New Government

[Handsome Rob]

I would get rid of the electoral college and have the people vote directly for their president. I would also make the organisation that runs the elections independent, rather than controlled by the party in office.

I like the electoral college, because it gives a little more weight to the smaller states in who becomes President. But, I love your second idea.

 

[teseract]

One of the biggest issues concerning this argument is the public display of the Ten Commandments. Okay, I understand that if you don't believe in a Supreme Being, or believe in a different one than Christ and the God of Abraham, you could take issue with numbers one through four. But who could object to everything between "Honor your father and your mother" to "You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff"? Every religion has the same basic rules of morality, like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery."

Why do people object? Well because:

A.) The ten commandments are part of the christian rule book, they are not the law of the land, as you probably noticed, since committing Adultery is not criminal and not honouring your parents isn't a crime either. Therefore, it's very obvious, that the ten commandment are not the basis of the law. They may have a few good ides one can take (like: thou shall not murder) but in their entirety they are not important.


B.)A courthouse, is a state institution. The state is by the constitution bound to not endorse a religion. If a display, that is clearly christianity based, is shown inside a state institution it becomes a de facto endorsement of said religion. This leads to a direct deterioration of the trust other religions or non-religious people have into state institutions, which means a de facto weakening of Authority for these institutions. Oh, and please don't distort the truth, the ten commandment incident was not about a public display of them it was about a display of them INSIDE a courthouse. It's really very easy. I as an atheist for example would not trust a court to handle my issues, if he shows this kind of favouritism towards christianity.


C.) Since there is the “non-endorsement clause” there is only one way to make sure that you could display the ten commandments in a courthouse without endorsing christianity and that is showing the RELIGIOUS rules of all religions (not even only the major ones). So, you would have your precious ten commandments next to islamic rules about eating pork and Buddhist rules about harming even insects. This is nice and dandy if you want to make an exhibit about “Religious Rules of the World” but we're in a friggin' courthouse! If you want that go to a museum for Darwin's sake.

Besides, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution.

Wrong, the non-endorsement clause implicitly is separation of Church and State because a non-endorsement would be de facto impossible if Church and State were not separated. The Treaty of Tripolis states it even explicitly

As for the gay marriage and abortion issues, most religious people I know don't want to "cram our beliefs down your throats", as many like to say, but wish the issues voted on by the people and the legislatures instead of having Supreme Court Justices "cram their opinions down our throats," because they have legitimate concerns over these issues. Then, if you want to allow or disallow abortion or gay marriage, you may simply vote yes or no.

No, they really have no legitimation on it, because they are not manoeuvred into a position were they HAVE to take an abortion or marry a homosexual. Both things don't tangent the lives of religious people the slightest or change their lives even a little bit. As for the Supreme Court argument. You may have noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage. It states, however, the right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that is. In case of a Homosexual person, I'd wager it's the desire to be together with the person he or she loves. Therefore, state bans would be in direct hindrance to that right and therefore be unconstitutional. Ergo, it's not only the right but the obligation of the Supreme Court to trash state legislation to ban gay marriage. The rights of the constitution are not up for "majorities vote". They must be enforced even against the majority, if necessary. Now, this whole discussion about a constitutional amendment is legitimate, however, the reasons are not. It's outrageous that people want a change to the constitution because a non-criminal behaviour collides with their religious believes. It shows a severe lack of respect for the integrity of the Constitution itself, to individual rights, to human nature and a lack of respect to people, different than oneself.

As for Abortion, that's another issue, however, in my opinion, prohibiting it out of religious reasons will cause much more harm to all the people involved than it will do good.

 

[cerealkiller182]

^^^^Booyashaka well stated

 

[Kelly]

I would leave it as is, and reform in the following areas...
*medical care
*Social Security
*Campaign Reform--Where the true leader, not the one that can dole out millions comes out on top....



@Incredible Hulk

Are you saying a Direct Democracy as opposed to a Represenative Democracy, because if you are, that would be impossible in a country of our size.....that works in small townships in the Northeast, but in our country as a whole......sorry, but I don't have time to vote on every issue that comes along..........

 

[cerealkiller182]

I could totally find the time. You just have to set up a certain system so as to not drop what you are doing in order to vote. It would also be voluntary so u would probably only vote on issues you believe in strongly.

 

[The Senator]

Why do people object? Well because:

A.) The ten commandments are part of the christian rule book, they are not the law of the land, as you probably noticed, since committing Adultery is not criminal and not honouring your parents isn't a crime either. Therefore, it's very obvious, that the ten commandment are not the basis of the law. They may have a few good ides one can take (like: thou shall not murder) but in their entirety they are not important.


B.)A courthouse, is a state institution. The state is by the constitution bound to not endorse a religion. If a display, that is clearly christianity based, is shown inside a state institution it becomes a de facto endorsement of said religion. This leads to a direct deterioration of the trust other religions or non-religious people have into state institutions, which means a de facto weakening of Authority for these institutions. Oh, and please don't distort the truth, the ten commandment incident was not about a public display of them it was about a display of them INSIDE a courthouse. It's really very easy. I as an atheist for example would not trust a court to handle my issues, if he shows this kind of favouritism towards christianity.


C.) Since there is the “non-endorsement clause” there is only one way to make sure that you could display the ten commandments in a courthouse without endorsing christianity and that is showing the RELIGIOUS rules of all religions (not even only the major ones). So, you would have your precious ten commandments next to islamic rules about eating pork and Buddhist rules about harming even insects. This is nice and dandy if you want to make an exhibit about “Religious Rules of the World” but we're in a friggin' courthouse! If you want that go to a museum for Darwin's sake.




Wrong, the non-endorsement clause implicitly is separation of Church and State because a non-endorsement would be de facto impossible if Church and State were not separated. The Treaty of Tripolis states it even explicitly

Excellent points

No, they really have no legitimation on it, because they are not manoeuvred into a position were they HAVE to take an abortion or marry a homosexual. Both things don't tangent the lives of religious people the slightest or change their lives even a little bit. As for the Supreme Court argument. You may have noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage. It states, however, the right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that is. In case of a Homosexual person, I'd wager it's the desire to be together with the person he or she loves. Therefore, state bans would be in direct hindrance to that right and therefore be unconstitutional. Ergo, it's not only the right but the obligation of the Supreme Court to trash state legislation to ban gay marriage. The rights of the constitution are not up for "majorities vote". They must be enforced even against the majority, if necessary. Now, this whole discussion about a constitutional amendment is legitimate, however, the reasons are not. It's outrageous that people want a change to the constitution because a non-criminal behaviour collides with their religious believes. It shows a severe lack of respect for the integrity of the Constitution itself, to individual rights, to human nature and a lack of respect to people, different than oneself.

Also, even if religious institutions are opposed to gay marriage... there are religious institutions which support the idea as well. This includes Christian institutions, such as the United Church of Christ and the Lutherans. Once religious institutions say two men or two women can marry, I think the debate on a nationwide ban is over. Marriage should be up to religious institutions. Since there are religious institutions which accept it, then the argument that it goes against religious principles is null and void. The holier-than-thou conservative evangelicals will just have to get over it.

 

[The Master Planner]

So, only terroristic Christians have legitimate concerns over gay marriage? Because they believe society will cave in because two men will get married, that makes their concerns more legitimate? What about the hundreds of thousands of gay people who want to be left alone? Like me? I don't want those morons dictating how I live because their Magic Finger in the sky thinks it's icky for two men to be in a loving relationship together.

First off, not only "terroristic Christians" like me have these concerns. I don't say that society will "cave in" when Bruce marries Blake but we've already seen what happens over time when the institution of marriage, which as been around roughly since the beginning of time, is fiddled with. Ask any kid whose parents divorced just because someone wasn't "happy." Second, the legalization of gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption, which is also a point of concern, and other concerns like polygamy. After all, when two gay guys get married, who's to say a Mormon or Muslim man can't take two or three more wives? Let's not even mention the custody battles which might soon ensue. If our hypothetical Bruce and Blake get divorced after marrying and adopting a kid, who gets the kid, Bruce, Blake, the surrogate mother, the egg donor...?

And I don't think the American people should decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Why? Because half the pro-lifers out there are religious wingnuts who think that babies are taken out of the mother's womb alive and cut into teeny tiny pieces in front of the mother, and then flushed down a toilet. Or something similar to that. I want people who have a thorough knowledge of laws and precedent to decide on these issues. Abortion is a legal matter. Gay marriage is a religious matter. These issues aren't like approving budget grants for school districts or deciding on whether or not to build a new library in the middle of town. These are legal matters which should be decided by experts or the institutions they affect-- not Cletus P. Yokel and the Yokel clan.

Are you afraid that the majority of Americans might agree with Cletus and disagree with you? And what you are referring to is partial birth abortion, an absolutely barbaric procedure which I'm sure would be illegal if you did it to a dog or cat. I'm not going to describe the actual procedure on a public board except to say that what you wrote is pretty accurate except that they dispose of the dead baby in a biowaste container. I think the legal precedents on abortion are extremely contradictory. How can you explain the fact that Scott Peterson gets the death penalty for killing both his wife and his unborn son, but if Laci had chosen to abort that same kid, it's perfectly legal and a constitutional right?

 

[wiegeabo]

First off, not only "terroristic Christians" like me have these concerns. I don't say that society will "cave in" when Bruce marries Blake but we've already seen what happens over time when the institution of marriage, which as been around roughly since the beginning of time, is fiddled with. Ask any kid whose parents divorced just because someone wasn't "happy." Second, the legalization of gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption, which is also a point of concern, and other concerns like polygamy. After all, when two gay guys get married, who's to say a Mormon or Muslim man can't take two or three more wives? Let's not even mention the custody battles which might soon ensue. If our hypothetical Bruce and Blake get divorced after marrying and adopting a kid, who gets the kid, Bruce, Blake, the surrogate mother, the egg donor...?

That's a heck of a slippery slope argument. But, by definition, slippery slope arguments aren't good ones.

Instead of asking the kid involved in the divorce, I'd like to ask the government why Blake and Bruce, who love each other, can't get married, but it's legal for Brittany Spears to marry a guy and divorce him 53 hours later. Or why it's legal for a man and woman who don't love each other to get married at all. Hell, the government won't allow to gay men to marry one another, but it would probably allow a gay man and gay woman to marry because they happen to be of opposite gender. How is that protecting marriage?

I don't know why adoption would be so different. It's just two people adding to their family. There are already plenty of gay couples with children (adopted or otherwise) that raise them fine. And the custody battle situation with surrogate mothers already exists between straight couples getting divorced who used one. The laws would just apply the same way.


I don't know how this leads into polygamy since gay marriage would still be between just two people. I guess one could make the argument that if gays have the freedom to marry, people should have the freedom to marry as many people as they want?

I guess, to some degree, I agree with that. It shouldn't be up to government who can get married, it should be up to the church. If a church doesn't want to marry gays, they don't have to. And the government has no right to force the issue one way or the other. If a church does want to marry gays, they can. And the government has no right to force the issue one way or the other.

 

[The Senator]

First off, not only "terroristic Christians" like me have these concerns. I don't say that society will "cave in" when Bruce marries Blake but we've already seen what happens over time when the institution of marriage, which as been around roughly since the beginning of time, is fiddled with. Ask any kid whose parents divorced just because someone wasn't "happy." Second, the legalization of gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption, which is also a point of concern, and other concerns like polygamy. After all, when two gay guys get married, who's to say a Mormon or Muslim man can't take two or three more wives? Let's not even mention the custody battles which might soon ensue. If our hypothetical Bruce and Blake get divorced after marrying and adopting a kid, who gets the kid, Bruce, Blake, the surrogate mother, the egg donor...?

So...... you're saying that if two homosexual men get married, that will cause Mormons and Muslims to start taking on multiple wives? The amount of intelligible thought you put into your argument astounds me, and I'm surprised you were able to hammer it out in complete sentences.

I don't think anyone except for terroristic Christians believe that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. But regardless of what you and they think, you're completely missing the point: The intentions of myself and the gay community is not to grant heterosexual men the ability to take on multiple wives. Rather, it is our intentions to take on one partner who we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. The majority of the homosexual population would agree with me, as that's the fundamental argument of granting marriage rights to gay couples. Not to allow Mormons and Muslims to engage in polygamous behavior.

The other senseless argument you make is that it would open the door to gay adoption. You didn't support it with an actual point, though you used it to segue into polygamy. So my real understanding is that you have no argument against it, except that it would destroy the make-up of the traditional family... which is already crumbling due to rising divorce rates and other fun, heterosexual activities such as wife beating and/ or child molestation.

Are you afraid that the majority of Americans might agree with Cletus and disagree with you? And what you are referring to is partial birth abortion, an absolutely barbaric procedure which I'm sure would be illegal if you did it to a dog or cat. I'm not going to describe the actual procedure on a public board except to say that what you wrote is pretty accurate except that they dispose of the dead baby in a biowaste container. I think the legal precedents on abortion are extremely contradictory. How can you explain the fact that Scott Peterson gets the death penalty for killing both his wife and his unborn son, but if Laci had chosen to abort that same kid, it's perfectly legal and a constitutional right?

No. I'm afraid that the majority of Americans don't have a legal degree-- which is true-- and are therefore unable to make an intelligent decision based on the precedents established in this country. Of course, the first statement in this section of your response proves the ignorance over this topic which is constantly thrown out there. I wasn't describing any procedure used in an abortion facility. They don't take babies and put them on a paper slicer and cut them in half, or what have you. Of course, that's a common misconception about this issue which has spread like a wildfire. But I'm not here to get into the technicalities of partial birth abortion, especially when I don't agree with the procedure in the first place.

The problem with your Peterson family comparison is quite simple: Laci wanted to have the child. It's as simple as that, really. It's her choice. She didn't choose to have the baby murdered by her husband. However, had she decided to abort the child a few months earlier, that procedure would be perfectly legal, because it coincides with the laws set forth by this country. In simple terms, abortion is legal; murder is not.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I don't think anyone except for terroristic Christians believe that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. But regardless of what you and they think, you're completely missing the point: The intentions of myself and the gay community is not to grant heterosexual men the ability to take on multiple wives. Rather, it is our intentions to take on one partner who we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. The majority of the homosexual population would agree with me, as that's the fundamental argument of granting marriage rights to gay couples. Not to allow Mormons and Muslims to engage in polygamous behavior.

OK, but what about the polygamous community? Would you support polygamous marriages? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they called you a "bigot" for saying that ONLY two people have the right to enter into marriage? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they say, "Who are you to tell us that we all can't get married?"

For anyone to say that marriage should only be between two people is equally as discriminatory as saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

 

[rdh007]

Doesn't a marriage between two people only affect those two (and of course any children even more) when there is a divorce? It is a decision made by those two alone. With a third party, what happens when he/she only wants to divorce one? All three were married together. Two adults or call the whole thing off.

 

[The Senator]

OK, but what about the polygamous community? Would you support polygamous marriages? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they called you a "bigot" for saying that ONLY two people have the right to enter into marriage? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they say, "Who are you to tell us that we all can't get married?"

For anyone to say that marriage should only be between two people is equally as discriminatory as saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

You're missing my point. My point is that marriage should be up to the church. And because several churches support gay marriage, the debate should be over with. There's no reason to pursue a law banning gay marriage because it affects religious communities or voids the constructs of the 'traditional marriage,' when marriage itself is defined by the church.

Polygamous marriages, on the other hand, are denounced by just about every denomination, at least in the United States. Even the Mormons have condemned it.

But if you want to know my take on it... polygamous marriage should be illegal. So if you want to call me a bigot in that regard, go right ahead. But my point is that two men in a loving, stable relationship shouldn't be prohibited from getting married because there are religions which oppose it. There are religions which support it, and that's all that matters.

 

[wiegeabo]

Although I may not like the idea of polygamy, that's my personal issue. Again, it should be up to church, not the government. Although, like jman said, you'd be hard pressed to find an accepting denomination.

As for the above issues of divorce in a polygamous marriage, that be up to the lawmakers and courts, just like it is for regular divorce.

 

[BlackLantern]

I would define marriage as between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS....plain and simple...adults as in 18 and over...none of that emancipated crap. as far as the government....shorten term limits on both the House and Senate....6 terms for the House and 3 terms for the senate....Any amendments to the Constitution must be subject to popular vote....

 

[The Master Planner]

That's a heck of a slippery slope argument. But, by definition, slippery slope arguments aren't good ones.

Instead of asking the kid involved in the divorce, I'd like to ask the government why Blake and Bruce, who love each other, can't get married, but it's legal for Brittany Spears to marry a guy and divorce him 53 hours later. Or why it's legal for a man and woman who don't love each other to get married at all. Hell, the government won't allow to gay men to marry one another, but it would probably allow a gay man and gay woman to marry because they happen to be of opposite gender. How is that protecting marriage?

I don't know why adoption would be so different. It's just two people adding to their family. There are already plenty of gay couples with children (adopted or otherwise) that raise them fine. And the custody battle situation with surrogate mothers already exists between straight couples getting divorced who used one. The laws would just apply the same way.

I don't know how this leads into polygamy since gay marriage would still be between just two people. I guess one could make the argument that if gays have the freedom to marry, people should have the freedom to marry as many people as they want?

The "slippery slope", while not the best of methods for argument, does have its merits. Once you open the door to something for one minority group, other minority groups demand privileges that suit their customs. To take a random example, a perfectly innocent Supreme Court ruling that married couples have a right to contraception led to a ruling based on that precedent that unmarried people have that right to contraception, and building on that, the result of Roe v. Wade. If you thought this was a slippery slope, permit me to slide all the way to the bottom: Who's to stop two pedophiles from marrying each other to adopt a child? Once you have the right to one thing, people will hire lawyers and fight for the right for a bunch of other things.

Britney Spears' abuse of the marital institution, as I said earlier, is one of the sad results of the no-fault divorce laws. Divorce used to be an option for spouses who were abused or cheated on, or faced other serious problems. Now we have people divorcing their spouses because they're "not happy" or they want to "find themselves." Which makes me wonder exactly how you lost yourself in the first place. A lot of people fear gay marriage will only weaken the marital institution further. There is also concern about future court battles.

I have no question that our hypothetical Blake and Bruce love each other, and I have no question that they would love a child. But the sad fact is that marriage wasn't set up for pleasure and love alone; it was set up to ensure an ideal environment for the raising of children, the future of civilization. Ideally, children learn about gender roles through a mother and a father. We all know of divorced couples who leave their children without a father or a mother or the untimely death of a parent, but a gay couple, or a woman who intentionally sets out to be a single mother, is condemning their kid to the loss of a parent even before birth.

 

[The Master Planner]

So...... you're saying that if two homosexual men get married, that will cause Mormons and Muslims to start taking on multiple wives? The amount of intelligible thought you put into your argument astounds me, and I'm surprised you were able to hammer it out in complete sentences.

You'll be surprised at what I can hammer out in complete sentences, my friend.

I'm afraid that the majority of Americans don't have a legal degree-- which is true-- and are therefore unable to make an intelligent decision based on the precedents established in this country.

Let me ask you: what law school is your legal degree from? An educational degree, or lack thereof, does not qualify or disqualify a person from having an honest opinion. Not in this country, at any rate.

The problem with your Peterson family comparison is quite simple: Laci wanted to have the child. It's as simple as that, really. It's her choice. She didn't choose to have the baby murdered by her husband. However, had she decided to abort the child a few months earlier, that procedure would be perfectly legal, because it coincides with the laws set forth by this country. In simple terms, abortion is legal; murder is not.

Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's morally right. Slavery was legal once. Segregation and discrimination were legal once. Anti-semitism and the murder of Jews were legal in Germany once. And besides, Susan Smith chose to murder her two sons once. You could say she was just performing 20th trimester abortions. The results were, and are, the same--dead children.

 

[The Senator]

The "slippery slope", while not the best of methods for argument, does have its merits. Once you open the door to something for one minority group, other minority groups demand privileges that suit their customs. To take a random example, a perfectly innocent Supreme Court ruling that married couples have a right to contraception led to a ruling based on that precedent that unmarried people have that right to contraception, and building on that, the result of Roe v. Wade. If you thought this was a slippery slope, permit me to slide all the way to the bottom: Who's to stop two pedophiles from marrying each other to adopt a child? Once you have the right to one thing, people will hire lawyers and fight for the right for a bunch of other things.

Britney Spears' abuse of the marital institution, as I said earlier, is one of the sad results of the no-fault divorce laws. Divorce used to be an option for spouses who were abused or cheated on, or faced other serious problems. Now we have people divorcing their spouses because they're "not happy" or they want to "find themselves." Which makes me wonder exactly how you lost yourself in the first place. A lot of people fear gay marriage will only weaken the marital institution further. There is also concern about future court battles.

I have no question that our hypothetical Blake and Bruce love each other, and I have no question that they would love a child. But the sad fact is that marriage wasn't set up for pleasure and love alone; it was set up to ensure an ideal environment for the raising of children, the future of civilization. Ideally, children learn about gender roles through a mother and a father. We all know of divorced couples who leave their children without a father or a mother or the untimely death of a parent, but a gay couple, or a woman who intentionally sets out to be a single mother, is condemning their kid to the loss of a parent even before birth.

The 'slippery slope' argument was used when the women's suffrage movement debuted concurrently with a push for African American voting rights. One of the arguments used against giving African Americans the right to vote was that it could lead to granting women the right to vote. There was a seventy-two year gap between the time African Americans received the right to vote and when women were able to vote. Now, almost a century later, African Americans and women vote all the time, and our society hasn't suffered because of it.

The next argument you raise is the idea that gay couples abandon the second parent. That's a false assumption, because most gay parents partake in an open adoption process which allows the birth parent(s) to play a significant role in their child's life. That's what I'm planning to do, and that's what many of my friends are planning to do. The other interesting refutation of your argument is that children suffer from growing up in a gay household. Unfortunately for you, most children grow up no different than they would had they been raised by a heterosexual couple.

To me, gay marriage is no more of a problem than the skyrocketing divorce rates, or cases of child and/ or spousal abuse, among heterosexual couples. Those issues, to me, should be looked into more by the proponents of "traditional marriage," because it outright affects the structure and sanctity of the "traditional marriage." It's quite obvious gay marriage is non-traditional; but that doesn't mean it should be overridden and denied.

 

[The Senator]

Let me ask you: what law school is your legal degree from?

It will be from the Washington College of Law at American University

 

[The Master Planner]

It will be from the Washington College of Law at American University

Well, congratulations, and I wish you all the best in your career, and that's not sarcasm. Just remember that the First Amendment does not only apply to lawyers...

 

[The Master Planner]

The 'slippery slope' argument was used when the women's suffrage movement debuted concurrently with a push for African American voting rights. One of the arguments used against giving African Americans the right to vote was that it could lead to granting women the right to vote. There was a seventy-two year gap between the time African Americans received the right to vote and when women were able to vote. Now, almost a century later, African Americans and women vote all the time, and our society hasn't suffered because of it.

Yes, but being black or a woman is out of one's control. Having sex with a person of your own gender is. We are talking about behavior. They say that gay people are genetically inclined to be that way, but a lot of self-destructive behaviors are genetically influenced, like alcoholism. One of my friends has a genetic inclination to alcoholism because her parents were both drunks. So she doesn't drink, because she knows what might become of her. I have a genetic inclination to obesity. All of my relatives are fat. So I eat a lot of healthy, nasty-tasting food and exercise. Genetic inclinations for behavior at least, can be modified by free will if your urges tend to be destructive to society.

The next argument you raise is the idea that gay couples abandon the second parent. That's a false assumption, because most gay parents partake in an open adoption process which allows the birth parent(s) to play a significant role in their child's life. That's what I'm planning to do, and that's what many of my friends are planning to do. The other interesting refutation of your argument is that children suffer from growing up in a gay household. Unfortunately for you, most children grow up no different than they would had they been raised by a heterosexual couple.

Three parents? The gay couple and the birth parent? Involved in the child's life at the same time? And you wondered why I said that the legal precendent might open the door for people petitioning for the right to polygamy?

To me, gay marriage is no more of a problem than the skyrocketing divorce rates, or cases of child and/ or spousal abuse, among heterosexual couples. Those issues, to me, should be looked into more by the proponents of "traditional marriage," because it outright affects the structure and sanctity of the "traditional marriage." It's quite obvious gay marriage is non-traditional; but that doesn't mean it should be overridden and denied.

I am deeply concerned about child and spousal abuse and the skyrocketing no-fault divorce rates. I hope I have made that clear. I think these are very serious problems to be urgently addressed. However, I still believe that gay marriage, along with the aforementioned problems, all do their part to weaken traditional marriage.

 

[wiegeabo]

Yes, but being black or a woman is out of one's control. Having sex with a person of your own gender is.

Wow. That is a very very big assumption that's never been proven one way or the other. I suppose one could choose to be with one's own gender, but I seriously doubt all gays do. I don't understand why people think that gays choose to be that way but straights can't. I never chose to be straight. I just am. I prefer women. Women do it for me, men don't. It's never been a conscious decision.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that gays do choose to be gay. What right do I, or government have, to deny them the choice to be in a loving, healty, relationship. It's your right to have an opinion against it, just like it's everyone's right to have an opinion against something. But I don't see how a public institution could be allowed to enforce it. I'm allowed to choose any religion I want, why can't I choose who I want to be with?

And if being gay is not a choice, but genetic, than gays should be treated as any other protected class and be given equal protection under the law. Just like other protected classes a person has no control over (race, gender, age) and classes they do have choice over (creed).


And the alcoholism/obesity analogy does not translate into this argument. There's a big difference between avoiding alcohol and unhealthy foods, and avoiding relationships with people you're actually attracted to.

 

[The Senator]

Three parents? The gay couple and the birth parent? Involved in the child's life at the same time? And you wondered why I said that the legal precendent might open the door for people petitioning for the right to polygamy?

That's not polygamy, moron. The three parents are not involved in a sexual relationship. The children see their birth parent(s) on weekends, not every morning in bed with their legal parents.

My partner and I aren't going to start dating the heterosexual mother of our child because we're two gay men happily in love with each other. The mother of our child is just a sacred vessel. Also, that's the beauty of a homosexual relationship-- we like men. But props to you for transpiring beyond ignorance into the absurd.

 

[Handsome Rob]

You're missing my point. My point is that marriage should be up to the church. And because several churches support gay marriage, the debate should be over with. There's no reason to pursue a law banning gay marriage because it affects religious communities or voids the constructs of the 'traditional marriage,' when marriage itself is defined by the church.

Polygamous marriages, on the other hand, are denounced by just about every denomination, at least in the United States. Even the Mormons have condemned it.

But if you want to know my take on it... polygamous marriage should be illegal. So if you want to call me a bigot in that regard, go right ahead. But my point is that two men in a loving, stable relationship shouldn't be prohibited from getting married because there are religions which oppose it. There are religions which support it, and that's all that matters.

But if those same religious denominations that endorse gay marriage were to come around on polygamy, would you now argue that "one man and three women in a loving, stable relationship shouldn't be prohibited from getting married because there are religions which oppose it. There are religions which support it, and that's all that matters."?

Let me give you a bit of the background that I'm coming from, and maybe this can shed some light on my "take" of what you've posted. My religious belief (Christian) on marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. That belief is rooted in what I've read in the books of the New Testament of the Bible. Therefore, because God has fixed morality, the definition of a "moral" marriage is fixed, as well. So, regardless of what anyone actually says about what makes a legitimate marriage, there is only one kind I will actually believe is legitimate. And, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what I think, either. That won't change the rightness or wrongness of it.

When I hear someone talk about how it's (wrongful) discrimination to not allow gay marriage, and that person doesn't have a religious basis for defining marriage (which I don't think you do--sorry, if I'm wrong), it doesn't make sense to me that the same person can turn around and say that another form of marriage is unacceptable. If you view wrongful discrimination in allowing only one form of marriage, how can you deny wrongful discrimination in allowing only two?

In other words, I base my definition of marriage on God as revealed in the Bible (which I consider to be in Authority over me), where it seems you base yours on . . . what? Your opinion? Please don't take that in a condescending manner . . . I'm just trying to figure out what you root your definition of "marriage" in while trying to give you a basis for my roots.

Good luck with finishing law school. My best friend got his JD at Vanderbilt. Whenever we get together without his wife and kids, we usually end up talking about government. I should know better than to argue law with him, because he'll "pwn" me every time. But, I'll usually wipe the floor with him on accounting and taxation. So, we even out--it's a good learning experience all around.

 

[The Senator]

My definition of marriage stems from my personal belief that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to join hands in a holy and spiritual union if they are so willing to devote the rest of their lives to each other. True love between two people knows no boundary, physical or metaphorical, and I feel that as long as those two people are willing to take such a huge leap, to share in each others' lives forever, they should be able to do so. It is not up to the government or the proprietors of this world's numerous faiths to stand in the way of love between two consenting adults. Their lives are nobody else's business.

I do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, nor do I follow a faith which explicitly condemns homosexual behavior. And as a homosexual myself, my views on marriage are quite clear. I am not going to follow a faith which condemns who I am.

 

[Handsome Rob]

My definition of marriage stems from my personal belief that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to join hands in a holy and spiritual union if they are so willing to devote the rest of their lives to each other. True love between two people knows no boundary, physical or metaphorical, and I feel that as long as those two people are willing to take such a huge leap, to share in each others' lives forever, they should be able to do so. It is not up to the government or the proprietors of this world's numerous faiths to stand in the way of love between two consenting adults. Their lives are nobody else's business.

I do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, nor do I follow a faith which explicitly condemns homosexual behavior. And as a homosexual myself, my views on marriage are quite clear. I am not going to follow a faith which condemns who I am.

That answers my question.

And, for the record, one of the things I would do in my new government is abolish the institution of marriage. With the imposition of the FairTax, there would be no economic reason for marriage, and simple contracts ("civil unions") would handle the legal aspects of marriage (ownership of assets, medical decisions, etc.).

People who wanted to get "married" could do so by whoever would marry them--churches, judges, even best friends. Marriage would be a purely social institution--no government intervention or recognition needed. And, if people don't want to recognize ____ marriage, personally, they don't have to.