marriage Constitutional amendment

[wonderwench]

Moi,

The law has not kept up with societal changes. Like it or not, family units have been formed in which the current lack of legal recognition harms the parties involved, the children and society at large.

Gay and lesbian partners have no legal rights to be involved in the health care decisions of their partners unless they have gone to a lawyer and drawn up a contract. Children raised by a gay couple will view both partners as parents - to suddenly have one disappear is not in the interests of the child.

I myself am rather lukewarm on the idea of gay adoption. But, I don think it is better for a child to be adopted by any couple who can provide emtional and financial support, and teach decent values - than to be bounced around the foster care system.

Like it or not, the Pandora's Box is open. We should clean up the ambiguity of legal rights and responsibilities.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
The fact is that homosexuality is as regpugnant to a moral society as beastiality and sex with dead people (forgot the technical term for that!) are.

Well, I don't know what morality you're claiming, but it sounds pretty repugnant to me when two people of the same, or different gender, gender can't express their love for each other without facing the sel-righteous, indignant condemnation of neaderthals such as yourself.

And to equate homosexuality with beastiality and necrophilia is a canard. The latter two are perversions. Homosexuality is no more a perversion than heterosexuality. Unless you want to count the perversion of B&D where pain is mistaken for pleasure...That is truly perversion, not the genuine expression of love demostrated through the act of sex, be the partners of the same or different genders.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Jeff & Laura
Hmmmmm Iwonder if homo sex wouldnt be considered a promiscuous sexual life style???? l If I remeber right Aids was first found in Homo's... & yes spread quickly threw the dregs of socitey!! The problem is that it now effects innocent ppl.
As for you bully boy you can have all the homo sex you want as I told you before just keep it at your house cause not all of us agree with it or approve !
Jeff

First of all, Buckwheat, I'm not gay. I'm a happily married hetero male. My wife and I do have a number of gay friends who are involved in long term, committed relationships, and we'd be thrilled to for them to be able to tie the knot.

Any straight or gay person engaging in sex with multiple partners has been, and is, at risk for HIV. Many gay and lesbian couples we know have been together for years, nithing "promiscuous" there.

 

[acludem]

promiscuity is hardly limited to gay people. Promiscuity is just as prevalent among straight people as among gays. I want to know what "special rights" you think gay people are asking for. I get tired of hearing that argument. Tell me what rights, other than what heterosexual couples have, are gay people asking for that you find to be "special"?

acludem

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Moi,

The law has not kept up with societal changes. Like it or not, family units have been formed in which the current lack of legal recognition harms the parties involved, the children and society at large.

Gay and lesbian partners have no legal rights to be involved in the health care decisions of their partners unless they have gone to a lawyer and drawn up a contract. Children raised by a gay couple will view both partners as parents - to suddenly have one disappear is not in the interests of the child.

I myself am rather lukewarm on the idea of gay adoption. But, I don think it is better for a child to be adopted by any couple who can provide emtional and financial support, and teach decent values - than to be bounced around the foster care system.

Like it or not, the Pandora's Box is open. We should clean up the ambiguity of legal rights and responsibilities.

I disagree with the premise that the law is meant to keep up with societal changes. Perhaps society should instead follow the law. I'm not so sure that there is any difference between two gay people having to draw up a contract with regard to medical issues as there is with any other aspect of human life needing contracts. Furthermore, if gay people choose to have children in their lives, what makes them so much more deserving of special treatment than anyone else with children. I don't think it's in the best interest ofa child who has grown up with a step parent, grandparent or other person to suddently stop seeing them either. However, I don't feel that the courts should be forced to institute rules about who can and cannot be granted visitation based on arbitrary rules. It's what's in the best interest of the child. If the close person wants to have a relationship with the child, the courts should be able to look at the totality of the situation independed of marriage.

 

[wonderwench]

Of course laws evolve. Slavery used to be legal. Women were denied the vote.

The evolution of law in order to be more consistent with the underlying principles of the Constitution is a good thing. There is nothing in our founding documents which indicates that homosexuals are lesser humans.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Well, I don't know what morality you're claiming, but it sounds pretty repugnant to me when two people of the same, or different gender, gender can't express their love for each other without facing the sel-righteous, indignant condemnation of neaderthals such as yourself.

And to equate homosexuality with beastiality and necrophilia is a canard. The latter two are perversions. Homosexuality is no more a perversion than heterosexuality. Unless you want to count the perversion of B&D where pain is mistaken for pleasure...That is truly perversion, not the genuine expression of love demostrated through the act of sex, be the partners of the same or different genders.

You are a complete moron. I have never, not once, said that homosexuals should be disallowed from "expressing their love". Let them express the hell out of themselves. The only thing that I've ever said is that they have no right under the constitution to force their beliefs on the religious ceremony of marriage. Marriage is not independent of a group ideal. Sorry, no matter how you look at it that is the truth. Whether that marriage be sanctioned by christians, jews, muslims, buddhists or native indians- the marriage act is one into which people enter for reasons of belonging to a group. If the members of that group decide that its rules are man/woman and not man/man or woman/woman, no law of the land shall force them otherwise. That is in itself the reason for the First Amendment- that people should be free to carry out their religion without government interference.

The fact that homos. have decided that they must be married stems from other things- it's about money and entitlement. Those issues are separate from marriage.

I believe you are the Cretan on this board. I am so sick and tired of your stupid posts and your belittling of others. You are an intolerant moron who should be forced to live with the sick jerks you decry so vehemently. I can't even understand why you keep coming to this board if only to read one word of a post and then assail the author with your depravity. Perhaps you don't know that the laws of this country were enacted for a reason. Do you even know what the word law means?

Grow up or go away.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Of course laws evolve. Slavery used to be legal. Women were denied the vote.

The evolution of law in order to be more consistent with the underlying principles of the Constitution is a good thing. There is nothing in our founding documents which indicates that homosexuals are lesser humans.

I didn't say that laws didn't evolve. what I said is that laws aren't meant to keep pace with society- meaning, the reason laws are there isn't as a mirror for society. Hence, as you mentioned, a constitutional amendment regarding slavery. Society wasn't there yet; the hope was that the amendment (the law) would force society to change its behavior. It worked, didn't it?

Now, as for the fact that homosexuals are less than human- I don't think anyone is claiming that. Certainly not me. However, I also don't think that all humans must be treated according to whatever whim society dictates. I never suggested imprisoning homos. nor did I suggest that heteros. be given MORE rights than other. It's the same, I feel, about race. Why should a black be given a scholarship over an equally qualified white? They shouldn't. I don't feel that homos. deserve any protections either.

And marriage is a religious institution. The tenets of the religions should hold sway. I don't think anyone in the government or society has the right to make me admit non-doctors in a group for doctors. Why should the non-religous be able to usurp the powers of the religious with regard as to who is allowed to marry? I am merely defending a religious institition's right of self determination free of governmental or societal interference.

The fact that the government and other, private, organizations have commandeered the classification of married as a determinant of their own privledges is not the fault of the religious institutions and is a separate matter entirely. If you want to challenge their use of such classifications, well, I'd have to review those facts in order to formulate an opinion based on the law and the constitution and the will of the majority in this country.

 

[wonderwench]

You have a different interpretations of history. The northern states had already disavowed slavery.

The fact is, homosexuals and lesbians have always been a part of humanity. What is better for society? To accept that fact and allow them the same legal status as any other responsible adults - or to treat them as second class citizens.

Forget marriage as a religious concept. From the state perspective, it is a legally binding partnership including certain rights and corresponding responsibility. Why should the state discriminate?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You have a different interpretations of history. The northern states had already disavowed slavery.

The fact is, homosexuals and lesbians have always been a part of humanity. What is better for society? To accept that fact and allow them the same legal status as any other responsible adults - or to treat them as second class citizens.

Forget marriage as a religious concept. From the state perspective, it is a legally binding partnership including certain rights and corresponding responsibility. Why should the state discriminate?

A few northern states does not a nation make. The misunderstood reasons for the Civil war notwithstanding, it's a discussion for a different thread. The fact remains that if everyone in this country believed that slavery was wrong there would be no need for a consititutional amendment on the issue. The amendment was created to force the hand of the states that did not agree with the federal government to follow the feds. rules. on the matter.

On point, however, this thread has had many different nuances. One of those is how or why a constitutional amendment on gay marriages should be either approved or not. Speaking simply on the law I have replied about various issues surrounding a constitutional amendment. Some have advocated that the constitution is not the appropriate venue in which to ajudicate such morality- although I see no reason why not. All of our laws are based on some morality. It's the morality of the majority.

Some see no reason to have a constitutional amendment becuse the states should be the deciding factor....again, that's a legal interpretation. And, countering that notion is that judges in the SC have disallowed states from making laws about issues which, supposedly run afoul of the constitution. Thus, the only way around such debates is to advocate for a constitutional change.

With regard to homos. being a part of history. So what? So were bygamists? By what authority can we outlaw them? So is gun ownership. By what authority can we infringe upon gun owners rights? There are many laws which run counter to historical situations that are, presumably, based on morality.

You see, I'm not being snide. I just wish those who advocate on the othe side of the issue would stop pointing the finger at those who oppose gay marriages on moral grounds and try to paint them as intolerant, inhuman, neanderthals, etc. The fact is that when something of importance to one group is tested, there are many reasons for and against it. Separating marriage from religion may be convenient but it is possible? Again, I claim that the rights that gays want are not about marriage. They are claiming entitlement to something else. Perhaps the means of deciding that something else should be what's attacked instead of the religious people who believe in marriage as an expression of religious conviction.

The fact also remains that the state does discriminate all the time. The only prohibition to discrimination is for certain protected classes like race, religion, etc. There is many whom are not a protected class and quite a bit of support to keeping it this way.

 

[Johnney]

I just wish those who advocate on the othe side of the issue would stop pointing the finger at those who oppose gay marriages on moral grounds and try to paint them as intolerant, inhuman, neanderthals, etc.

this is true. jsut because i could care less about gay unions doesnt make me a homophobe. it doesnt make me not care about thsoe people. well i dont care for the life style. but as people yes.
to the homosexual side of the fence it seems to me, imo, that you are either for them or against them. i fall in the middle, i could care less if they fuck each otehr til their dicks fall off.
what gets me pissed is they are trying to get benefits that my fiance' and myself cant get til we get married, and these guys/ girls are trying to get them jstu by being together.
its wrong, jstu fucking wrong.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
sel-righteous, indignant condemnation of neaderthals such as yourself

First of all, Buckwheat

BP, that's enough. Last warning. Case closed.

 

[Jeff]

First stop denying yourself... you are a homo!!!!!as for Buckwheat...lol... I am not hiding behind a made up name my name is Jeff ( thought ya might figure that out being as I sign it all the time)...lol...And bully boy if ya stop & think where aids came from you would understand I am not saying a gay couple that stays together will get it or spread it without having other sexual partners, I am simple saying it started there with homo's & men having sex with monkeys .... in my eyes it is both wrong...but for the record I will say it one more time if you wish to indulge in homo sexuality do so, just keep it at you house!!!! What you do behind your door bully boy doesnt bother me at all!!!
OOOO yes & by the way I like buckwheat...lol... as I know you like bully boy ...lol... but I went to shorten bully boy to bb & realized BS fits you so much better!!!! So your new name is Bull shit!!!!
Jeff ( see BS )...lol

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi

You see, I'm not being snide. I just wish those who advocate on the othe side of the issue would stop pointing the finger at those who oppose gay marriages on moral grounds and try to paint them as intolerant, inhuman, neanderthals, etc. The fact is that when something of importance to one group is tested, there are many reasons for and against it. Separating marriage from religion may be convenient but it is possible? Again, I claim that the rights that gays want are not about marriage. They are claiming entitlement to something else. Perhaps the means of deciding that something else should be what's attacked instead of the religious people who believe in marriage as an expression of religious conviction.

The fact also remains that the state does discriminate all the time. The only prohibition to discrimination is for certain protected classes like race, religion, etc. There is many whom are not a protected class and quite a bit of support to keeping it this way. [/B]

I know for a fact that this is not true. What you are saying is an entitlement is really just the desire of some committed couples to have a legally acknowleged union with the same benefits and responsibilities as a married couple. Considering the marriage penalty in dual income couples, most gays and lesbians would probably end up paying more in taxes - so to claim it is a monetary "entitlement" attitude is missing the point.

One of my sisters is a lesbian who is quite active in raising money for Gay & Lesbian legal issues. The vast majority are just private people who want to live their own lives without inteference form the government - just like you and me.

I don't favor a Constitutional Amendment for or against gay marriage. This should be a states issue concerning civil unions. To the state, marriage is a contractual relationship.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I know for a fact that this is not true. What you are saying is an entitlement is really just the desire of some committed couples to have a legally acknowleged union with the same benefits and responsibilities as a married couple. Considering the marriage penalty in dual income couples, most gays and lesbians would probably end up paying more in taxes - so to claim it is a monetary "entitlement" attitude is missing the point.

One of my sisters is a lesbian who is quite active in raising money for Gay & Lesbian legal issues. The vast majority are just private people who want to live their own lives without inteference form the government - just like you and me.

I don't favor a Constitutional Amendment for or against gay marriage. This should be a states issue concerning civil unions. To the state, marriage is a contractual relationship.

I said entitlement, I didn't say tax rebate nor did I say anything about money at all.

If you claim that your sister is looking to live her own life without interference from the state what is it, specifically, other than marriage that she is not able to do now? What benefits and responsibilities could she have through marriage that she does not now have?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
I said entitlement, I didn't say tax rebate nor did I say anything about money at all.

If you claim that your sister is looking to live her own life without interference from the state what is it, specifically, other than marriage that she is not able to do now? What benefits and responsibilities could she have through marriage that she does not now have?

What I've already mentioned. Gay and lesbian partners do not have the legal standing of spouses in many of the things that married heterosexual partners take for granted: decisions regarding emergency healthcare, vistation rights, community property rights, child custody. On the flip side, they are not held responsible for one another's debts or tax obligations.

My sister became interested in the legal rights issue when she and her partner split up a few years ago. They had bought a house together. Because they were not recognized as a legal union, when my sister bought out her partner, she was confronted with a taxation nightmare that a married person would not have had to deal with.

You mentioned that the state already discriminates. I am opposed to the preferences given any group based upon biology, religion or sexual orientation. Meritless preferences are damaging to society. But so is meritless discrimination.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
What I've already mentioned. Gay and lesbian partners do not have the legal standing of spouses in many of the things that married heterosexual partners take for granted: decisions regarding emergency healthcare, vistation rights, community property rights, child custody. On the flip side, they are not held responsible for one another's debts or tax obligations.

My sister became interested in the legal rights issue when she and her partner split up a few years ago. They had bought a house together. Because they were not recognized as a legal union, when my sister bought out her partner, she was confronted with a taxation nightmare that a married person would not have had to deal with.

You mentioned that the state already discriminates. I am opposed to the preferences given any group based upon biology, religion or sexual orientation. Meritless preferences are damaging to society. But so is meritless discrimination.

It seems like your sister cares very much indeed about money.

All of these items that you suggest homosexuals want equally along with heteros. can and are achieved every day. There are such things as power of attorney, living wills, property rights, etc. Just because they don't want to explore their alternatives doesn't mean they are discriminated against.

The fact remains that the majority of people in this country do not want it to be legal for same sexes to marry. They do not necessarily believe in a constitutional amendment to make it so and many say its a state issue. Well, how can a state decide such for itself if the good old supreme court is going to say it's against the constitution? The fact remains that the only secure way for the majority in this country to decide is with a constitutional amendment.

I think my right not to be forced to support a lifestyle with which I don't agree is equally as important as others rights to a lifestyle - especially if their requests can be granted in other ways. If I don't want my son around homos. I shoudn't be forced to have him be taught by them, preached at by them, or otherwise influenced by them. It's certainly difficult being in the minority but that's the way it goes. It is the same as with any law. Those that don't believe in the law are out of luck. It's the same for smokers in restaurants, gun owners who have to jump through hoops and can't carry pistols if they want to, cancer patients in states which don't allow for medicinal purposes of marijuana, etc.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
You are a complete moron. I have never, not once, said that homosexuals should be disallowed from "expressing their love".

Yet you equate the same gender sex with bestiality and necrophilia. Leaves one wondering who the moron is.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Jeff & Laura
First stop denying yourself... you are a homo!!!!!

If you say so. But hey, I wouldn't be afraid to admit it if I was. How 'bout you?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
If you say so. But hey, I wouldn't be afraid to admit it if I was. How 'bout you?

"I know you are but what am I" mentality. Tread carefully, Jeff, or he's going to take his ball and go home.