the presidents marriage ammendment (1 Viewer)

[jennyb]

to .me,this is tatamount to descrimination,ifeel that whether two males, two women or a man and a woman,love each other, they should be allowed to marry. if any of them are not given this right, and i believe it is a humane right,then they are being treated 'less than', and that my friends IS descrimination. if not, someone who does not agree please make the argument for me, without use of the bible, i dont feel this is a biblical thing, i feel it is an emotional and humane thing.

 

[Diorling]

I agree. Like Maragaret Cho said, this is not a gay issue...this is a human rights issue.

There is no un-Biblically driven reason why gay people cannot get married that hasn't been disproven.

Why cant people just admit that they're bigoted? Dont hide behind the Bible, then expect us to still respect it.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Yeah, Im getting sick of people posting the argument that 'allowing gay marraige would just water down our current civil liberties'. That makes no sense when you're already discriminating againt citizens in the first place. Allowing gays to marry would give more civil liberties, which would actually be making the country more just and more civil.

 

[Thorgasm]

No one has ever told me what marriage needed defending from? It is the silliest thing since the Flat Earth Society. You can't use true logic and oppose gay marriage.

Not only is this a response to Bush's low poll numbers and loss of support from his base, they have timed it so that the media will talk about it all summer. Everytime there is a Pride parade the talking heads will show outrageous footage. O'Reilly will shout down guests and call them "pinheads". Hannity will be shouting down people and come just short of calling them "freaks". Rush will wrap himself in the flag and blame Clinton for our "loss of morals", then later will justify the amendment by using Clinton's DOMA.

I just hope that people see it for what it is. There is no sense to this amendment at all.

 

[Captain America]

So...........

How many threads on this does this make?

5? 6?:roll:

 

[jennyb]

i agree with all of you as you all basically said the same thing i did. this president and his low poll numbers ,even though he says he doesnt pay attention to polls, is full of it. there are so many things going wrong at one time he doesnt know whether to **** or go blind. rise in oil prices,jobs shipped over seas health care the high cost of drugs katrina,....man he better pray, as should we all that there isnt an earthquke, volcano blow or another katrina this summer. sheeeeeesh if i were this guy i would think that now is the time for him to go hide himself in some bunker somwhere and just CRY.:rofl

 

[::Major_Baker::]

First it is a group of National guard soldiers to the border for a quick publicity stunt, now this.
I love it when playing politics is so FREAKIN' obvious.

He's not foolinganyone anymore.....

 

[Zyphlin]

Man and Woman, Woman and Man. Man and man, Woman and Woman, Man Woman and Man, Woman Woman and Woman.

Hey, love is what matters

Right?


((in all actaulity rewrite the damn civil code, make all "unions" under the government "civil Unions" given the same rights as "marriage" under the law does now. Allow people to gain Civil Unions by a transaction done by the state, or the presentation of certifed marriage under a religious body. Religions can keep Marriage, "marriage" as a term is removed from the legal code, and all should be honkey dory. Let homosexuals and religious followers deal with the issue of religious marriage for homosexual people on thier own time and without the freaking government.))

Really though. If you're reasoning for why it should be allowed is "they love each other, they should be married" do you think polygamy should also be recognized as marriage and given the same rights under the law? (don't worry, I wont push the envelope too much. Under the law a minor coudn't technicaly be in the right mind to state they "love" someone till thier 18, and no way for a dog to actually express it )

 

[70s_guy]

Well jennyb I'll step up and answer your question briefly. We humans seem to be a species of animal that evolved over the last few billion years on this planet Earth. Our body structures and DNA are so closely related to many other animals in an evolutionary way no scientifically knowledgeable person would argue against that. Within the animal kingdom there are asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual species for the purpose of propagation of species. If we dismiss the myriad lower animals and just consider the mammals of which humans are a part, heterosexual species propagation is absolutely dominant without exception. The reason this is successful relates to the tendency of asexual procreation to produce inbreeding hereditary problems whereas procreation in species divided into two polar members remedies that as well as increases oppotunity for variation.

Thus male and the female division which is controlled by hormones. In nature one often finds mammal behaviors where several males compete for either individual or groups of females. Those that are strongest or that females choose become the mating male to the exclusion of other males that may end up living out their lives without ever mating. In those situations, they do not resort to sex with other males, aka homosexual, despite not being able to satisfy their innate sexual appetites. In like manner mammal females do not have sex with other mammal females. Neither do either male or females have sex with immature animals of their species, with different species, with inanimate objects, or anything else. Nor do they perform autoerotic sexual activity. And in many cases animals in the same litter or parentage do not mate male to female with each other but rather seek those outside the range they were born at. None of these other sexual forms suceeds in procreation of the species and therein lies at the reason such has not developed. So it is only the homo sapiens with our differentiating large brains that we have transgressed all these natural barriers to one extent or another.

In all species there are doubtless a small percentage of animals regularly born that have unusual hormonal balances that end up acting in unusual sexual ways. Likewise with we humans. With humans we live in a realm of immense communication far beyond that of any other animals. We have societies and culture, laws, and government etc. Now the problem many have with these other sexual forms outside of the same heterosexual activity of the other animals is that most of us believe they are not healthy for the society and culture we wish to live in. This is not something we modern people just decided but rather this has absolutely clearly been the case through most of human history. And those instances where other forms were allowed are rather universally condemned. Thus there is an immense taboo against such practices as incest and homosexuality.

One of the ceremonies that goes back in various forms in most societies and cultures is some type of marriage. Marriages are always between men and women. Usually that is one man and one woman but occasionally is one man and several women in cultures that allow such and when rich and powerful men are in control. No where have there been cultural ceremonis of female and female, or men and men, or boy and women, or man and animal. Whether you like that or not jennyb, it is just a fact of the world you were born into. Thus it is little surprise there is a large majority of humans in the world that will strongly be against changing this natural and anthropoligically historical ceremony. ...David

 

[ngdawg]

So...........

How many threads on this does this make?

5? 6?:roll:

It's a contest to see which wastes the most bandwidth-abortion threads or gay marriage ones.

Personally, I thought this was about the prez's marriage...think he hollers Oh God? Bet he calls it 'seshual innahcourse'. Gotta be jealous of the first lady-she gets to bed the biggest dick in Washington.:lamo

 

[Thorgasm]

Well jennyb I'll step up and answer your question briefly. We humans seem to be a species of animal that evolved over the last few billion years on this planet Earth. Our body structures and DNA are so closely related to many other animals in an evolutionary way no scientifically knowledgeable person would argue against that. Within the animal kingdom there are asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual species for the purpose of propagation of species. If we dismiss the myriad lower animals and just consider the mammals of which humans are a part, heterosexual species propagation is absolutely dominant without exception. The reason this is successful relates to the tendency of asexual procreation to produce inbreeding hereditary problems whereas procreation in species divided into two polar members remedies that as well as increases oppotunity for variation.

Thus male and the female division which is controlled by hormones. In nature one often finds mammal behaviors where several males compete for either individual or groups of females. Those that are strongest or that females choose become the mating male to the exclusion of other males that may end up living out their lives without ever mating. In those situations, they do not resort to sex with other males, aka homosexual, despite not being able to satisfy their innate sexual appetites. In like manner mammal females do not have sex with other mammal females. Neither do either male or females have sex with immature animals of their species, with different species, with inanimate objects, or anything else. Nor do they perform autoerotic sexual activity. And in many cases animals in the same litter or parentage do not mate male to female with each other but rather seek those outside the range they were born at. None of these other sexual forms suceeds in procreation of the species and therein lies at the reason such has not developed. So it is only the homo sapiens with our differentiating large brains that we have transgressed all these natural barriers to one extent or another.

In all species there are doubtless a small percentage of animals regularly born that have unusual hormonal balances that end up acting in unusual sexual ways. Likewise with we humans. With humans we live in a realm of immense communication far beyond that of any other animals. We have societies and culture, laws, and government etc. Now the problem many have with these other sexual forms outside of the same heterosexual activity of the other animals is that most of us believe they are not healthy for the society and culture we wish to live in. This is not something we modern people just decided but rather this has absolutely clearly been the case through most of human history. And those instances where other forms were allowed are rather universally condemned. Thus there is an immense taboo against such practices as incest and homosexuality.

One of the ceremonies that goes back in various forms in most societies and cultures is some type of marriage. Marriages are always between men and women. Usually that is one man and one woman but occasionally is one man and several women in cultures that allow such and when rich and powerful men are in control. No where have there been cultural ceremonis of female and female, or men and men, or boy and women, or man and animal. Whether you like that or not jennyb, it is just a fact of the world you were born into. Thus it is little surprise there is a large majority of humans in the world that will strongly be against changing this natural and anthropoligically historical ceremony. ...David

That was brief? Way to make a short story long! :2razz:

Marriage is a social construct. Actually, marriage is not natural in itself. It was created by mankind. As far as "anthropoligically historical ceremony" aspect goes, the same argument was made for slavery and interracial marriage. Just because something has always been a certain way, doesn't make it right, or beneficial. Remember human and animal sacrifices? Those were "anthropoligically historical ceremonies".

 

[ngdawg]

This is not something we modern people just decided but rather this has absolutely clearly been the case through most of human history. And those instances where other forms were allowed are rather universally condemned. Thus there is an immense taboo against such practices as incest and homosexuality.

Thus it is little surprise there is a large majority of humans in the world that will strongly be against changing this natural and anthropoligically historical ceremony

Actually, the 'taboo' of incest is relatively recent. Cleopatra the 7th was married to her brother. In many cultures, first cousins were paired up to keep the family riches and even royalty, fairly recently and in many countries, marry cousins, albeit 2nd, 3rd and so on. The only cases of taboo, apparently, were between parent and child.
As for marriage being 'natural', it is not. Monogamy isn't even natural to the human species-it's a choice.

 

[70s_guy]

ngdawg your incest statement does not reflect accepted anthropology. Is that due to your unfamilliarity with the subject or is it you feel a need to deflect that reality? The below are a couple links among a great many that shows the human incest taboo is nearly universal and often even reflect animal behaviors. The examples you gave are of course true and are but a few of several minority exceptions. If someone doubted how genetically problematic a practice of incest might result in, those cases certainly have made convincing proof. I could provide a great many links though these two will suffice:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042245?tocId=9042245&query=taboo

http://anthropology.net/user/gringoperdido/blog/2006/01/08/the_incest_taboo

 

[ngdawg]

I'm not deflecting reality. Of course incest is against nature, but so is marriage. Your statement that it was anthropologically and historically so was not entirely correct. So was your statement that marriage is natural.
You didn't say a thing about it being genetically wrong either. Next time, clarify or quantify, K?

 

[70s_guy]

My statements were correct because they were not absolute statements nor labored dissertations of the subject. I didn't state anything about incest being absolute through all cultures. What I did post was:

"And those instances where other forms were allowed are rather universally condemned. Thus there is an immense taboo against such practices as incest and homosexuality.".

Incest has been later universally condemned because such incest practices resulted in genetic problems that subsequent cultures noted were to be avoided.

My statement did not say that marriage was "natural" nor is that an accurate way to paraphrase my paragraph so. I merely presented what the anthropological record shows for those cultures that have marriage type ceremonies. The statement did not elaborate beyond stating it is historically only between males and females and not by any other odd combinations one might describe, ie boy and woman etc.

You state I should have wrote something about it being genetically wrong? Incest is genetically a problem and I did discuss that briefly. Or are you refering to marriage ceremonies? If so that is not a genetic matter. The basic purpose of my brief summaries are that anthropologically we humans in our many cultures have a overwhelming history of incest taboos and marriage ceremonies between male and females exclusively. And that simply provides reasons cultures and behaviors reflect that. ...David

 

[Thorgasm]

Incest has been later universally condemned because such incest practices resulted in genetic problems that subsequent cultures noted were to be avoided.

Actually, cultures had no idea about genetics. Though that is the reason for birth defects, said cultures did not cite genetics as the reason. Their reason was due to their belief that their "god" was disapproving of incest. I thought I would clarify this point. Their reasoning was religious, not scientific in nature.

I saw on television where a couple had found out that they were indeed blood brother/sister. They were both adopted and had no idea until they were already a couple. If it is so unnatural, then why could they not sense this? This is a social construct. It is also taboo for non-blood related step-siblings to have sex. It all boils down to society's opinion on the matter. There is nothing scientific about social constructs. The closest thing to science is the fact that there is a greater chance for birth defects. It doesn't always lead to birth defects though.

 

[ngdawg]

My statements were correct because they were not absolute statements nor labored dissertations of the subject. I didn't state anything about incest being absolute through all cultures. What I did post was:

"And those instances where other forms were allowed are rather universally condemned. Thus there is an immense taboo against such practices as incest and homosexuality.".

Incest has been later universally condemned because such incest practices resulted in genetic problems that subsequent cultures noted were to be avoided.

My statement did not say that marriage was "natural" nor is that an accurate way to paraphrase my paragraph so. I merely presented what the anthropological record shows for those cultures that have marriage type ceremonies. The statement did not elaborate beyond stating it is historically only between males and females and not by any other odd combinations one might describe, ie boy and woman etc.

You state I should have wrote something about it being genetically wrong? Incest is genetically a problem and I did discuss that briefly. Or are you refering to marriage ceremonies? If so that is not a genetic matter. The basic purpose of my brief summaries are that anthropologically we humans in our many cultures have a overwhelming history of incest taboos and marriage ceremonies between male and females exclusively. And that simply provides reasons cultures and behaviors reflect that. ...David

For unlabored statements, they were quite long....how is this not a 'dissertation'? The reason this is successful relates to the tendency of asexual procreation to produce inbreeding hereditary problems whereas procreation in species divided into two polar members remedies that as well as increases oppotunity for variation.

You stated: Thus it is little surprise there is a large majority of humans in the world that will strongly be against changing this natural and anthropoligically historical ceremony. ...
Marriage is NOT natural. In ancient times, as Indy has pointed out there was no 'scientific' basis to condemning incest and only the most fundamental of scientific reasons for heterosexuality-procreation. That was the only 'natural' thing that mattered.
Marriages were arranged, many times of an incestuous nature, in belief it allowed for a 'pure' blood line and the securing of wealth. And while you touched on other non-marriage pairings occurring, one which did occur and continues in many cultures is of female child/man. Also, some families 'betroth' their child to another so that a marriage of the two happens at a later time.
Of course, we know now that incestuous pairings are genetically wrong and thus, societally wrong, but just like doctors in the 1800's thought signs of festering wounds were a good thing and tomatoes were poisonous, the knowledge gained through time reversed the thinking of old for the better.
Homosexuality is more natural than marriage as it is a natural reaction to whatever trigger one believes, whether hormonal, genetic, trauma-caused, etc. and not one of arrangement for whatever reason. The fact that it is not considered 'normal' doesn't make it unnatural.

 

[70s_guy]

You continue to talk about natural. That is something you seem to be injecting into the discussion which is fine though my statements did not discuss what is natural at all. What is normal or natural is open for debate and is psychological. Such certainly had influence on the anthropological record as it influences what people do. But again whether it is natural or not bares not on the reality that most groups and cultures had taboos and these ceremonies and there has consequently been a tradition or mindset or behavior, whatever you might call it, that has been passed down through time. That bares on "why" the thread author asked. The rest of the debate on why this occurred is something you can discuss on your own.

inth's statement about incest, that it is religious and not scientific well who really knows? Some people most definetly noticed strange results from inbreeding both in cases like the Egyptian and European nobles and with animals some bred experimentally at great length as with animals like cattle and dogs. We can only speculate why common people among many cultures long ago believed what they did. Thus you can describe such with probabilities at best and not what appears more like you are quoting some respected reference. ...David

 

[Thorgasm]

You continue to talk about natural. That is something you seem to be injecting into the discussion which is fine though my statements did not discuss what is natural at all. What is normal or natural is open for debate and is psychological. Such certainly had influence on the anthropological record as it influences what people do. But again whether it is natural or not bares not on the reality that most groups and cultures had taboos and these ceremonies and there has consequently been a tradition or mindset or behavior, whatever you might call it, that has been passed down through time. That bares on "why" the thread author asked. The rest of the debate on why this occurred is something you can discuss on your own.

inth's statement about incest, that it is religious and not scientific well who really knows? Some people most definetly noticed strange results from inbreeding both in cases like the Egyptian and European nobles and with animals some bred experimentally at great length as with animals like cattle and dogs. We can only speculate why common people among many cultures long ago believed what they did. Thus you can describe such with probabilities at best and not what appears more like you are quoting some respected reference. ...David

You brought the word natural into the debate, she quoted you.

It is ludicrous that you think cultures had knowledge about genetics centuries ago. I will give the Egyptians credit for knowing the world was round before anyone else. Even they didn't know about genetics. Nor did the Greeks nor the Chinese. You can try to throw doubt into whether they did it because scientists told them it was bad genetics. I would love for you to cite a source that supports it. Until then, any anthropologist will tell you that cultures instituted social constructs due to local superstitions, and that is the real reason.

 

[ngdawg]

You continue to talk about natural. That is something you seem to be injecting into the discussion which is fine though my statements did not discuss what is natural at all.

Yours, not mine: In nature one often finds mammal behaviors where several males compete for either individual or groups of females.
Yours, not mine: Thus it is little surprise there is a large majority of humans in the world that will strongly be against changing this natural and anthropoligically historical ceremony.

Please take some ginseng and get back to us. Don't worry, it's natural....:mrgreen:

 

[70s_guy]

Despite including the term natural to describe marriage, I did not attempt to further argue marriage is natural but rather it is anthropologic history. If you wish to expand and state marriage is not natural, like I said fine, that is debatable though not of interest to my point.

And inth, your genetic comment is at best speculative as I related. Not something worth expanding on for my purpose of addressing the thread author.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

70s_guy,

Great post!

 

[Jerry]

to .me,this is tatamount to descrimination,ifeel that whether two males, two women or a man and a woman,love each other, they should be allowed to marry. if any of them are not given this right, and i believe it is a humane right,then they are being treated 'less than', and that my friends IS descrimination. if not, someone who does not agree please make the argument for me, without use of the bible, i dont feel this is a biblical thing, i feel it is an emotional and humane thing.

I have no idea how to debate emotion, so I'll just present my reasons why I can not support same-sex 'marriage:
1. Gay 'marriage promotes the sexist notion that women/mothers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
2. Gay marriage promotes the sexist notion that men/fathers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
3. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual abuse;
4. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual immaturity in those who lack a proper male role model while growing up;
5. Gay marriage promotes the notion that Gender Identity Disorder, to any degree, is "normal, natural and healthy";
6. The legal argument supporting gay marriage must also allow for polygamy, incest and pedophilia;
7. Gay marriage advances Lesbian Feminism (Queer By Choice)
8. From The Nakid Communist by W. Cleon Skousen, pg. 253:

Current Communist Goals:
#16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
#26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.
#40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Aside from that, though, the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as any similarly worded state gay 'marriage ban, will not hold together because it does not state a 'fundamental right' to be protected nor 'compelling state interest' to be served.

Traditional folks who ban together behind such similarly worded gay 'marriage bans are setting themselves up for extreme disappointment, because the DoMA is not real law. It wasn't when Clinton signed it in '98 and it's not now. It's a political vending machine, nothing more.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Jerry,

1. Gay 'marriage promotes the sexist notion that women/mothers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
2. Gay marriage promotes the sexist notion that men/fathers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
3. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual abuse;
4. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual immaturity in those who lack a proper male role model while growing up;
5. Gay marriage promotes the notion that Gender Identity Disorder, to any degree, is "normal, natural and healthy";
6. The legal argument supporting gay marriage must also allow for polygamy, incest and pedophilia;
7. Gay marriage advances Lesbian Feminism (Queer By Choice)
8. From The Nakid Communist by W. Cleon Skousen, pg. 253:

Based on this reasoning I do not think I can support it ether. Good post.

 

[Sir_Alec]

I have no idea how to debate emotion, so I'll just present my reasons why I can not support same-sex 'marriage:
1. Gay 'marriage promotes the sexist notion that women/mothers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
2. Gay marriage promotes the sexist notion that men/fathers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
3. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual abuse;
4. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual immaturity in those who lack a proper male role model while growing up;
5. Gay marriage promotes the notion that Gender Identity Disorder, to any degree, is "normal, natural and healthy";
6. The legal argument supporting gay marriage must also allow for polygamy, incest and pedophilia;
7. Gay marriage advances Lesbian Feminism

Yeah, I think you're forgetting the real reason why people get should get married in the first place: Because they love eachother! Gay marriage only allows for two things: Love and divorce, so it wouldn't be any different than straight marriage. You keep insisting that it supports incest and pedophelia like marriage is only about sex. Were not talking about pedophilia or incest, were talking about 2 people who love eachother and want to make their love official. Seriously what does incest have anything to do with two people from seperate families loving eachother regardless of sex?