has not been found, and this issue put to rest, once and for all! Just let those who want to form a union, form one, the government should only be concerned with one thing, age, are you old enough, that's it! As for religious unions, let those who want to marry in a church do so, those who want to do it in a courthouse, do that, what ever makes you feel comfortable. :doh

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Not good news for the proponents of gay marriage...

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110905fedAmend.htm


by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: November 9, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Washington) The federal marriage amendment was approved by a Senate sub-committee Wednesday and is likely to go to a vote of the full Judiciary Committee next week.

The sub-committee voted 5 - 4 along party lines to pass the amendment, called the "Marriage Protection Act". It defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

WHOH..now wait a minute. This amendment was voted down by the Senate just a year ago. This is ENTIRELY unconstitutional! You can't take an amendment which was already voted down, slap together a handpicked uneven group of senators, and have them vote on it privatley! This is illegal!

 

[Navy Pride]

WHOH..now wait a minute. This amendment was voted down by the Senate just a year ago. This is ENTIRELY unconstitutional! You can't take an amendment which was already voted down, slap together a handpicked uneven group of senators, and have them vote on it privatley! This is illegal!

I think they tabled the amendment at the time........I personally don't think we need a federal amendment...Let the states establish their own amendments and that is what is happening........

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I think they tabled the amendment at the time........I personally don't think we need a federal amendment...Let the states establish their own amendments and that is what is happening........

Acctually the amendment was voted down by the House. This is an outrageous illegal action! Now it passes to the Judiciary committee of which Arlen Specter is chairman. He is also chairman of the senate sub-comittee that just gave it the ok to move forward to the judiciary commitee. So now we have not only a bill which failed being illegally reintroduced to a stacked sub-committee..now we have a man who's vote counts twice on one issue!

 

[Navy Pride]

Acctually the amendment was voted down by the House. This is an outrageous illegal action! Now it passes to the Judiciary committee of which Arlen Specter is chairman. He is also chairman of the senate sub-comittee that just gave it the ok to move forward to the judiciary commitee. So now we have not only a bill which failed being illegally reintroduced to a stacked sub-committee..now we have a man who's vote counts twice on one issue!

Come on man you know better then that..If it was illegal do you think the lefties in the Senate would let it go through?

Like I said thou, we don't need a federal amendment..Let every state take care of it with their own amendment.....That will work.....

 

[JustMyPOV]

Just try to imagine, if you will, for just a moment, how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot and members of government were attempting to pass an ammendment to ban opposite sex marriage. Well, sir, you'd still be free to marry any man you want, so that makes it ok, right? No. Obviously, that would be silly. I suggest that it's not only fair, but right to allow people to make their own decisions as to who they can fall in love with and marry.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Protect the sanctity of marriage. Ban DIVORCE.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Come on man you know better then that..If it was illegal do you think the lefties in the Senate would let it go through?

The "lefties" voted no on the subcommittee. Of course, they were out numbered by 1. Hence why it passed through the first subcommittee 5-4. I don't think the dems will allow it to be reintroduced to the floor and voted on but I have my doubts because at least they're focusing on the big issues instead of sneaking around with the tiny ones.

 

[Navy Pride]

The "lefties" voted no on the subcommittee. Of course, they were out numbered by 1. Hence why it passed through the first subcommittee 5-4. I don't think the dems will allow it to be reintroduced to the floor and voted on but I have my doubts because at least they're focusing on the big issues instead of sneaking around with the tiny ones.

Your preaching to the choir.........We agree, as I already said a federal amendment is not needed.......Let the states handle it.......That will work......

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Your preaching to the choir.........We agree, as I already said a federal amendment is not needed.......Let the states handle it.......That will work......

Why should the government be in the buisiness of marriage at any level?

 

[Navy Pride]

Why should the government be in the buisiness of marriage at any level?

You lefties crack me up........I could ask you the same question about abortion.......

 

[jallman]

You lefties crack me up........I could ask you the same question about abortion.......

And you would not like the answer, but here it is chief...the government shouldnt be involving itself with abortion issues...the choice belongs to the woman alone.

 

[Navy Pride]

And you would not like the answer, but here it is chief...the government shouldnt be involving itself with abortion issues...the choice belongs to the woman alone.

Yeah the hell with the baby, just kill it if she had a bad hair day...............