Why Ban Gay Marriage?

[Androvski]

My parents have been married for 14 years and I have a girlfriend who I plan to marry in 3 years. Let me tell you all something i might not know everything but you know what? That's fine anything you say about me is completely fine, but the thing is I have dealt with even half the stuff you have mentioned you wanna' know why? because my dad was deployed to Iraq for 6 freakin' months. It was just me my mom and my other 3 siblings. i had to take care of some bills, but you all have no idea or care for children let alone so decent respect toward others. I might have said you ahve the responsibilty of a monkey, what I meant was that of a rock! So shut your mouts sounds to me you all are the ones who need a spankin'. Oh....and real clueless you must have the IQ of a rock to...you spelled responsible wrong, it's spelled w/ an "s" not a "c"...Deepest Gratitudes...Real_American15 & Real straight!...Dismissed!

Some of us do have children,I have two sons one 18yrs old and one 16yrs old.
They are both well adjusted,mature,RESPECTFUL young men,who have been taught not to judge or condemn anyone.
They have had a loving upbringing and although their Mother and I have lived apart for many years,we have always pulled together for our kids!

 

[Real_American15]

LOL :2funny:

After all that and all you can do is nitpick one word spelling? Dear, try hitting the "spell check" button. You missed a lot in your little rant.
BTW: The "real_clueless" was to you, not me...try knowing how to read quotes.
Oh and I almost forgot... :2bigcry: boo hoo. You're daddy went off to Iraq. You know what? So did a whole crap load of other people's daddies and Mommies. You know what else? They knew what they were signing up for. They are all being used as cheep pawns in an illegal war and all you can do is come here and whine about it...but you have the audacity to complain about other people's respect to you? How about you learn to show some first?
I don't let my son talk to adults the way you do, but you dare to try to check me on respect? Sorry, you have not earned any as far as I have seen.


I tried to be nice to you, but all you could do is lay into other posters like some punk with a massive chip on his shoulder.
Yeah, I lost my cool, for that and only that, I apologize. But don't expect me to bow down to you or your miserable excuse for righteousness, because it just won't happen.

I am completely sorry I have not earned anyone's respect. The way I talk to adult's, huh? You know your right. An Illegal War? Why illegal? To my understanding we as americans had every right to go to Afghanistan and Iraq. Who the heck cares about "nulear weapons" in Iraq, we freed a country from a very harsh dictator. Maybe, that's not true but if George W. Bush is what you call a "War Criminal", he'll just have to live with that all of his life. Once again I apologise for my behavior. Yet, I think we both let our differences "attack" each other, at least mine did. Sorry Again. Oh one more thing don't call me punk...Call me Goofy Goober, alright?

 

[JustineCredible]

I am completely sorry I have not earned anyone's respect. The way I talk to adult's, huh? You know your right. An Illegal War? Why illegal? To my understanding we as americans had every right to go to Afghanistan and Iraq. Who the heck cares about "nulear weapons" in Iraq, we freed a country from a very harsh dictator. Maybe, that's not true but if George W. Bush is what you call a "War Criminal", he'll just have to live with that all of his life. Once again I apologise for my behavior. Yet, I think we both let our differences "attack" each other, at least mine did. Sorry Again. Oh one more thing don't call me punk...Call me Goofy Goober, alright?

My calling you "punk" had nothing to do with your musical taste. It was about your attitude and lack of respect for your elders.
I call my son a punk all the time, but at least when I call him that he knows it's just my way to set him straight and that it's meant with all the love of a mother who isn't so uptight that I don't have a sense of humor anymore.

Apology accepted.

I just suggest that if your problem with gay marriage is solely based on your religious views, you might think about taking that up in a religious thread.

The truth is marriage has indeed been redefined throughout history, even within the history of our fair nation it has changed.

Being gay isn't really an issue that should bother anyone who isn't gay. I mean, it really doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form.
So what if your religion doesn't condone it? I mean really. Your religion isn't the be all and end all of our nations laws. It isn't what this country was founded on, it's not what we allow to dictate what our laws will or won't be.
As a secular nation you have the right to follow and practice your religion anyway you see fit as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others to do the same, or to their right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Since it's quite obvious you would never have a gay marriage, why be against it for those of us who would? Does it directly harm you? No.
Does it infringe upon your right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness? No.
Does it stop you from finding someone you might love and later marry? No.

Your religion tells you how you should live your life. Not how you should infringe upon someone else's life.

Is this making any sense to you?

I respect your religion, but I do think you still have a lot to learn about it.
You might want to check out: Whosoever.org

If you're interested that is.

Gays are human beings. We love, live, have families, pay taxes, serve our country, and do just about everything everyone else does...except in our private sex lives.

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" it's part of who we are. Just a part, not the be all and end all of our existence.
But when our country, our home, starts suggesting that because of what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms seems strange to them that we are suddenly second class citizens, that's when it becomes an issue.


It's not my life, but my pursuit of happiness and my liberty which is being infringed upon.

Yes, I may have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but the likelihood that it would be a fulfilling or honest relationship based in love would be highly unlikely. Just as you falling in love with someone of the same gender would be unlikely.
It's simply preposterous to ask me to change who I love simply because you don't understand it.

You could go off and marry someone you're family doesn't like or approve of, but you have that right to do so.
I don't have that right...and there in-lies the problem.

 

[Schweddy]

Being gay isn't really an issue that should bother anyone who isn't gay. I mean, it really doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form.

Simply not true. What you do, affects me. What I do, affects you. It's called society.

Hypothetically

Let's say that I am offended at the site of two ladies holding hands and you are holding hands with your partner at the airport. I see you two. I would be affected.

On the opposite end, let's say I break out a bible and start into a Hell Fire and Damnation preaching and screaming at the top of my lungs that all gays are heading south. Now, let's say your neighbor hears me - next week you have dinner with your neighbor and talk about that arse down the road screaming chaotic non-sense. You would be affected.

(PS, don't believe in hell - would not happen)

 

[galenrox]

Since no one responded to MY thread about this question, I'll ask it here. As far as government recognition, not religious, just government recognition, why is anyone opposed allowing gays to get married?
Like I understand people are opposed to homosexuals in general, and them coupling up in general, but I can't understand not wanting them to get the legal recognition of marriage.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Since no one responded to MY thread about this question, I'll ask it here. As far as government recognition, not religious, just government recognition, why is anyone opposed allowing gays to get married?

The federal government doesn't have the right to make a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage in any way. However, they also don't have a right to twist the definition of a word to mean something it didn't orignially intend to in the name of political correctness to appease 4% of the population. If homosexual couples want to form a union, I say let em... but those unions shouldn't be recognized under the word marriage because that would go against the very definition of the word.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

 

[shuamort]

The federal government doesn't have the right to make a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage in any way. However, they also don't have a right to twist the definition of a word to mean something it didn't orignially intend to in the name of political correctness to appease 4% of the population. If homosexual couples want to form a union, I say let em... but those unions shouldn't be recognized under the word marriage because that would go against the very definition of the word.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Any reason why you didn't include the full definition?

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

 

[galenrox]

The federal government doesn't have the right to make a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage in any way. However, they also don't have a right to twist the definition of a word to mean something it didn't orignially intend to in the name of political correctness to appease 4% of the population. If homosexual couples want to form a union, I say let em... but those unions shouldn't be recognized under the word marriage because that would go against the very definition of the word.

That doesn't answer my question.
I understand people are opposed to the actual act of gay marriage. That doesn't explain why people are opposed to the ability of gay people to marry. So once again, why is anyone opposed to giving gay people the ability to marry?

 

[JustineCredible]

Simply not true. What you do, affects me. What I do, affects you. It's called society.

Hypothetically

Let's say that I am offended at the site of two ladies holding hands and you are holding hands with your partner at the airport. I see you two. I would be affected.

On the opposite end, let's say I break out a bible and start into a Hell Fire and Damnation preaching and screaming at the top of my lungs that all gays are heading south. Now, let's say your neighbor hears me - next week you have dinner with your neighbor and talk about that arse down the road screaming chaotic non-sense. You would be affected.

(PS, don't believe in hell - would not happen)

Now you've fallen into the same trap I did along with Sebastian and cnredd in the "Your child is a homosexual" thread.

 

[Schweddy]

Any reason why you didn't include the full definition?

I wonder if ShamMol could get his hands on a very old < 1860's law dictionary and post the definition from it here for us?

I bet that would be interesting.

 

[galenrox]

I wonder if ShamMol could get his hands on a very old < 1860's law dictionary and post the definition from it here for us?

You oppose gay marriage, right? I'm really just looking for an explanation, and I just can't seem to get it. Why do you oppose gay marriage?

 

[Schweddy]

You oppose gay marriage, right? I'm really just looking for an explanation, and I just can't seem to get it. Why do you oppose gay marriage?

Morally, I think it's wrong.

Legally, I am still unsure. States have a right to put whatever they want in a contract and marriage is just that. A contract between the state and 2 persons - some states have that defined as between a man and a woman. Others do not, but still carry the tradition of it being between opposite sex partners. One state in particular has removed that tradition.

 

[shuamort]

Morally, I think it's wrong.

So is it gay marriage that you think is morally wrong or is it homosexuality?

 

[galenrox]

Morally, I think it's wrong.

Legally, I am still unsure. States have a right to put whatever they want in a contract and marriage is just that. A contract between the state and 2 persons - some states have that defined as between a man and a woman. Others do not, but still carry the tradition of it being between opposite sex partners. One state in particular has removed that tradition.

Do you think that it's ok for states to not allow this contract between 2 members of the same sex and the state? If so, why?

 

[JustineCredible]

I wonder if ShamMol could get his hands on a very old < 1860's law dictionary and post the definition from it here for us?

I bet that would be interesting.

I'm sure it would, as it would undoubtedly also exclude interracial marriage as well.

So, I guess that definition from that era might read:

One white man, one white woman
One black man, one black woman
No Mixing of the races...etc.

How about we go further back and find laws which forbad interfaith marriages as well?

Or laws which forbad the disabled from marrying?

Or anyother variation of marriage laws which are no longer adhered to or have actually been changed?

It would be interesting indeed.

 

[JustineCredible]

Morally, I think it's wrong.

Legally, I am still unsure. States have a right to put whatever they want in a contract and marriage is just that. A contract between the state and 2 persons - some states have that defined as between a man and a woman. Others do not, but still carry the tradition of it being between opposite sex partners. One state in particular has removed that tradition.

No, not at all. That one state still honors your idea of a "traditional" marriage as well as offering the legal contract to gays as well.

No state has "removed that tradition" at all.


And as far as your moral conflict, you are entitled to it, but you are not allowed to force our laws to reflect it while denying all other definitions.
What you see as morally wrong, would indeed be morally wrong...FOR YOU.
I don't believe the way you do, therefore it's not morally wrong to me.

Personally I think it would be morally wrong for a straight person to enter into a same sex marriage, just as I would see it to be morally wrong for a gay person to enter into an opposite-sex marriage.
But that's my interpretation of morality and how I apply it to my life.
I am not entitled to force anyone else to live by my morality.

 

[shuamort]

I wonder if ShamMol could get his hands on a very old < 1860's law dictionary and post the definition from it here for us?

I bet that would be interesting.

Well, back then, a wife was considered more property than person to the husband legally. A woman lost many rights such as owning land and property that she had when single then transferred to her husband upon marriage. (The suffrage movement of the 1920s helped change all of this and property rights in marriage started to swing the opposite way and the pendulum is finally starting to settle in the middle where it should be.)

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Well, back then, a wife was considered more property than person to the husband legally. A woman lost many rights such as owning land and property that she had when single then transferred to her husband upon marriage. (The suffrage movement of the 1920s helped change all of this and property rights in marriage started to swing the opposite way and the pendulum is finally starting to settle in the middle where it should be.)

So there we go: do Vauge, the gentleman from the south and redneck want to maintain tradition so they can enslave their wives?

 

[Schweddy]

So is it gay marriage that you think is morally wrong or is it homosexuality?

Homosexuality. I could careless what anyone does in private - even my own personal friends. Whatever they get their kicks out of is ok with me. I just do not want it to be glamorized and promoted in public. Many homosexuals have said that being gay is something that they hope their children or anyone would ever have to endure. Promoting it only creates more of that dissonance.

Remember when I said that kids are going to counselors at my wifes school and worried that they are NOT gay? Some want to be gay but do not understand why - it is becoming a fashion statement. The most positive and popular kids at her school are admitted gays. Hard to believe from us conservative old timers. I bet its equally hard to believe in the gay community. For those that do not know, my wife is a Junior High Art teacher.

Do you think that it's ok for states to not allow this contract between 2 members of the same sex and the state? If so, why?

I am starting to think that the state should keep its nose out of our business. But, we simply have to live by what is on the books and change them later. Again, I am confused about this legally. My thoughts are wavering and really not sure what to think.
On one hand, the state has the authority not to allow gay marriage. On the other, allowing it is promoting it.

 

[galenrox]

So there we go: do Vauge, the gentleman from the south and rednuck want to maintain tradition so they can enslave their wives?

God knows I do, then maybe she could learn how to cook! (God, I hope she doesn't read this, she would knife me in the groin area)

 

[Schweddy]

I'm sure it would, as it would undoubtedly also exclude interracial marriage as well.

It is my understanding, and want to see if it's true, that marriage license was only required for interracial marriages back then.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Homosexuality. [snip] I just do not want it to be glamorized and promoted in public.

Do you know something Vauge? Most of us gay people lead pretty mundane lives - we go to work, we cook, clean, go to the supermarket, argue, wash the dishe - oh, and occasionally have sex!

If you let us have equal treatment in all areas of life, we would cease to be of any great interest to anybody, and your alleged problem would disappear.

How about it?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

God knows I do, then maybe she could learn how to cook! (God, I hope she doesn't read this, she would knife me in the groin area)

Then "cuddly" would be your only asset!

 

[JustineCredible]

It is my understanding, and want to see if it's true, that marriage license was only required for interracial marriages back then.

I think it was a state by state issue at that time. Before Loving vs. Virginia that is.
The Loving couple moved from their home state/commonwealth of Virginia to be legally wed in DC which did not prohibit interracial marriages.
When they were fed up with their living conditions in DC they decided to move back home to Virginia to be with their families, where upon a citation to arrest them was issued by the commonwealth. Their home state/commonwealth did not only prohibit interracial marriages, it prohibited the cohabitation under a marriage granted by any other state, commonwealth, or district as well.
They hightailed it back to DC where they along with the ACLU took their case to the Supreme Court which then declared the prohibition of interracial marriages to be unlawful.

(This, of course, is the short version)

 

[JustineCredible]

I am starting to think that the state should keep its nose out of our business. But, we simply have to live by what is on the books and change them later. Again, I am confused about this legally. My thoughts are wavering and really not sure what to think.
On one hand, the state has the authority not to allow gay marriage. On the other, allowing it is promoting it.

...and yet, on another hand allowing an amendment to prohibit it, or DOMA is a direct infringement of the Bill of Rights, not to mention a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.