Marriage Amendment

Yes, and the answer is simple - the worldview that involves the least amount of telling other people what they can and can't do - that is, the worldview that maximises choice and freedom for people without harm to society.You may believe that letting men who only want to have sex with men actually do that hurts society, somehow. I say it doesn't. It's up to you to prove otherwise if you want that argument to be taken seriously.

Most gay people aren't committing to hetero mates and having children. They're committing to gay mates and adopting children, and it's the government right now that's tearing these families apart. Evidently no one on your side thinks about them, do they?Don't act like gay people only discovering they're gay after marriage and kids is the norm.

Tokyojim writes:

quote:

---

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

---

I can accept that because, even as a gay man, I feel that this is perhaps not the best way to go about securing marriage rights for gays. I have to say, though, that it is rather refreshing to see images of ordinary gay people being portrayed in the media as opposed to the usual flamboyant types we see associated with Mardi Gras or Will & Grace (not criticizing either MG or W&G here, just saying it's nice to see average gay men and women make an appearance for once).However this does beg the question: What is your opinion of Judge Roy Moore, the stupid responsible for that ridiculous 10 commandments monument? He was breaking the law as well, and in fact refused to comply with the law even when specifically ordered to remove the damned thing by a superior court. Mayor Newsom has said he will comply if ordered to stop issuing these licenses by a court. Do you see a contrast here? What is your feeling about it?

One more thought on this subject: why is it that Republicans insist on demonizing what they call "activist" judges? Does it ever occur to these morons that, were it not for such "activists" we'd probably still have segregation in the South? The fact is that these judges are pretty damned brave to go against overwhelming public opinion in order to do the right thing. Has GWB ever done anything that can be even remotely regarded as brave?

You're stereotyping.

The man is involved in two separate marriages to different women. The women are not married to one another. They are linked as family through their marriages to the man.

I'm replying to Dan Carroll's post in another topic because we were getting off-topic there. The word can be used to describe a close union of abstracts, but as far as a legal union between persons, I'm not making up a new definition of marriage. I challenge you to find that fourth dictionary.com definition that you quoted in any dictionary that is older than fifty years, or even twenty. I think the gay community and its supporters are creating a new definition.By the way, here's the definition quoted from dictionary.com:

quote:

---

I challenge you to find that fourth dictionary.com definition that you quoted in any dictionary that is older than fifty years, or even twenty.

---

So we're only going on traditional, original-meaning marriage, no matter how the concept has changed down the years?Okay. I hope you pay a nice dowry for your twelve-year-old piece of female property. But be sure to wait until you're around forty-five years old to buy her.After all, you don't want to go creating new definitions for marriage.

---

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

I really Hate this Man...... and the worst thing about it is I voted for him .... anyway how dare he take rights that people already have in some areas.... I have not yet heard his whole explanation yet... But someone please tell me what he said on how gay marriage can hurt the country?

"Down the years?" This implies a long, drawn out process. I do not believe the concept has been in change until very recently (which is my point in saying you can't find that particular definiton in dictionaries that are only twenty years young), and only by a narrow segment of the population. Okay, slap me upside the head and call me stupid, but I had to think a while about your meaning. If you mean that the definition has changed over the years because the "age of consent" has changed over the years, you're metathesizing ideas. The basic idea of marriage as between man and woman (regardless of whatever ages a particular culture allows it at) has not changed for as long as humans can remember. And "piece of property?" If you mean that at one time, marriage had nothing to do with love, or was nothing more than a form of female slavery, and now has changed into something else, you're both right and wrong. Forced or arranged marriages are not uncommon in various cultures. "Love" has nothing to do with the legality behind marriage. Subservience among partners in a marriage changes in type and degree from culture to culture. But that still doesn't change the basic idea of marriage--a legal union between man and woman.

quote:

---

If you mean that the definition has changed over the years because the "age of consent" has changed over the years, you're metathesizing ideas.

---

No, I mean that the entire concept of what marriage is meant to accomplish has changed.Basically, it seem that what you want to be the basic attribute of marriage is what you are assigning as the basic attribute... even though every last feature of marriage has proven mutable at one time or another.What we want marriage to mean is totally arbitrary. The marriage of today bears no resemblance whatsoever to the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Olbastard of Shitoleshire, Engalond in the year of our lord 250.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-27-2004]

---

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

How do you contend that homosexuals have a right to a legal union that has always been accepted to be between a man and a woman? There is currently a debate going on over whether the definiton of marriage should be changed or has already been changed or not. If the definition of marriage does not include homosexual partners, then how can a homosexual have a right to it? If one wants to change the definiton to give homosexuals access to the rights of the marital institution, then one must first make the idea commonly accepted. Marriage as a legal union between a man and woman has existed for all of history throughout the world. (I will accept verifiable evidence to the contrary.) One little part of Modern civilization wants to gain access to rights it does not already possess.Fable: A man lives in a house. Another man comes and moves into the house. The first man asks him what he is doing there. The second man states he has the same rights to be there as the first man. The first man takes the second man to court. The judge establishes that the first man owns the house and has every right to live there. The judge pronounces that the second man has no right to live in the house.Question: Is the judge taking the second man's rights away?Moral: Every one does not have a right to every thing.

Except that it has always been about a man and a woman before. Refute that.Marriage's attributes and methods may change, true. But the object has remained the same.

Maybe because tradition doesn't trump reason?

quote:

---

The man is involved in two separate marriages to different women.

---

right, so the tradition of marriage is not limited to "a man and a woman". In the Bible itself you can see that the tradition in marriage often involves "a man and two women".Sure he may have had two seperate ceremonies, but he IS married to two women. Therefore the tradition as handed down by God must also include "a man and two women".