|
Post by Sue on Nov 11, 2005 10:08:30 GMT -5
I think it's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Nov 11, 2005 12:31:10 GMT -5
I am still awaiting one single legitimate legal arguement against same sex marriage.
Seperation of church and state mandates that the government, being it state local or even federal, is not allowed to sanction one religion over another. Since this same sex marriage ban is simply one religious veiw on the subject, it is unconstitutional for there to be any sort of ban upon it.
I have yet to hear a single legal argument against same sex marriage. At least, not one that has any merit. One of the favourite arguements I hear is that ever since Belgium legalized same sex marrige the number of children born out of wedlock went up considerably. If this is the best arguement against same sex marriage...
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 11, 2005 12:56:06 GMT -5
if the only reason is religious beliefs then surely the state should allow straight and gay couples the same things and it's just up to the individual churches whether they want to endorse it or not?
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 11, 2005 14:20:15 GMT -5
Yes. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 11, 2005 14:51:56 GMT -5
Legal arguments:
1. Government for and by the people. The majority of persons in the US do not want same sex marriages. That has been shown several times over Texas is just the most resent. It is said that you can't legislate morality, but all laws are about morality. Murder and rape are moral issues they are also legal issues because enough people wanted them to be so. Same sex marriage would harm this nation a greet deal. It is wrong for a minority a very small one at that to dictate to the rest of the nation how we will define one of the most valuable factors in our lives.
2. There is nothing in the laws of the nation to promote the idea that same sex marriages should be allowed. Granted not the strongest idea but unlike freedom of religion and racial issues there is no law that requires the state to endorse sexual perversion.
3. General welfare a broad topic, but not invalid. I've seen a variety of stats and I'm trying to sort them out as some have challenged their accuracy, but it appears that homosexuals molest children at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. I also saw a study (sorry I did not copy the link I’ll have to dig for it again). That shows a very high rate I thought 20 some odd percent of children that are molested are homosexuals. In English homosexuality may very well promote child molestation. Which is the man boy perverts had their way would not be a crime even though it is very harmful to the development of the child.
4. Many of the benefits are a means of caring for the next generation. With a very few exceptions gays are not raising kids. I am under the understanding that you do not have one partner supporting the other. Therefore the need for the benefits is not really there.
Not so much a legal issue as a social, but people get unhappy if they get pushed around to much. Marriage and family are not trivial social institutions to many Americans. These are core values that where so well understood that defining them was not seen as necessarily at the founding of the nation. I am not aware of laws defining which way is north nor what 2+2 is. Sadly when something that was so clearly understood does not get set in stone some people think that it should be altered.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Nov 11, 2005 15:10:25 GMT -5
Legal arguments: 1. Government for and by the people. The majority of persons in the US do not want same sex marriages. That has been shown several times over Texas is just the most resent. It is said that you can't legislate morality, but all laws are about morality. Murder and rape are moral issues they are also legal issues because enough people wanted them to be so. Same sex marriage would harm this nation a greet deal. It is wrong for a minority a very small one at that to dictate to the rest of the nation how we will define one of the most valuable factors in our lives. This is just not true. The majority of the people did not want seat belt laws. The majority of the people do not want abortions to be legal. The majority of the people want the ten commandments presented on government property. Majority rules is not legal grounds. There is nothingin the LAW that supports it should be banned. In fact, I can argue that the constitution argues for same sex marriage. Equal rights... This is just plain utter nonsense. There has not been a single substantiated report that supports any of this. All you have are the number twisting from those who are grasping at straws to ban same sex marriage. This argument has absolutely no legal grounds. Replace the same sex couple with any heteeo couple that medically cannot have children. Oops. They still get those benefits. Why is it different? Simply because the same sex couple is under attack and being discriminated against. The divorce rate, the number of children born out of wedlock, and the increase of pre-marital sex indicates differently. Words are redefined everyday. I have to wonder why Christians are so lenient about their alleged "sanctity of marriage" when they (Christians) have not done much of anything in the wake of the divorce rate, premarital sex, children being born out of wedlock...those things are just fine, but let two persons of the same sex want to get married and all of a sudden Christians are worried about the "Sanctity of Marriage".
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Nov 11, 2005 15:18:17 GMT -5
If Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman could get away with being married for 8 days then annuling it, not to mention all the other drunk celebrities that have done this in the past, we must not think too much of the sanctity of marriage.
And religious moral grounds is not a valid argument. Not everyone in Texas is of the same religion or is a fundamentalist. Besides, what happened to seperation of church and state?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 11, 2005 15:41:20 GMT -5
As my sociology teacher has said many times California is the land of fruits and nuts.
Separation of church and state means that the state does not force you to be in a religion nor do churches run the government. It does not mean that just because you go to church you can no longer vote.
Many if not all laws have a religious or philosophical basis.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 11, 2005 15:59:28 GMT -5
PolyTheist “This is just not true. The majority of the people did not want seat belt laws. The majority of the people do not want abortions to be legal. The majority of the people want the ten commandments presented on government property” The majority does not always win true, but the idea of majority rule is in the foundation of our government.
Equal rights does not extend to massive alterations of the law and president. Should I be able to marry a pig and adopt half a dozen piglets and count them as dependents? The IRS would have a fit, but it is not any further of a stretch than to endorse same sex couples. “Quote: 3. General welfare a broad topic, but not invalid. I've seen a variety of stats and I'm trying to sort them out as some have challenged their accuracy, but it appears that homosexuals molest children at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. I also saw a study (sorry I did not copy the link I’ll have to dig for it again). That shows a very high rate I thought 20 some odd percent of children that are molested are homosexuals. In English homosexuality may very well promote child molestation. Which is the man boy perverts had their way would not be a crime even though it is very harmful to the development of the child.
This is just plain utter nonsense. There has not been a single substantiated report that supports any of this. All you have are the number twisting from those who are grasping at straws to ban same sex marriage.”
You will have to define this the last guys I discussed this with had the basic idea that if it was not pro gay it was a lie. I think there should be a bit more objective standard.
Many maybe not all Christians churches are working to combat the problems of out of wedlock children and divorce.
I do not see how the gays rights are at stake? I for one am having my rights imposed upon being told that my government is going to endorse an unhealthy life style and that I’m supposed to think it is just fine. That is just plain dumb even if there where no religious grounds for objecting. There is a reason why gay man can’t donate plasma. They are in a high risk group for AIDS. If the FDA can figure it out people should be able to see it also.
To modify the laws to exclude people who can’t have children would be difficult legally and would likely add insult to injury.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 11, 2005 18:25:34 GMT -5
I have to wonder why Christians are so lenient about their alleged "sanctity of marriage" when they (Christians) have not done much of anything in the wake of the divorce rate, premarital sex, children being born out of wedlock...those things are just fine, I know of no Christian who believes that those things are just fine. All Christians know that premarital sex is sinful and immoral, that divorce is hated by God, and that children are best born into families. One difference is that no one has to get a license to sleep around or become pregnant out of wedlock. As for divorce, putting an end to a bad marriage is different from knowingly entering a bad marriage. God hates divorce, but if a so-called "marriage" is not sacramental, it's understandable that it won't last. That's what's truly at the heart of sincere Christian opposition to gay marriages -- a desire to spare the participants (not to mention the world) the consequences. Look at what abortion has done... What is it that you expect us to do that we're not doing? We teach against all of those things... If they were legislated the way marriage is, we would make a similar outcry, as we do with abortion and euthanasia. But premarital sex and childbirth are not legislated at all, and divorce is ruled by civil courts as contract law -- not regulated by licensing. Are you suggesting we should make stricter requirements for marriage licenses, make contraception harder to come by, and take babies away from those who are not married? Gee... that sounds like the USA of our parents... See... we've lost those battles already. Now we're fighting this one.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Nov 13, 2005 12:41:17 GMT -5
What is it that you expect us to do that we're not doing? Leading by example comes to mind. The Catyholic church slit it's own throat, at least with me, back when the Pedophile Preist Posse came to light and it was 'officially' released that the church has been shuffling these "homosexuals who have infultrated the priesthood" around for more than 100 years. So I have to conclude that not only does the Catholic Church think homosexuals are allowed in the church, but they are allowed to become priests and molest little kids. So much for leading by example. To bad the the majoirty of you look the other way when the minority is commiting these sinful acts right under your nose... See above. Just what the USA really needs (sarcasm), a whole bunch more religiously biased laws. This is because marriage is a legal contract. For those who wish to make it into some super religious holy ceremony, that is fine with me. But I take exception when those who want to force their ceremonious belief upon the whole population. I am suggesting that those against same sex marriage at the very least come up with some excuse to ban it that is a legitamate legal reason, not some religiously motivated logical fallacy. Perhaps your 'powers to be' needs to pick and choose their battles a bit more wisely. That or just simply practice what they preach 24/7, instead of only when it suits their wants and desires.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Nov 13, 2005 12:57:30 GMT -5
PolyTheist “This is just not true. The majority of the people did not want seat belt laws. The majority of the people do not want abortions to be legal. The majority of the people want the ten commandments presented on government property” The majority does not always win true, but the idea of majority rule is in the foundation of our government. Equal rights does not extend to massive alterations of the law and president. Should I be able to marry a pig and adopt half a dozen piglets and count them as dependents? The IRS would have a fit, but it is not any further of a stretch than to endorse same sex couples. “Quote: 3. General welfare a broad topic, but not invalid. I've seen a variety of stats and I'm trying to sort them out as some have challenged their accuracy, but it appears that homosexuals molest children at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. I also saw a study (sorry I did not copy the link I’ll have to dig for it again). That shows a very high rate I thought 20 some odd percent of children that are molested are homosexuals. In English homosexuality may very well promote child molestation. Which is the man boy perverts had their way would not be a crime even though it is very harmful to the development of the child. This is just plain utter nonsense. There has not been a single substantiated report that supports any of this. All you have are the number twisting from those who are grasping at straws to ban same sex marriage.” You will have to define this the last guys I discussed this with had the basic idea that if it was not pro gay it was a lie. I think there should be a bit more objective standard. Many maybe not all Christians churches are working to combat the problems of out of wedlock children and divorce. I do not see how the gays rights are at stake? I for one am having my rights imposed upon being told that my government is going to endorse an unhealthy life style and that I’m supposed to think it is just fine. That is just plain dumb even if there where no religious grounds for objecting. There is a reason why gay man can’t donate plasma. They are in a high risk group for AIDS. If the FDA can figure it out people should be able to see it also. To modify the laws to exclude people who can’t have children would be difficult legally and would likely add insult to injury. Unhealthy? Really? Please cite your sources. I would really be interesting in hearing the health risks that are unique to same sex couples. Ah yes. The ever popular 'marry some animal' argument. Please provide a list of places in the USA where animals are allowed to enter into a legal contract. Then please be so kind as to provide the source of your list.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 13, 2005 18:24:00 GMT -5
Polytheist, there is not much in your post that is not merely anti-Catholic distortion, but I will attempt to respond with some grace. What is it that you expect us to do that we're not doing? Leading by example comes to mind. The Church has centuries of Saints who lived lives of pious holiness, as well as those who pioneered in all of the noblest fields. Far more than any other organization that has ever existed, as a matter of fact. You obviously pay no attention to the objective data in this matter. Approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in the U.S.A. (1950-2002) were charged with abuse. Even the most liberal studies result in numbers no higher than 5%. (And, by the way, these numbers are comparable to the levels of abuse among Protestant ministers... so the truth is that this is not a Catholic problem but an American problem.) Meanwhile, Catholics are the main group who were harmed by the abusers you are referencing, and Catholics are the main people who are seeing to it that this matter is addressed appropriately. (Would that our Evangelical brethren step up to admit the problem in their ranks as well, and stop the unjust accusations instead of contributing to them.) All of this, however, has very little to do with the subject at hand -- which is MARRIAGE. Again I pose my question, in hopes of a more direct and constructive answer... what is it that we who are active should be doing that we are not doing? No one I know of believes that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Do you believe that??? Does your wife??? If it was nothing more than a legal contract, why do gays want to be called "married"? Why is a civil union -- which is truly just a legal contract -- not sufficient? It is not a legal battle. It is a moral battle. Our "power" that IS went to His death on a cross. We aren't expected to win these battles... just to wave the banner of truth and live accordingly. He's already won them all, ultimately. As for accusations of not practicing what we preach, that is a generalization that doesn't hold water with me. The Catholics I know are wonderful people, doing their best to live God-fearing lives. Who are you to ask more? I praise God that I can learn from their mistakes as well as my own.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 14, 2005 13:54:19 GMT -5
I'm currently researching some information, but locating the journal articles is coming a bit slow. There are a lot of web pages with information, but those are not always trustable. When I have the information I’m looking for I’ll post it. In the mean time I’ll cite a CDC report to provide a basis for the health risk issue of homosexuality. Men having sex with men is a known health risk ether that or the regulations on plasma donation (I think they are about the same as full blood, but I’m not sure) are dumb as they won’t accept people men who have sex with men. You can check out the information I posted as on the Scary Information regarding the number of sexual partners. There is also a long list of risks on there as well I’ve had some people dispute their accuracy, but not with any evidence so I’m hunting journal articles to sort that out. From the executive summery of the CDC report: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for multiple sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis B and hepatitis A. It has been stated that high rates of STDs among MSM appear to be associated with the return of unsafe sexual practices such as unprotected sex.2 Non-gay identified men who have sex with men (NGI MSM) are men who engage in sexual activity with other men and with women, but who do not self-identify as gay or bisexual and who cannot easily be reached through the social or community support systems associated with the gay/bisexual community.3 Given the dearth of information available about NGI MSM, their knowledge of STDs, and their communication preferences, resources for this study were dedicated to address these particular gaps in health communication literature. Specifically, the intent was to collect data regarding the behaviors, attitudes, and community/culture of African-American and Hispanic/Latino NGI MSM aged 20 – 45 relevant to STDs and their ideas for increasing knowledge of how to prevent these diseases. Due to the lack of health communication information available regarding African-American and Hispanic/Latino NGI MSM men between the ages of 20 – 45, CDC indicated that these populations were the central focus of the study." www.cdc.gov/std/HealthComm/NGI-MSMCompleteReport.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 14, 2005 14:33:46 GMT -5
Which is the man boy perverts had their way would not be a crime even though it is very harmful to the development of the child. I still see little mention of lesbians in your claims which seems to make this conversation a bit skewed for some reason.... It gives me the feeling this is more about you being terribly frightend of being hit on by men rather than legitamate reasons why homosexuals in general (not just men, but emales too) should not be given the same rights as heterosexuals. But anyway, you might want to check this out of curiosity.
|
|