Gay marriage

[5stringJeff]

Sorry... Wednesday is church and dinner. I will read up on it tomorrow morning though. That's the only question I had for you, NG... I was quite surprised, given what a staunch Constitutionalist you are usually.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Sorry... Wednesday is church and dinner. I will read up on it tomorrow morning though. That's the only question I had for you, NG... I was quite surprised, given what a staunch Constitutionalist you are usually.

ooooo, ouch! That's gotta hurt

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
i just don't want to see them put an anti-gay marriage amendment in the constitution... that would sicken me. i don't know much about the practicality and the legality of gay marriage right now, or what it will be in the future, but i do not want hate or discrimination or whatever you'd like to call it put in the most sacred document we have, the constitution.

our constitution includes people, it does not exclude them.

Well said.

 

[Trinity]

Now back to the original question.

I think this pretty much sums it up, out of the mouth of my 8 year old son,

" If men marry men and women marry women they can't have children."

 

[NewGuy]

Here is what I originally said:

Originally posted by NewGuy
If you are talking about this meeting being for the Constitution, then there could be no other way to balance power appropriately with a confederate and yet federalist system.

Power would not have been given up, though, as it was not truly established what the proper government was to be. The Declaration of Independence was used in place of the Cnstitution until it was created.

No document ever stated what the power structure was until that point.

-Therefore no power would have been given up.

None had been assigned in the first place.

They were individual states, yes. Soverign, only by behavior but not by established agreement between themselves.

Nothing was a uniform agreement and therefore there was no official government established until the Constitution created one.

Then this response:

Originally posted by gop_jeff
NG, what about the Articles of Confederation?

And how can you claim that states had no powers to give up when that was the whole basis of federalism, i.e. the states gave up some of their powers, as sovreign states, to the federal government?

Obviously in my haste of trying to explain mysellf in the style of government that we are, I overlooked an incredibly important part as gop_jeff clearly illustrated: The Articles of Confederation.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed, July 4, 1776, it was our charter. It was what we were as a collective until the Articles of Confederation were signed (Nov. 15, 1777).

The Articles of Confederation appear at first glance to be just that.- A paper stating the States are free and soverign with no central authority ruling over them.

While that is the overall perspective, the solid fact is that these people knew they needed a binding and neutral force to hold things together. Hence the following from the Articles of Confederation:

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction

-- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses -- to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted

This and other points show a desire for a solid neutral FEDERAL agency and/or body to bring individual soverign states under one rule. In otherwords, a FEDERAL Body oversees CONFEDERATE STATES by authority of the Articles of Confederation.

No power is being given up. Power is being divided. No power before this document had ever been agreed upon by anyone. This was the first proclamation of State soverignty and first proclaimation of federal government. -All in one document.

The first authority was the Declaration of Independence. -But it just gave us a morality.

The second authority, signed by all colonies as "States" was now a LAW which delegated power AND held morality. It was an agreement by the states that they held most of the power individually, soverignly, but a federal authority could THROUGH REPRESENTATION override and control--yet still be bound by this paper document.

Later, after 10 years had passed, the final authority in our ruling documentation was ratified: The Constitution (1787). This kept the morality intact. It kept state soverignty intact. It kept federal authority intact. It was proper "letter of the law" wording of how our nation was to distribute the powers of government.

In my haste of trying to explain why we were a Constitutional Republic, I forgot the significance of the Articles of Confederation.

It needs to be noted, however, my point remains intact: No power was given up by states. The only thing that we had from the get go claiming any power by anyone was the Articles of Confederation which proclaimed a FEDERAL and yet CONFEDERATION at the same time -each with power.

If the Articles of Confederation would not have existed, then, yes--you would have a situation where soverign states gave up liberty for a Constitutional rule with a federal oversight.

However, this simply isn't true.



--(edited to fix my most obvious of spelling errors....I was tired when I wrote this. )

 

[5stringJeff]

NewGuy, I think you are right for the most part. The Articles had little power to do anything; thus, the understanding of the need for a stronger, yet limited, federal government.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
NewGuy, I think you are right for the most part. The Articles had little power to do anything; thus, the understanding of the need for a stronger, yet limited, federal government.

 

[MrMarbles]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
also, we are NOT a democratic society. We are a Representative Republic. So that argument is moot.

So your not a democracy? Thayt would explain some stuff.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
So your not a democracy? Thayt would explain some stuff.

Dude, you just missed half an entire thread.

Have a beanie.

 

[MrMarbles]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Dude, you just missed half an entire thread.

Have a beanie.

I posted yesterday, I post today. Losy of people in between, sorry.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I know I haven't been around for awhile, but here is my two cents.

To me I see no difference between homosexual and lesbian marriages when compared to inter-racial and inter-religious marriages. Those used to be outlawed for some time and eventually overall society saw it as acceptable. I think the same will apply to same sex marriages.

As far as the having children arugment, in my opinion, I don't see why having children is such an important role in marriage. What I mean is, just because you are married does not automatically require you to have children. About 40% of married heterosexual couples in 2001 decided not to have children (according to my women's studies book). The number increased dramatically from the 70s when it only was about 18% of couples back then that did not have children.

So, for me, the children argument is invalid.

 

[Trinity]

>>Is Homosexuality Beneficial?



How do people in single-parent or co-habiting households fare? Children have dramatically worse outcomes. Such “family” situations lead to more delinquent behavior— twice as likely for teenage boys. [3] Co-habitation is three times more dangerous for women than marriage, [4] up to 40 times more dangerous for children. [5] And an overwhelming majority of children living in poverty are in single-parent households. [6] Children of divorced and single parents have difficulty forming committed relationships well into adulthood, so the results perpetuate. [7]

What about homosexual couples? Admittedly there are benefits to the individuals—social comfort and sexual pleasure. But for society, their statistics are devastating. Do they produce offspring? Never. When they raise offspring, at best they compare in many ways with single parents—far below levels of natural married families. In some significant ways, they are inferior to single-parent households. [8]

Do their relationships lead to healthy people? No. Adult male homosexuals have a life expectancy twenty years shorter than the total male population; those with AIDS have even less time. [9] They are statistically more likely to suffer the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of society—as much as 6 times higher. [10]

One in almost every two gay men suffers domestic abuse that results in hospitalization. For lesbians an astounding 55% suffer violent domestic abuse. When emotional abuse is included, 83% of males and 84% of females have experienced abuse. [11] FBI statistics for 1999 showed 1,317 incidents of violence motivated by the offender’s disapproval of homosexual behavior (hate crime). By comparison, there were 650,000 incidences of violence committed by male homosexual partners, plus a similar number for lesbian partners. [12]

Studies show that 17% of young men in America are sexually abused before adulthood [13] ; nearly all of these are abused by the 1.1-1.2% [14] of the population that is homosexual. While this by no means shows that all homosexuals are pedophiles, it does imply that the pedophiles among this demographic are particularly dangerous predators. [15] Consider the situation this puts the Boys Scouts in. If they don’t allow non-celibate gay leaders, they lose funding and are accused of bigotry. If they allow them, increased lawsuits for not preventing sexual abuse are inevitable. The group NAMBLA— formerly disavowed by the gay community, but now welcomed at gay pride activities—has actually published information instructing pedophiles on how to become Boy Scout leaders, and other ways to profile, lure, befriend, and rape a child, then avoid detection and prosecution. [16]

Scientific Studies on Fidelity
At the very least, in order to be honored with marriage, homosexuals should show that they intend to live faithfully committed to each other. But social science has yet to produce evidence that there is such a thing as an exclusively faithful gay couple. Monogamy among gays is a myth.

For a decade studies have tried-and failed-to document long-term committed gay relationships. The studies are mainly intended to show that gay relationships are stable and therefore worthy of adopting children. Homosexual proponents, with an agenda, fund the studies. Yet they have failed to show evidence that homosexual couples are monogamous. Many studies are terminated early when none of the couples (who self-identified as committed couples) were still together. The longest study found one couple that reached five years before splitting. That was apparently an anomaly. [17] Of course there are some who stay together longer, often much longer. But the studies tried to show monogamy, not simply sharing an address. Until it can be proven otherwise, it is safe to assume that long-term gay relationships do not tend to be sexually exclusive. The issue is avoided by claiming they are "emotionally faithful," whatever that means.

A study showing number of sexual partners for gays found the average number at 308. [18] The high in that study was 18,000. Some suggest that the promiscuity results from homophobia in society. But studies in The Netherlands, where there is gay marriage and an open acceptance of homosexuality, have found promiscuity to be the rule. Married gays have on average eight casual sexual partners a year. [19]

In heterosexual relationships, serial infidelity is grounds for divorce; the gay community insists it is grounds for marriage


http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/secretwindow/94/0.html


will see if I can find another source on this as well.

 

[Trinity]

Here is another link

http://cbn.org/CBNNews/CWN/052804married.asp





MARRIAGE
Marriage: The Safeguard of Civilization


By Paul Strand
For CWNews

May 28, 2004


Traditional marriage in the United States is under attack. Homosexual marriage is now legal in the state of Massachusetts. Far more may be at stake in the battle over marriage than most people realize.




CWNews.org – WASHINGTON -- Some scholars say traditional marriage is the actual cornerstone of civilization. They add that, if we abandon it, we could be giving up the future of America.

Scientific studies have now proven that married people are healthier, wealthier, and happier.

Some examples:


Married men live about 10 years longer than unmarried men do.
Marrieds spend only half as much time sick and in the hospital as unmarrieds.

Linda Waite literally 'wrote the book' on the case for marriage, entitled The Case For Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially. She wrote it together with Maggi Gallagher.

She said also, "The research evidence is just overwhelming that becoming married improves mental health."

And, on average, married people make three times as much money as singles.

Bridget Maher is a family policy analyst. She said, "The median income of a married-couple family is about $65,000-this compares to about $21,000 for single parents."

Former Harvard professor and noted social scientist James Q. Wilson writes frequently about marriage, including The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families.

Wilson said, "The vast majority of people do better if men marry women. The sexes complement each other. Having a woman in your household makes men better and having a man in your household makes women better."

As for kids, social science has done more than 2,500 studies indicating a married man and woman, raising their own children, offers clear advantages to those kids that no other family structure can. So says Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund.
Some examples:


Children raised by both their parents are seven times less likely to be poor than those raised by never-married moms.
Children raised by both parents face hugely reduced odds of being beaten or molested.

Waite added, "Children raised by married parents complete more schooling. They achieve better occupations later, on average. They're more likely to stay married themselves. They are more likely to avoid teenage pregnancy and early sexual behavior."

In other words, a successful marriage is the place most likely to produce successful children.

Waite says what gives marriage so much 'magic' is the vow at its core: a man and a woman promising to be true "till death us do part."

Specifically, Waite said, "The benefits of marriage come in large part because people make a public, legally-supported, socially-supported, religiously-supported vow to stay together for the rest of their lives."

But there's evidence that gay marriage will shake this tradition of commitment and monogamy, because homosexuals are likely to bring their infamous promiscuous lifestyle right into marriage.

In the Netherlands, where gay marriage is already legal, the average "committed" gay relationship is lasting just 1.5 years. (Source: The AIDS Journal 17 (2003)

Dr. Timothy Dailey, of the Center For Marriage and Family Studies, said, "These so-called 'committed homosexual couples' had an average of eight extra sexual partners per year."

Here's an even more startling statistic. A study found:


43% of white homosexuals slept with 500 or more men
28% had sex with a thousand or more men

(Source: "Homosexualities," pp. 308, 309 (1978)

Dailey said "It's really something radically different." He added "Do we really want to subject children to this kind of environment?"

Some same-sex 'marriage' advocates say, "Oh, don't worry!" They say, "Gays won't pervert marriage, marriage will tame gays."

But gays may have no intention of being tamed.

A popular activist wrote that homosexuals should seek to "...redefine the institution of marriage completely...the most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." So said: Michelangelo Signorile, a homosexual activist. (Source: "Bridal Wave", OUT , Dec.1994)

But why do homosexuals and lesbians want to do that? Talk show host Tammy Bruce, on KABC, is herself a lesbian - but she does not support homosexual marriage.

She warns that some gays are what she calls "malignant narcissists" - striking out at whatever they think threatens them or doesn't measure up to their idea of an acceptable lifestyle.

Bruce said, "In the gay community, you are looking at a contingent that wants to literally destroy the very nature of tradition in this nation because they feel, in their very narcissistic way, that it's not good for them."

So, many homosexuals insist on having it both ways - marriage, but without monogamy: all the benefits of marriage, but without the permanent commitment.

That will surely have ripple effects even in the heterosexual world.

It can already be seen in France and other European countries that recently created 'civil unions' to give gays something that better fits their lifestyle - something like "lite marriage" - meaning easy to get into and out of.

But in Europe it's heterosexuals - by the tens of thousands - who are signing up for these civil unions, preferring to get the benefits of marriage without the marital vows or commitments.

In Scandinavia, the first place where gay marriage was formally legalized, it appears it's actually killing off the traditional form of marriage: that is, a man and a woman committing for life and making babies.

Stanley Kurtz said, "What we see in Scandinavia is, marriage quite literally is dying."

Secular social scientist Stanley Kurtz points out that gay couples can't make babies.

So, their Scandinavian marriages are erasing the idea that making babies and being married are all wrapped up together and inseparable.

The result? As Kurtz put it, "60 percent of first-born children in Denmark are born out-of-wedlock. And there are some parts of Scandinavia, believe it or not, where as many as 80 percent of first-born children are born out-of-wedlock-and these are the most liberal districts where the acceptance of gay marriage is the highest."

Already, many Scandinavians weren't marrying till after their first child. Now since gay marriage, there is a furthering of the idea that children and marriage are separate subjects. Now, more couples are waiting to wed till after their second child. Soon, they may just skip wedlock altogether.

Kurtz said, "In Scandinavia, same-sex marriage is part of a collection of factors which first: break marriage apart from the idea of parenthood, and second: lead to the elimination eventually of marriage itself."

Social historian Allan Carlson is the author of The American Way. He said, "Homosexuality, by definition cannot create children, so it's like it's a trivialization of the institution [of marriage]."

The U.S. is ripe to have the same thing happen here, because:


already the marriage rate is down almost half from a high in the 1950s...
five-and-a-half million American couples are deciding to just 'shack up' or co-habit rather than wed. (Source: Simmons & O'connell, "Married-Couple & Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000)
American women are having more than 1 1/3 million babies out-of-wedlock in the average year. (Source: National Center For Health Statistics)

Author Wilson said, "When 30% to 70% of all children born in the United States this year will grow up with only a single parent, you realize this is not a trivial matter."

In May, Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage - the first American state ever to do so.

It's literally bucking not only all of American history, but all history.

Wilson said, "No human society has ever made homosexual marriage its norm."

But once homosexual 'marriage' begins, it could snowball into legalization of just about any relationship someone wants to claim is a 'marriage'...like bigamy and polygamy.

Because if it's no longer fair to restrict marriage to one man, one woman...then how can you set any limits on it whatsoever?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by khafley
>>Is Homosexuality Beneficial?

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/secretwindow/94/0.html


will see if I can find another source on this as well.

Incredible stats khafley. Quite a blow to those who claim that homosexuals just want "equal rights." The majority of homosexuals, apparently, do not care about sustaining an actual marriage.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Incredible stats khafley. Quite a blow to those who claim that homosexuals just want "equal rights." The majority of homosexuals, apparently, do not care about sustaining an actual marriage.

what's funny is that gays HAVE equal rights. A straight person has no more the right to marry a person of the same sex than a gay person. The difference is that the straight person doesn't WANT to marry a person of the same sex. Why should gays be treated special, as if their relationship is just as beneficial to society as a straight married couple that often results in children being born, and contributing to the future of society?

It's all about the individual wants, and their thinking that they need a government acceptance of their lifestyle that most see as immoral or what have you.

 

[mattskramer]

Hey, do what you want, but not in front of me and don't ask for tax breaks that the 'breeders' get.

Fine. Don't attend any gay weddings. Do surrogate mothers and sperm banks get tax breaks?

-----------------------------------

It should be against the law, how can a kid be raised to be a successful person if mommy and daddy both pee'd in the same urinal?
It should not be against the law. Not long ago, people were wondering how a kid raised by a couple who held different religious beliefs, or who were from different races, could be a successful person. Children from mixed races were ever ridiculed as "half-breeds". Times and understandings change.

------------------------------------

You cant do that [raise a kid right] with a male and male or female and female.

Yes, you can. it is physically possible, particularly if the kid is not teased and ridiculed by bigots.

--------------------------------------------

I think the point of marriage is to bring kids into the world into a loving environment where they will learn and prosper. I don't think that's possible with a Gay relationship. You will be devoid of a whole gender of experience. Who will be the father figure in a lesbian relationship? Who will be the mother in a gay relationship? Add in the fact that most gays don't want to be married in the first place and the whole argument becomes absurd.

Oh no. My wife and I are married but we are thinking about not having children. Should we outlaw marriage for those who are infertile/sterile or who choose not to bring kids into the world?

It is possible to raise a child in a gay relationship. You assume that a "father figure" (whatever that means) is necessary. I doubt that it is. A woman can play their role of a father (if they think that such a role is necessary) though she probably won't look like a father. They would certainly be free to have men baby-sit their children or have their children participate in organizations that expose their kids to fathers. The fact that most gays don't want to be married is irrelevant. Most people don't like to eat red peppers each day - should we, therefore outlaw daily consumption of such peppers for those who like to eat them?

-------------------------------------------------

HGROKIT, I have a Bible too. It is called "The Kramer Book" and it basically says that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with others. Okay. I don't have such a book. My point is that there are Atheists and Agnostics. To some people, the Bible is a repressive book of fiction. They believe that God does not exist. A second point in refuting those who wish to bring the Bible into the debate is that it is not fair to pick and choose. If you want to apply Biblical instruction to civil law, then all Biblical instruction should be codified. Do you really support transferring each and every Biblical advice into law?

------------------------------------------------------

WHY DO THEY NEED FOR IT TO BE *MARRIAGE*, WHY DO THEY FEEL THE NEED TO DESECRATE THE HOLY UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN IN THE EYES OF GOD WITH THEIR BUTT POKING, CRACK LAPPING, SICK PERVERTED WAYS"?!

If they can enjoy ALL the LEGAL benefits of marriage with a civil union, WHY must they feel the need to be MARRIED? That's for a MAN and a WOMAN, not dick licking fags or crack lapping lezbos.

Pale Rider, I've already answered that it one way or another. Why do heterosexuals need to be "Married"? A marriage is holy only in the minds of those who think it is holy. To some people, god does not exist. Civil unions are not the same as marriages any more than were White drinking fountains the same as Black drinking fountains. In the pure sciences, separate things might be equal, but when people are involved, separate is not equal. Next question.

--------------------------------------------------------------

" If men marry men and women marry women they can't have children."

Did your son teach you about surrogate mothers and sperm donors?

 

[Trinity]

------------------------------------

You cant do that [raise a kid right] with a male and male or female and female.

Yes, you can. it is physically possible, particularly if the kid is not teased and ridiculed by bigots.

--------------------------------------------


Are you going to personally make sure these children are not teased and ridiculed by bigots?







--------------------------------------------

I think the point of marriage is to bring kids into the world into a loving environment where they will learn and prosper. I don't think that's possible with a Gay relationship. You will be devoid of a whole gender of experience. Who will be the father figure in a lesbian relationship? Who will be the mother in a gay relationship? Add in the fact that most gays don't want to be married in the first place and the whole argument becomes absurd.

Oh no. My wife and I are married but we are thinking about not having children. Should we outlaw marriage for those who are infertile/sterile or who choose not to bring kids into the world?

It is possible to raise a child in a gay relationship. You assume that a "father figure" (whatever that means) is necessary. I doubt that it is. A woman can play their role of a father (if they think that such a role is necessary) though she probably won't look like a father. They would certainly be free to have men baby-sit their children or have their children participate in organizations that expose their kids to fathers. The fact that most gays don't want to be married is irrelevant. Most people don't like to eat red peppers each day - should we, therefore outlaw daily consumption of such peppers for those who like to eat them?

-------------------------------------------------


So obviously you do not have children or you would understand the role of father figure. I have several friends who are divorced from their husbands and yes these children are suffering without that father figure in their life on a daily basis. They are suffering in school, and they are suffering in social issues. I also know of 2 gay men who both have children from previous wifes. these children are also suffering i have had in depth conversations with them they are not proud of their ( fathers) they are very unhappy disturbed children they are having difficulties in academics and social issues as well, such as friends, over eating. I feel very sorry for these children because unfortunatly they were throw in to this situation with no choice in the matter what so ever. So are these children going to grow up and be healthy contributing adults in society? I doubt it.

 

[dilloduck]

It's "possible" for a monkey to raise a child. Don't we want the best possible situation for child rearing?

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I grew up in a single parent household with just my mother. I did well in school, I do well socially, I'm currently going to college and doing well and I have a pretty good job currently.

I do not have problems with men because of a lack of a father figure. In fact, most of my friends are guys.

So I don't think that just because one parent is there or that both parents are of the same sex that all the kids will come out with problems.

I think some of it lies within the individual (kid/s) themselves. Not just their parents.

That's like assuming that a serial killer must of had a bad childhood and then come to find out that that serial killer had the best parents, lived in a great neighborhood, etc... Sometimes, its just the kid.

But granted, from a sociological stand point, there are tons of outside influences that could be a contributing factor in any situation.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by khafley
I feel very sorry for these children because unfortunatly they were throw in to this situation with no choice in the matter what so ever. So are these children going to grow up and be healthy contributing adults in society? I doubt it.

Life isn't fair.