To those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds...

[Jetboogieman]

Ok, this is a thread for those to support gay marriage ban based on the constitution and DOMA.

For those who do, do this. Why don't you support a repeal of DOMA and protections included in the constitution to protect people with difference sexual orientations?

I mean surely more freedom is a good thing.

And before you pull out the sanctity of marriage thing, the Divorce rate is over 50% (Could be wrong?) in the states. Not exactly much sanctity left there, is there.

 

[digsbe]

So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.

 

[Jetboogieman]

So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.

My point is, marriage is just a word now.

Society has changed, bonds are formed by the need to survive. Woman no longer need a man to survive, therefore, she has the option to leave him and vice versa.

 

[Your Star]

So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.

Why, and how does homosexual marriage undermine the sanctity of marriage?

 

[digsbe]

My point is, marriage is just a word now.

Society has changed, bonds are formed by the need to survive. Woman no longer need a man to survive, therefore, she has the option to leave him and vice versa.

This is not true for all marriages. There are still couples who take their marriage very seriously. Many do not, many abuse marriage laws, but just because society isn't perfect and the sanctity of marriage is undermined by many doesn't mean we should further undermine its sanctity.

Why, and how does homosexual marriage undermine the sanctity of marriage?

Marriage is a union between a man and woman. The roles in a marriage are that of having a husband and wife. The husband and wife roles are gender specific. A homosexual union being called marriage would warp this definition and undermine what marriage really is.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Okay so irregardless of the definition of a stupid word, as I understand it, you do support civil unions don't you?

I mean, should we really actually get all uppity about a stupid word, for it to stand in the way of somebodies personal freedom to choose who they want their partner to be, and have equal rights as a married couple? and that goes for both sides.

Republican governors have vetoed bills that contain provisions for civil unions before. SO sometimes that whole sanctity of marriage thing is bull, cause they didn't even call it that and it still got blocked.

Hawaai.

 

[CriticalThought]

Ok, this is a thread for those to support gay marriage ban based on the constitution and DOMA.

The only argument you are going to get is that the government has some interest in mandating gender roles through marriage.

 

[digsbe]

Okay so irregardless of the definition of a stupid word, as I understand it, you do support civil unions don't you?

I mean, should we really actually get all uppity about a stupid word, for it to stand in the way of somebodies personal freedom to choose who they want their partner to be, and have equal rights as a married couple? and that goes for both sides.

Republican governors have vetoed bills that contain provisions for civil unions before. SO sometimes that whole sanctity of marriage thing is bull, cause they didn't even call it that and it still got blocked.

Hawaai.

I do support civil unions. I have no problem with gays being able to serve openly in the military, have legal benefits with their partners, and be allowed to make medical decisions for each other if one is unable to.

People have the personal freedom to lawfully live how they want to. I don't really care if someone is gay even if I believe the life style is sinful. However, I don't support calling it marriage and changing the definition of marriage to fit homosexual unions.

I disagree with those governors who have vetoed civil unions. It doesn't undermine the sanctity of marriage to extent civil unions to homosexuals, as a civil union is not a marriage. I feel they most likely did it either because they were homophobic or wanted to please constituents.

 

[CriticalThought]

North Carolina is likely going to put a constitutional amendment up to vote to ban both same sex marriages and civil unions in that state. If it succeeds, it will be the 20th state to ban both same sex marriage and civil unions in its Constitution.

 

[Your Star]

This is not true for all marriages. There are still couples who take their marriage very seriously. Many do not, many abuse marriage laws, but just because society isn't perfect and the sanctity of marriage is undermined by many doesn't mean we should further undermine its sanctity.

Marriage is a union between a man and woman. The roles in a marriage are that of having a husband and wife. The husband and wife roles are gender specific. A homosexual union being called marriage would warp this definition and undermine what marriage really is.

I fail to see how allowing me, and (for the sake of argument) my lifelong partner be wife, and wife will undermine the sanctity of marriage. Why is gender so important that we must discriminate against that. And doesn't a same sex couple who love each other, honor each other, stay faithful to each other, and stick with each other through the hard times, and the good times embody the spirit of the union?

 

[JustineCredible]

So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.

By who's definition?
Even the dictionary has "redefined" what the word itself means. Heck, it even can be used to mean a merger between two companies or as a culinary term when talking about flavors or spices.
Your entire premise of "by definition." is totally based on your narrow ideal...not what the word ACTUALLY means!

 

[JustineCredible]

What makes a marriage is a long-term or ideally a lifelong commitment by two consenting adults to love, honor, support and respect each other. To join together to become one functioning unit and sometimes even to become a "family." "Although we know all too well these things don't always happen.
But by further restrictions all it does is show the next generations how little we respect the supposed institution of marriage by restricting those who may enter into said LEGAL CONTRACT.
Which brings up another aspect here. Let's please try to stop confusing LEGAL marriage with RELIGIOUS marriage. They are TWO DIFFERENT things. There is NO legal requirement to hold a religious ceremony and vice versa...well, unless you want your religious marriage to be recognized by the state/government. So, if you're assuming that all marriages are to be recognized legally by the government/state then we're talking LEGAL marriages, not religious ones.
Again, we legally allow atheists to marry...
Heck, we even allow rapists, murderers, thieves, previously divorced persons, child molesters....to legally marry!

Time to Piss or get off the pot!

 

[roguenuke]

I do support civil unions. I have no problem with gays being able to serve openly in the military, have legal benefits with their partners, and be allowed to make medical decisions for each other if one is unable to.

People have the personal freedom to lawfully live how they want to. I don't really care if someone is gay even if I believe the life style is sinful. However, I don't support calling it marriage and changing the definition of marriage to fit homosexual unions.

I disagree with those governors who have vetoed civil unions. It doesn't undermine the sanctity of marriage to extent civil unions to homosexuals, as a civil union is not a marriage. I feel they most likely did it either because they were homophobic or wanted to please constituents.

The problem with this is that you are actually trying to protect the wrong thing. The marriage contract issued by the state is a civil union. It has nothing to do with anyone's religious or personal beliefs about a union (except those wrongly included as part of anti-ssm agendas).

Maybe they should just change the name of all "marriage licenses" to civil union licenses. That way no one can "own" the word marriage because no one will be officially/legally calling themselves married. Everyone will be in a civil union. I personally think this is stupid for fights over a word and a huge waste of time and money.

 

[CriticalThought]

I personally think this is stupid for fights over a word and a huge waste of time and money.

You really buy that bull? This has nothing to do with the word "marriage". That is rhetoric when the real agenda is to do everything to keep homosexuality from becoming an acceptable part of society. Why do you think 19 states have Constituional amendments against both marriage and civil unions?

 

[roguenuke]

You really buy that bull? This has nothing to do with the word "marriage". That is rhetoric when the real agenda is to do everything to keep homosexuality from becoming an acceptable part of society. Why do you think 19 states have Constituional amendments against both marriage and civil unions?

Oh, I know. If it were just about the word, they wouldn't be so worried about keeping people from "civil unions".

I do try to debate people here, however, on the statements that they make on here. I try to only make assumptions on based on the actual posts they make, not what they might believe or what they don't post in condemnation of things that they say they believe is wrong.

Now, given that, it would probably look better for many of those on here who support SSM bans to at least condemn those states that do also ban civil unions, unless it really isn't just the word "marriage" that concerns them.

 

[hallam]

The problem with this is that you are actually trying to protect the wrong thing. The marriage contract issued by the state is a civil union. It has nothing to do with anyone's religious or personal beliefs about a union (except those wrongly included as part of anti-ssm agendas).

Maybe they should just change the name of all "marriage licenses" to civil union licenses. That way no one can "own" the word marriage because no one will be officially/legally calling themselves married. Everyone will be in a civil union. I personally think this is stupid for fights over a word and a huge waste of time and money.

I think you missed the point of the distinction. Yes, what the government gives you is a essentially a civil union. Homosexual couples should get all these benefits. However, marriage intrinsically religious context. Chang\ing the title for the government documents is what society should do. Leave marriage to the religious and have civil unions for the government. I however do think this fight means something due to the religious connotation. You may or may not be religious. But for those of us who are, marriage means that God is integrated into the marriage. Even secular heterosexual couples shouldn't use the term.

 

[roguenuke]

I think you missed the point of the distinction. Yes, what the government gives you is a essentially a civil union. Homosexual couples should get all these benefits. However, marriage intrinsically religious context. Chang\ing the title for the government documents is what society should do. Leave marriage to the religious and have civil unions for the government. I however do think this fight means something due to the religious connotation. You may or may not be religious. But for those of us who are, marriage means that God is integrated into the marriage. Even secular heterosexual couples shouldn't use the term.

Except marriage has rarely been about religion. There isn't anyone fighting to do away with Justices of the Peace being able to wed people. There aren't people fighting to include a "what is your religion" or even "are you of a religion" on the marriage license. I could almost accept that people want the word marriage to be just for religions if these were being fought for, but they aren't. It is wrong to assume that religion owns a word. It doesn't.

And, on top of that, the concept of marriage existed well before the concept of "one God". And the English word "marriage" didn't even exist when Jesus talked of "marriage". Words are just words.

 

[SheWolf]

Ok, this is a thread for those to support gay marriage ban based on the constitution and DOMA.

For those who do, do this. Why don't you support a repeal of DOMA and protections included in the constitution to protect people with difference sexual orientations?

I mean surely more freedom is a good thing.

And before you pull out the sanctity of marriage thing, the Divorce rate is over 50% (Could be wrong?) in the states. Not exactly much sanctity left there, is there.

How is gay marriage unconstitutional? And what is DOMA

 

[Coronado]

And what is DOMA

Defense of Marriage Act.

 

[hallam]

Except marriage has rarely been about religion. There isn't anyone fighting to do away with Justices of the Peace being able to wed people. There aren't people fighting to include a "what is your religion" or even "are you of a religion" on the marriage license. I could almost accept that people want the word marriage to be just for religions if these were being fought for, but they aren't. It is wrong to assume that religion owns a word. It doesn't.

And, on top of that, the concept of marriage existed well before the concept of "one God". And the English word "marriage" didn't even exist when Jesus talked of "marriage". Words are just words.

I do not deny that marriage, in the past, has had other additional meanings. However, I completely disagree that marriage has rarely been about religion. Religion has been intertwined with marriage for over 4000 years if not longer. Political, social, or marriages of convenience (except for the last couple of decades) have all been established in religion.

No one is fighting for these things because people generally don't care. However, those of us who are religious should be fighting that the Bible not be used by the Justice of the Peace to give marriage vows. Marriage is religious and should remain religious. Words are not just words. Words do have meaning.

 

[stars2heaven]

I do not deny that marriage, in the past, has had other additional meanings. However, I completely disagree that marriage has rarely been about religion. Religion has been intertwined with marriage for over 4000 years if not longer. Political, social, or marriages of convenience (except for the last couple of decades) have all been established in religion.

No one is fighting for these things because people generally don't care. However, those of us who are religious should be fighting that the Bible not be used by the Justice of the Peace to give marriage vows. Marriage is religious and should remain religious. Words are not just words. Words do have meaning.

Whose religious standards should we use? There are plenty of religions that condone marriage between members of the same sex, including various denominations within Christianity and the Abrahamic religions in general, and has the same religious importance to these groups as to others that don't condone same sex marriage. Are you arguing that we should only respect the views of a single religious standard? I wonder what the First Amendment has to say about that?

 

[Hicup]

Just chiming in here, haven't even read the thread, or the OP, but something occurred to me. How many people do you know that have no kids, remain married past 5, 10, 20 years? Just curious. I ask, because, although clearly married with children is no guarantee of stability, it does seem intuitively to be superior to childless marriages? Too lazy to look it up, but if anyone was so inclined I'd bet money the figure is illuminating?

Seriously, I don't know of ANY childless couples married for any extended period of time?


Tim-

 

[stars2heaven]

Just chiming in here, haven't even read the thread, or the OP, but something occurred to me. How many people do you know that have no kids, remain married past 5, 10, 20 years? Just curious. I ask, because, although clearly married with children is no guarantee of stability, it does seem intuitively to be superior to childless marriages? Too lazy to look it up, but if anyone was so inclined I'd bet money the figure is illuminating?

Seriously, I don't know of ANY childless couples married for any extended period of time?


Tim-

I dont know of anyone with children who were married for any extended period of time. That's probably because of when I was born though. Although I can say I know 3 separate gay couples who are unmarried, obviously, who have all been together without children for greater than 20 years. The oldest couple are in their sixties and have been together for quite a while longer. I only know of one heterosexual couple in my own family who have been together for that long. They have one child and are married. I dont know any other couples personally who have been together for 20 years or more, children or no children.

 

[hallam]

Whose religious standards should we use? There are plenty of religions that condone marriage between members of the same sex, including various denominations within Christianity and the Abrahamic religions in general, and has the same religious importance to these groups as to others that don't condone same sex marriage. Are you arguing that we should only respect the views of a single religious standard? I wonder what the First Amendment has to say about that?

Those religions should be allowed to observe and celebrate same sex unions. However, if a religion doesn't celebrate it, it shouldn't be forced to celebrate same sex unions. The First Amendment here is not in play. And neither is the rest of the Constitution. We are not talking about governmental laws. At least I am not. I am talking about social context and norms. Further, I know of no major religion or major denomination in America that condones same sex marriage to the point of having ceremonies within a Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque. Maybe Unitarians, but even then that may be a hit and miss as to what a ceremony would be in that church. These religious people may be okay with gay unions as I am. I have no problem with it and support it as my church does. However there is a difference between saying that homosexual couples should have the same rights as everyone else, which is covered under equal protections, and allowing homosexual marriage within a place of worship. I see no reason why equal protections and the sanity of the concept of marriage, as America understand this, can't both be supported here. If a word is just a word as roguenuke states then homosexual couples should be fine with civil unions and equal protection.

 

[roguenuke]

If a word is just a word as roguenuke states then homosexual couples should be fine with civil unions and equal protection.

Then so should everyone else. It is not an equal thing if we have two different words describing the same thing, especially since that word only would apply to two types of couples who would not fit into the "normal" reasons given for why gay marriages should not be accepted as marriages, despite the fact that many heterosexual marriages would meet those same things. It is separating things based on a characteristic being used to create bias.

And there are many opposite sex couples who do not get married in a church, synagogue, temple or other holy place. I was wed in the front yard of my husband's aunt's farm. My husband and I not only have different religious beliefs than each other, but we also have different beliefs from our family, and probably most of the world. We both believe in a higher power though and take our marriage vows to each other seriously. Very few anti-gay marriage folks however, would include our union in one that would not get to use the word marriage. That is discrimination, because it means that the one characteristic that matters to those who want the word "marriage" to remain with religions, is not whether a marriage fits into religious marriages but rather, that the genders of the people involved in the marriages are "correct" according to them.