Marriage Amendment

[xoxoxoBruce]

It might be more of a political issue if there was anybody on the other side of the aisle supporting the right of gays to marry.

If no politician is willing to support it they must believe the majority of their constituents are against it...... at least the majority of active voters.

There are many examples of that not being true. Tax hikes, freedoms stolen, many immoral things "voted upon".
On the other side of that, the reason we "were" a Constitutional Republic is so our representatives could, sometimes, do what is right when the populous did not fully understand yet.

[9th Engineer]

Well wait, I thought the idea of civil unions for gays was shouted down as a 'seperate but equal' attempt. Now the concensus is that ALL marriages are by definition civil unions??? What gives?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Well wait, I thought the idea of civil unions for gays was shouted down as a 'seperate but equal' attempt. Now the concensus is that ALL marriages are by definition civil unions??? What gives?

&*%$&^%$ I just wrote a 20 minute response that got clobbered.

To summarize.

Marriage is a social institution, and like a lot of other ones, it has religious and civil components, since in early cultures the two were usually linked.

Any religious figure can marry anyone. It is recognition by the state and community that is the issue. Marriage confers benefits for hospital visitation, child custody, adoption, inheritance, which are usually greater than those even granted blood relatives.

The arguments made against gay marriage are similar to those made against interracial marriage and for segregation, which usually boils down to it makes certain groups of people more comfortable. Conservatives hate this comparision because without the support of minority religious conservatives, these measures would enjoy even less support than they do now.

Since most arguments against gay marriage are of the 'I have the right to mind my neighbors business' type, this is the most anti-Libertarian initiative yet conceived by the 'conservatives' in the GOP.

Like with illegal immigration, President Bush has no real clue as to what he is stirring up here and will be surprised when he loses control of the situation. The big difference is that opposition to illegal immigration, contrary to what pro-immgration supporters say, can be made by unbiased individuals on logical grounds. Anti-gay marriage taps much more into fear and hatred. The arguments are nowhere near as rational and the emotions are ten times worse.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Well wait, I thought the idea of civil unions for gays was shouted down as a 'seperate but equal' attempt. Now the concensus is that ALL marriages are by definition civil unions??? What gives?

Because they want to create a difference by using a different word. Black and White water fountains wouldn't have been OK even if they had been functionally identical, as I'm sure they often were.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But why should the guy down the street get all the tax breaks and benefits of marriage witout having to put up with a wife?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But why should the guy down the street get all the tax breaks and benefits of marriage witout having to put up with a wife?

Actually, he would have wife, except in this case the wife wouldn't mind going bowling.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Actually, he would have wife, except in this case the wife wouldn't mind going bowling.

Funny enough, that's just what it's like. My boyfriend is my life partner, my husband, my best friend, and my lover. We play computer games together, go on photo safaris, get together with friends and play board games...

I think this is why the zealots feel threatened by gay people. We just have so much fun.

It's all about being a busybody. If a church or notary wants to marry a couple, regardless of their sex, and you are worried about it... you are pathetic. What kind of hang-up does it take to worry about who sleeps with whom and who is in love?
Redundant question, science has shown that homophobia is firmly seated in the closet.
I have married two couples and will now marry anyone of consensual age who wants to do so that I feel are sane, regardless of their age.

[Pangloss62]

...I am lucky to be able to marry a man OR a woman, or another hermaphrodite! No "lifestyle" problem here since I have both a penis and a vagina (Gonadal dysgenesis). This condition gives me a great advantage over homosexuals because I can "prove" in a very basic way my condition. Gays have the burden of people insisting that they choose to be gay, while I just whip out my small-but-functioning penis and my rather weirdly shaped vagina (when asked) and silence those people.

I'm like 0.000001% percent of the human population. Boy am I lucky!!

[Ibby]

...

...

...

That's AWESOME!

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Damn good idea, after all if fags married fags and lesbians married lesbians they would be reproducing little fags and lesbians.

As far as I know, neither of my daughters is lesbian. I'm pretty sure one of them is at least bi, since she's getting married. I doubt she'd do that just to protect her closet.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

I think this is why the zealots feel threatened by gay people. We just have so much fun.

Only because you don't have to find and pay for a reliable baby sitter. Straight couples have fun too. Really.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

As far as I know, neither of my daughters is lesbian. I'm pretty sure one of them is at least bi, since she's getting married. I doubt she'd do that just to protect her closet.

Current statistics show that gay parents and couples raise a lower average % of gay children.

Edit~ They also tend to be more outgoing (joining clubs, getting involved in extra-curricular activities etc...) and well adjusted, per-capita.

[Pangloss62]

Many conservatives are pushing this Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment because they say that "traditional marriage is under attack." What on earth do they mean? Just who/whom is "attacking" traditional marriage?

I suppose their "logic" is that if Gays are allowed to marry, lots of young Americans will begin to think that they could choose such an alternative lifestyle, and then there would be a dramatic increase in the number of same-sex couples, leading to a dramatic decrease in births. The other fear is that if gays are allowed to get married, they could then legally adopt children, and in turn "make" the latter gay through their example. I guess this could be called "The Fear of A Gay Planet" theory.

The above scenarios are so flawed in so many ways, but lets consider a few:

Both gay & heterosexual couples have been living unmarried together for centuries, so would any net increase of gays occur just because they allowed gays to marry? Like I said before, it's not about "protecting" anything; it's about punishing homosexuals.

There is plenty of quantitative and qualitative data that shows that having gay parents does not make one gay. It's just that simple.

I wish some Democrat somewhere (other than Barney Frank, please) would step up and confront these idiots. Or what about the Cheneys? I suppose when you're a lesbian daughter of a filthy rich Vice President, you don't really have to have personal integrity. We knew her father didn't, but she's really a disappointment (coward?).