Marriage Amendment

I like your attitude on this... I don't Understand why it matters if 2 other people are sinning as long as you don't... I think I said this in the other topic... Why can't they let God handle it?
I mean For some weird reason Christens will argue for this amendment...WHY???? I don't understand why they care... as far as they are concerned I am not really married as I got married in front of a judge.... So if I am not really married then they wouldn't be either... So again why care?

Congratulations on the most sickening, bigoted piece of blaming the victim I've ever read. Oh, poor Bush. Driven into a corner by those unreasonable gays, so aggrivatingly persistent in their quest for equal rights. How dare they!Like most of the arguments against gay marriage your post is founded on made-up data, your own fears of homosexuality, and a disgusting lack of regard for the rights of persons you don't particularly like. It's not clear whether or not you get to vote in my country (in absentia, etc.); my deep fear is that you get to.

Does it never occur to these assholes to read the Ninth Amendment? Jeez, they want so bad to amend the thing and they haven't even read it through!

Or the fourteenth?

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

a constitutional amendment looks like it is the safest way and maybe the only way to protect marriage

---

Out of curiosity, what does marriage need protection from, here? Homosexuals getting married?How does this even remotely affect any marriage other than that of the homosexuals who will be getting married?

quote:

---

It is the gay rights activists who are boldly breaking the law

---

Hang on a sec... what laws, specifically, are you referring to? When where they broken, and by whom?

quote:

---

As the President said in his announcement, "The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America."

---

And as the president ignored, the constitution also says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

quote:

---

This could happen all over the country. We can do without this headache.

---

I'm terribly sorry if civil rights are such a hassle for you. Lie down a while, take a nap. All this horrible "asking to be treated like a human being" must be such a nuisance.

quote:

---

The activist courts are pushing the President into this and he has no choice but to act on behalf of the welfare of the country.

---

If he was acting on behalf of the welfare of his country, he would stop trying to deny citizens their rights.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

Is it bigotry that the overwhelming majority of religious traditions support marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

---

Whatever it may be, it's certainly unconstitutional to try and make laws based on religious tradition.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Out of curiosity, is the amendment going to constitute what defines a man and woman?Is it genitals? Genetics? What about a person with androgen insenstivity syndrome? Physiologically she's female, but karotypically she's male (XY genetics.) Who can she marry?There's a significant cost to legitimate, atypical, practically-heterosexual marriages here that's being ignored.

Someone Please explain to me who they are hurting by getting married? Why does it mean so much to people that Gays don't get married? I am aware your Religion is against it.... so what? Jewish can't eat pork... and Catholics can't Eat Meat on Fridays during lent. Does that mean we should be able to ban the sale of pork? or the sale of Meat on Fridays? I mean after all its a sin for either of them to eat those things.... I Mean if Gay marriage is SUCH a sin DON'T DO IT! But since when is it up to you to stop someone else?[This message has been edited by DC85, 02-26-2004]

I suspect there is alot at stake in this recent debate over the "legal" definition of marriage. I seem to remember reading that it was once "legal" to beat your wife and children as long as you did not use a stick thicker than your thumb. Hence the term Rule of thumb. How many other "legal" terms have been redifined that are now considered ridiculous by todays hindsight? We live in the year 2004. I was in a grocery store last Sunday waiting in line with some things and a 12 pack of beer. When it was my turn the girls said.."Im sorry I cant sell you that till 12 noon." It was 10 minutes til 12 noon. My point is in Texas there is a law that on Sunday you can not by beer on until 1200 noon... and there is a law in our Country that defines marriage. Is it not time to rethink this BS. sheesh.[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-26-2004]

I know in South Carolina we have Blue Laws on Sundays.. you can't buy anything except food or go out anywhere until 1:30 PM... why? religion! They think you should be in church.... But I thought we had freedom off religion... SOOO its none of there business what I do on Sunday! For A country with free religion we are told what to believe often....[This message has been edited by DC85, 02-26-2004]

quote:

---

TJ said: It is the gay rights activists who are boldly breaking the law

---

quote:

---

Dan: Hang on a sec... what laws, specifically, are you referring to? When where they broken, and by whom?

---

TJ replies:
Simple. The state law in CA that prohibits gay marriage. The mayor of SF and everyone else involved there are currently breaking that law.

quote:

---

TJ said:
This could happen all over the country. We can do without this headache.

---

quote:

---

Dan replies:
I'm terribly sorry if civil rights are such a hassle for you. Lie down a while, take a nap. All this horrible "asking to be treated like a human being" must be such a nuisance.

---

TJ replies: I'm sorry Dan, I understand what you are saying. The courts are there for that very reason - for citizens of the US to get a fair hearing on their issues. However, if the federal government were to make a statement one way or another, then this swamping of the judicial with lawsuits on this issue in every state might be avoided. I'm not saying that gays should not be allowed to pursue their issues in courts.

quote:

---

TJ said: The activist courts are pushing the President into this and he has no choice but to act on behalf of the welfare of the country.

---

quote:

---

Dan replied: If he was acting on behalf of the welfare of his country, he would stop trying to deny citizens their rights.

---

TJ replies: I disagree with your opinion here, but I will skip a reply to this right now. It will be dealt with in a reply to Rhain which I hope to post sometime next week.

Crash said:

quote:

---

Congratulations on the most sickening, bigoted piece of blaming the victim I've ever read.

---

TJ replies:
OK, Crash, first let me apologize for angering you. That was and is not my intent. Obviously you have strong feelings on this issue and you seem to have a very strong dislike for those who hold differing views. Although it may be the most effective way to deal with this issue for your side, do you think maybe you can talk about it without all the name-calling, accusations, assumptions, and stuff?If Ifm a bigot, then I guess Ifm in good company since President Clinton, 85 U.S. Senators and 342 Members of the House also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.Crash, first off, it seems like you and I have a different view of gays. You call them victims. And I understand that in some ways they may have been "victims" of circumstances, bad family life, etc., and there may even be some genetic tendencies as well, but even some gays would be greatly offended at you calling them victims so you had better be careful. I believe there is help for them. However, if they are victims, that means they are stuck in their condition forever and just have to endure. I do not believe that is true. People can change as many have already done.

quote:

---

Crash:
Oh, poor Bush.

---

TJ replies:
I'm sorry Crash. I wasn't trying to say that we should feel sorry for the President. You missed the point of the post. I was just stating that he probably wouldnft have pushed for a constitutional amendment if the other side hadnft forced the issue. I donft have any pity for him at all. I doubt you do either from the tone of your post.

quote:

---

Crash:
Driven into a corner by those unreasonable gays, so aggrivatingly persistent in their quest for equal rights. How dare they!

---

TJ replies:
Framing this in the light of rights is a very effective argument. But Crash, let me assure you that I understand the plight of the gays. It is not enviable. If I were gay, I might very likely be doing the same thing they are doing, so I donft condemn them for that. However, I still disagree that homosexuality is a normal valid alternative lifestyle that should be embraced by our country. I still disagree that encouraging them to persevere in this lifestyle is really the best thing for them. That is where we differ.

quote:

---

Crash: Like most of the arguments against gay marriage your post is founded on made-up data, your own fears of homosexuality, and a disgusting lack of regard for the rights of persons you don't particularly like.

---

TJ replies:
Crash, lots of accusations here, but thatfs about all I see. You can do better than that. I take issue with each of those assumptions.
Well, I take that back. I do have some fears or concerns about the welfare of society if we fully embrace and encourage homosexuality in our society.

quote:

---

Crash: It's not clear whether or not you get to vote in my country (in absentia, etc.); my deep fear is that you get to.

---

TJ replies:
It is quite clear. All citizens are able to vote and I am a citizen. I do get to vote and I take that privilege seriously. It is a free country and we are free to disagree with each other. Ifm worried though that pretty soon it will be illegal to disagree publicly on this issue like it is in some European countries now.Regards,
TJ

Dan, in some ways all laws are based upon people's worldviews or belief systems. Some worldviews/belief systems are religious in nature and others are atheistic in nature, but even an atheistic worldview involves faith in the tenets of the worldview as does a naturalistic worldview. In the end there is no difference. One view says something is permitted and another worldview says it is not. Whose worldview gets to be predominant? This is a difficult issue. This is what Crash was arguing in the beginning of this thread.Is it unconstitutional for the people to decide on law?Right now in the US, it is supposed to be decided by the people - what was it - government of the people, for the people and by the people? I am not totally commfortable with that, but that is the way it is.I think we usually draw the line when one person's actions negatively effects another. For instance, Americans do not have the right to drink and drive in our country. Why did lawmakers feel it was reasonable to limit people's freedom in this area? Obvious isn't it? That kind of freedom can negatively affect others. That is how I look at homosexuality.I had a discussion here in Japan with a man in an English class one time. He was an atheist. His standard for morality was this:"Anything is permitted as long as it doesn't hurt someone else."He seemed to have brainwashed himself into thinking that his personal choices did not affect others. That seems to be a common opinion about the homosexual issue as well. I disagree. The idea that a person's sin will not effect others is just not true. Since sin negatively effects the person committing the sin, it will have an effect on those around him/her too. It is just like sickness. If I get sick, it affects my family. This influence might be as simple as setting a bad example for others or in the case of homosexuality, it might mean a greater medical burden for all of society to carry, infecting a sexual partner with a disease, encouraging others to experiment in homosexuality and all the way out things that exist in the world of homosexuality, undermining the family by presenting other lifestyles as normal and valid, contributing to sexual confusion of minors whether through sex, ideological teaching, or lack of a good role model, isolating them from God or maybe poisoning their attitude toward God,(for an atheist this would not be a problem), etc.Now, if only that man I was talking about earlier had lived by his own standards. But it is no surprise that even he admitted that he didn't. Of cours, none of us can really live up to our own standards however high or low we set them and this is the problem(what the Bible calls sin).
We don't need the Bible to understand that we are sinners. We all know it in our hearts. But if there is no God and no judgment after death, hey, who really cares? Who cares if your actions lead to the breakup of your family as long as you are able to pursue personal happiness?My brother-in-law is a homosexual. He chose to get married and have a child. Some years later, their relationship ended in divorce. In his case, his wife wanted to protect their son from the porn videos he was watching so she was the one who left, but often times it is the homosexuals themselves who choose to leave the relationship and they are applauded for "coming out". Evidently no one thinks about the families they had committed themselves to and then chose to leave behind.This guy in Japan who I was talking about enjoyed drinking and his drinking harmed his family. In addition to that, he himself admitted that he was a terrible father and obviously a terrible husband as well. Now drinking and shirking parental and marital responsibilities are not against the law, but I believe he broke a higher law and is accountable to God for those actions. In the end though, if there is no god, does it really matter?Regards,TJ

quote:

---

Dan, in some ways all laws are based upon people's worldviews or belief systems. Some worldviews/belief systems are religious in nature and others are atheistic in nature, but even an atheistic worldview involves faith in the tenets of the worldview as does a naturalistic worldview. In the end there is no difference.

---

I don't have the time or patience to hash this argument out again. Go read the "Is There Really a God?" thread, where I spend twelve solid pages debunking this notion. To date, I have yet to see a response that explains how atheism or naturalism requires even a jot of faith.

quote:

---

Whose worldview gets to be predominant? This is a difficult issue. This is what Crash was arguing in the beginning of this thread.

---

The one not expressly forbidden by the constitution from taking a hand in law.

quote:

---

I think we usually draw the line when one person's actions negatively effects another. For instance, Americans do not have the right to drink and drive in our country. Why did lawmakers feel it was reasonable to limit people's freedom in this area? Obvious isn't it? That kind of freedom can negatively affect others. That is how I look at homosexuality.

---

How exactly do you make the jump from one man marrying another man to getting behind the wheel of a two-ton metal machine while not in control of your motor functions? Is a gay marriage going to run off the road and hit a bunch of nuns and puppies or something?

quote:

---

The idea that a person's sin will not effect others is just not true.

---

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to establish that homosexuality, in and of itself, is some sort of secular moral failing before you go anywhere with this "it's sin" idea.

quote:

---

This influence might be as simple as setting a bad example for others or in the case of homosexuality, it might mean a greater medical burden for all of society to carry, infecting a sexual partner with a disease

---

So what you're saying is that, since lesbians are in the lowest risk group for STDs, we as a society should be encouraging women to be lesbians?

quote:

---

encouraging others to experiment in homosexuality and all the way out things that exist in the world of homosexuality

---

So, homosexuality is bad, because it might encourage others to be homosexual, which is bad? Please tell me you see the circular logic here.

quote:

---

We don't need the Bible to understand that we are sinners. We all know it in our hearts.

---

At this point, I would like to heartily encourage you to not speak for what I know in my heart. Somehow, I sincerely doubt you even speak my heart's language.

quote:

---

But if there is no God and no judgment after death, hey, who really cares? Who cares if your actions lead to the breakup of your family as long as you are able to pursue personal happiness?

---

This, sadly, says much more about you than it ever will about atheists or homosexuals.

quote:

---

My brother-in-law is a homosexual. He chose to get married and have a child. Some years later, their relationship ended in divorce. In his case, his wife wanted to protect their son from the porn videos he was watching so she was the one who left, but often times it is the homosexuals themselves who choose to leave the relationship and they are applauded for "coming out". Evidently no one thinks about the families they had committed themselves to and then chose to leave behind.

---

If only he hadn't been pressured by society to fit into a traditional model of a man and a woman married with children.

quote:

---

This guy in Japan who I was talking about enjoyed drinking and his drinking harmed his family. In addition to that, he himself admitted that he was a terrible father and obviously a terrible husband as well.

---

Yeah, some people can't handle their liquor, all right. On the other hand, I drink, and a typical drinking night for me will include some laughs with my friends, maybe a poker game, and sometimes even some naked fun with a pretty lady. Then I go to sleep, and wake up the next day with a bit of a headache.You goin' somewhere with this?

quote:

---

Now drinking and shirking parental and marital responsibilities are not against the law

---

Actually, shirking parental responsibilities is against the law. It's called child neglect. And shirking marital responsibilities is grounds for divorce.You might want to read up a bit on the law before you talk about what it should and shouldn't do.

quote:

---

but I believe he broke a higher law and is accountable to God for those actions

---

In which case, why not have gay marriage? God'll take care of those sinful homosexuals after death, and the state doesn't have to worry about it.

quote:

---

In the end though, if there is no god, does it really matter?

---

Of course not. That's why, as an atheist, I make sure to kidnap at least three orphans every day, cut off their reproductive organs, fry them in a light vegetable oil, and force-feed them back to the orphans.Oh wait, that would be freakin' nuts, with or without God. Gee, maybe a person can be good without God after all!

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

I know, and it's wrong of me to get so worked up about it, but it's just not possible for me to sit and be calm while I watch people nonchalantly toss off what appears to me to be the worst sort of illogical bigotism. I know you don't see it that way, and I'll try to be civil from here on out. Well, what I meant was that they were victims of legislation specifically designed to deny them rights. Not that all homosexuals are victims of something. Oh, me too. What would help them would be people leaving them the hell alone about who they choose to have sex with and how. There's nothing inherently wrong with homosex. I don't like it, and I'm sure that you don't, but I recognize that my opinion on the subject is irrelevant to anybody else. And what I'm saying is that's blaming the victim. Bush doesn't have to push for the amendment. He could just leave gay people the hell alone. But he's chosen not to, so let's lay the balme for this anti-gay amendment right where it belongs - the people that are pushing for it. You don't have to embrace it. It's perfectly fine for you to see homosex as disgusting. Personally I can't abide the thought of inserting my penis into an anus, male or female.But I recognize that some people find this act enjoyable, and moreover, it doesn't hurt anybody when they do so with some minimal effort towards protection. I don't understand how you make the leap from "I don't like gay sex" to "gay sex needs to be banned." On the other hand, they do think so, and moreover have the data on their side - people who aren't suppressing their sexual preference are happier. None of those homosexual "treatment" programs work. They do more harm than good.So it's not clear why you get to decide what's best for other adults. Especially when you don't seem to really know much about their condition and situation. I'm not asking you to embrace homosexuality. I'm asking you embrace the fact that your opinion on another person's homosexuality is as relevant as your opinion on their taste in wine - that is, totally irrelevant. It's fine for you to think gay sex is icky. I just don't understand why you think that means you get to tell other people they can't have it. I wasn't sure if you were a US citizen or not, since your thing says you're in Tokyo. Glad we got that cleared up.But imagine my consternation that people who apparently see nothing wrong with enforcing their own personal preferences on other people get to vote in my country. Maybe that's not you, I don't know. You'll have to explain to me why you think your views on homosexuality trump other peoples' to the point where you would amend the constitution with your view and your view only.