marriage Constitutional amendment

[Jeff]

Well BS I cant Honestly answer that, only that just as on this board or anywere in life I say as I feel & mean what I say.See BS I also always try to be honest & I am not homo sexual so I cant say...I also feel you are a honest person & you can say...*smirk* so well you know...lol
Jeff

 

[Moi]

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

One thing is for sure. I shouldn't have called you a moron. I should have said you are illiterate.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
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.

Moi - this is a subject upon which you and I are not going to agree. I am somewhat offended at your retort about my sister. The taxation issue just caused her to research various areas of law in which bonded same sex partners are treated as lesser individuals in the eyes of the law. If you want to make it just about money, then you are missing the point.

de Tocqueville cautioned about the Tyranny of the Majority. Just because the majority wishes to deny equal status before the law to a sub-group, that doesn't make it right.

To me, this is an equal rights issue. As long as the law allows for legally binding unions entailing certain rights AND responsibilities, two adults should be able to form such a union. I really don't care if it is called marriage or not.

Your equating homosexuality with smoking and gun use is also sophistry. For the vast majority of homosexuals, they are biologically wired to prefer partners of the same gender. This is private behavior (except for some exhibitionist freaks on the fringe) between two consenting adults - far far different than being exposed to second hand smoke. Homosexuality is not a communicable disease.

As for supporting people - all of our tax dollars go towards programs with which we may personally disagree. I could name oodles. Asking that a couple be treated equally under the law is not subsidizing them. It is respecting their right to live free and engage in the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Moi]

Wonderwench,

I'm sorry if you are offended by the comment about your sister. But it was a truthful response to your post challenging that money and entitlements aren't the real issues here. Yet every example you posted was exactly that: tax treatment of capital gains, health care proxy, custody rights, etc. They have nothing to do with marriage. As I stated pages ago, the misappropriation by the government and private parties of the marriage agreement are not cause for others to cram their morals down the necks of those who believe in the entity of marriage. The argument should be against why married people enjoy the privilege of capital gains tax shelters- not whether Christians should be forced to accept gay people among the married ranks.

The fallacy here is that homos. property rights should outweigh a religion's right of self determination. It shouldn't. Religions are founded on certain principals and suggesting that they should be cast aside because some morons in government and insurance industries have decided that married people only enjoy certain privileges isn't the fault of those who make the religion's rules.

If my moral code dictates that homosexuality is not acceptable to me I should not be forced to accept that. And certainly not because someone wants preferential tax treatment. And the examples of smoking and gun control are perfect examples of this. Someone else decided that an owner of a restaurant and its patrons should not allow smoking. Since when is there a law that states that a person must go to a certain restaurant? There is none, it's freedom of choice to go or not. Just because you choose to go to a restaurant you shouldn't have the right to dictate who smokes...the restaurant owner should. Gun control- I have a constitutional right to own a gun. But some members of society have deemed it in society's best interest that I not be allowed to carry it on my person, nor ride with it in my car unless it's in the trunk. I have to spend money on a license, a trigger lock and gun case just to exercise my constitutional right. So, what's the difference if homos. could accomplish their goals in other ways than marriage?

As for it being wired into people...I'm not sure why there is any difference between homosexuality and any other animal instinct that humans have. The test of civilization is not that all its behaviors are natural- it's that we overcome baser instincts for the betterment of society. There are many behaviors which come naturally to man but, deciding that society is better off not giving in to them, laws are made dictating such.

Homosexuality may not be a communicable disease but it's clearly something that a large percentage of society has chosen not to accept. I don't think most people would really care what someone does behind closed doors- except that they aren't behind the door anymore. Look at TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, etc. They aren't just private acts anymore - now we have to discuss it and allow it everywhere. Unfortunately, it's impossible to live one's live without it staring you in the face. And some people don't believe that is acceptable. If enough of them think that and can't change people without a constitutional amendment, it's certainly their privilege to try and get one. One can only be gotten if the majority of the society wants one. And isn't that what democracy is about - the will of the people??

 

[wonderwench]

Moi,

That is precisely the point - the state's role is in making a relationship a binding contractual relationship. Otherwise, there would be no need for government involvement.

You are also forgetting the responsibility part. Legal partners are responsible for the debts and the consequences of each other's behavior. Perhaps allowing a legal civil union would cause more homosexuals to "settle down" and create less of the outrageous behavior that offends you.

In any case, they are still individuals who deserve equal protection and freedoms under the law - despite what people who dislike their private behavior may think.

The will of the people should not extend to denying minority groups their full rights as citizens. I cited de Tocqueville earlier - the concept is the Tyrrany of the Majority. The Will of the People is sometimes Unconstitutional.

 

[acludem]

The entire idea of a democracy is majority rule with protection for the minorty. We saw what absolute majority rule leads to in Nazi Germany - those in the minority are exterminated. I noticed that as many posts as there have been, no one has answered my question: What "special rights" are gay and lesbian couples asking for? What rights beyond those that heterosexual couples enjoy are gay and lesbian couples asking for?

acludem

 

[Annie]

Personally, I really don't care what consenting adults do with each other-we wouldn't be having this conversation if those TX policemen had stayed out of the bedroom. That said, I don't think that gays and lesbians should be able to 'be married', marriage has religious as well as legal connotations.

I think the couples should be able to form civil unions, to protect themselves and their estates, with minimum hassels.

I don't think that someone who chooses to discuss their sexual preferences or acts or partners relating to sex should be teaching in schools. I feel the same about a Ms or Mr Goodbar or a traditional heterosexual married person that gets 'too personal'. Any of these would make me question their intentions towards young people.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Jeff & Laura
Well BS I cant Honestly answer that, only that just as on this board or anywere in life I say as I feel & mean what I say.See BS I also always try to be honest & I am not homo sexual so I cant say...I also feel you are a honest person & you can say...*smirk* so well you know...lol
Jeff

Jeff...Jeff...Jeff...Whether a person is gay, black, or any other minority makes no difference to me. Yeah, deep down I've got my prejudices, we all do, but I always work to keep them from influencing my decisions about a person. So far, I've always been vindicated by that decision. Can you say the same?

And you've really got to be more original with you insults. I haven't heard the likes of yours since junior high school.

 

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Jeff...Jeff...Jeff...Whether a person is gay, black, or any other minority makes no difference to me. Yeah, deep down I've got my prejudices, we all do, but I always work to keep them from influencing my decisions about a person. So far, I've always been vindicated by that decision. Can you say the same?

And you've really got to be more original with you insults. I haven't heard the likes of yours since junior high school.

BS I dont recal saying anything about blacks or any other minority except Gays & to that as I have said all threw this I dont want to see it.... one more time , if ya want to practice gay sex do so in your own home...I dont like it or want to see it!!!why is that so hard? I dont feel it should be legal for gay's to marry cause then it isnt behind closed doors is it?I dont want my kids or any other's to see this . Once a person is old enough to make there own mind up they may do so in there own home!!
As for your question ...lol... well stupid it was you that started with insults( let me recall *buckweat*) for your info there are alot of blacks I like. PPl like you are far more a problem than a black man!!!So how about go on with your dumbass little life,party with your gay friends & have fun
See Ya
Jeff

 

[jimnyc]

Here's an example of what I don't want happening in my neck of the woods. Whatever happened to the guys getting together to have a few beers and inviting women in the hopes of getting lucky?

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/01/23/2003092323

 

[janeeng]

Just lovely! would hate to have lived next door to that!

I don't agree either with the GAY parade that goes on in NY either! a great thing to take your kids to!

 

[Johnney]

what about disney and that gay day or what ever the hell it was? now that was disgusting for a "family" org like that.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Personally, I really don't care what consenting adults do with each other-we wouldn't be having this conversation if those TX policemen had stayed out of the bedroom. That said, I don't think that gays and lesbians should be able to 'be married', marriage has religious as well as legal connotations.

I think the couples should be able to form civil unions, to protect themselves and their estates, with minimum hassels.

I don't think that someone who chooses to discuss their sexual preferences or acts or partners relating to sex should be teaching in schools. I feel the same about a Ms or Mr Goodbar or a traditional heterosexual married person that gets 'too personal'. Any of these would make me question their intentions towards young people.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[William Joyce]

No amendment, please.

Marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Constitution isn't a plaything for liberals or conservatives, in my opinion.

 

[Annie]

William Joyce, I agree with you. Some states might take a more 'liberal' view, others less, yet it will come out alright in the end. When the fed gets involved, it tends to lead to misery for all.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Kathianne
When the fed gets involved, it tends to lead to misery for all.

I think that statement applies to just about everything in domestic policy.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Certainly money is a factor, as are sharing health benefits and other considerations.

But you are missing a major point in a legally recognized union: the right to be involved in decisions affecting one another. I do believe this issue has escalated due to the AIDs crisis. Living in the Bay Area, there have been frequent news stories over the years about homosexual men being denied the ability to visit their dying partners in the hospital due to them not being relatives. This is horrible.

Another issue is that of child-rearing. One of the main purposes of marriage is for the raising and protection of children. Again, there have been many stories about horrible custody battles when lesbian couples split. If one of the women is the biological mom, the other is often completely severed from contact with the children. This has got to be hurtful for the kids - to all of a sudden have someone they thought of as a parent disappear.

WW,

Being involved in decisions with each other is allowed, legally. Two homosexuals can grant each other powers of attorney. They can write living wills naming wach other the one to make the decision to pull the plug, etc. They can buy houses together, buy cars together, do whatever they want together.
I think you mentioned in a different post that you believe it is about equal rights. Everyone in America has the right to get married - to a person of the opposite sex. Again, if someone chooses to live the homosexual lifestyle, they should not automatically be allowed to have additional rights.
As far as child rearing... I don't think that unmarried couples, gay or straight, should be able to adopt.