Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

This hardly seems like a coffee house topic to me, as it is extremely volatile.I, for one, do not consider the banning of homosexual marriages to have anything to do with hatred, at least not intrinsically.Yes, some, maybe many, who are against homosexual marriages are motivated by hate. Some, maybe many, of those who promote it are also motivated by hate. However, the desire to make a moral standard law is not a hate issue in and of itself, and calling it "hatred" is inflammatory and only adds hot emotion to the issue.

My thought wasn't offense; my thought was accuracy. Perhaps name calling is the only way politics gets done in the U.S. I see enough evidence to think maybe it is.I don't get involved in national politics. I do, however, get involved in the life and future of the village/tribe I am a part of. We don't allow homosexual activity, much less homosexual marriage, and we would put out anyone who did it. It would destroy our lifestyle.Now America's a different situation. It's much larger, and its morality and mores have changed over the years. However, there is no such thing, in my opinion, as a country that does not legislate morality. It's a moral issue, for example, as to whether a child ought to be spanked as a form of punishment. In some places, here in the US, spanking is legislated against. I don't think the people who create and enforce such laws hate anyone. I think they're legislating morality and consigning spanking parents, who constitute the huge majority of parents in history, to a "2nd class" role, as you put it.Personally, I think this issue is as emotional for you and most of the others on this board as it is for any fundamentalist. The comments in response to my post by those who responded had little reason to them. Pure emotional response.It's fine. I have to assume based on what I see in this thread and others like it that legislation by partisanship and emotion will be the pattern in America for a long time, because it doesn't just happen on capital hill, but even here.

I can answer this I can't answer this, because I didn't say it.On the other hand, the act of defining marriage as a union between a husband and a wife (or wives), as it has traditionally been, does not constitute hate towards those that are not married and cannot be.It seems clear to me that there is a lot of hate expressed on both sides of this homosexual marriage issue, as there is on both sides of almost every other political issue.It would be nice, in my opinion, to hear one side saying, "Our side is right, and here is why." However, both sides say, "Their side is evil," even when it's clearly unreasonable to say it.

I didn't say anyone was being loving. I said that legislating morality is not hate.I agree, by the way, that the foster care system is frightening. As such, it's entirely possible, even from my point of view, that it would be better for them to be adopted by homosexual couples. However, more adoptions would be allowed by stopping the incredible cost of adoption so that one doesn't have to be rich to adopt and also allowing singles to adopt.None of that has anything to do, however, with whether legislating morality is hate.

I said nothing about anyone holding a monopoly on morality. You apparently believe that if homosexuals can't marry, then they are second class citizens. I realize someone said married people have "rights" that the unmarried don't have, but you don't seem concerned about heterosexual single people being second class citizens. I have a lot of trouble seeing how withholding marriage from homosexuals makes them second class citizens.Now, if you want to class those who call homosexuals names and publicly demean them as those who hate them, then that's fine. Call it that. But this is not about insulting homosexuals, this is about a legislative battle over the definition of marriage. I'm probably just wasting my breath, but I wish that name-calling wasn't the standard mode of battle for legislative conflicts.

Now you're talking about reason, which clearly has nothing to do with such issues. The religious right wants to maintain as much control of the government as possible. They've had it good for a long time here in North America. They don't want to lose it.Of course, once homosexual marriages are allowed, then they've lost, anyway. I'm not sure what they've lost and what harm it's going to do them, but they'll have lost.

No, it's not. There is no comparison between marriage and a water fountain. Everyone has to drink. Being married is nothing but an adjective or legal definition. No one has to marry, and if no one was legally married, nothing would change in this world but taxes. We've had a couple marriages at our village where we forgot to go get the couples legally married, because it's nothing but a piece of paper that we use for taxes.If taxes are the problem, then the tax laws can be changed without homosexuals marrying. No it's not. Everyone has to drink. Marriage traditionally means a lifetime relationship between a male and a female. Shoot, in ancient tradition, it pretty much meant the male owned the female. Thank God it's been redefined since then.You're wanting, and so are many others, to redefine it again. Accusing those who don't want to redefine it with you of hatred seems wrong to me. Saying that people are being demeaned or discriminated against because they can't have their relationship legally called marriage seems ridiculous to me. I do think there are those on both sides motivated by hate (or at least by fear that looks like hate). I don't think the act of promoting or being against same sex marriages is hatred one way or the other. I do think the name calling, the language used in the political debate, and the actions of protestors on both sides are fueled by hate (or fear that looks a lot like it).

Well, at face value, there's nothing about Christianity that should call for the death of those being legislated against. On the other hand, Christians with governmental authority do have a history of using the death penalty against homosexuals.I'd be frightened of Christians with governmental authority if I was someone who upset them. Oh, come to think about it, since Christians have called government agencies to tell them lies about me, published false stories about me on the internet, testified lies about me in court, and, in fact, misused a position of governmental authority against dear friends of mine, I guess I am someone who ought to be frightened if Christians get governmental authority.I agree with what you say above, but I can't agree that defining marriage as between a man and wife is hatred. It's just not.

We were at an impasse when we started. I only hoped that maybe it would settle down to a more friendly impasse. It doesn't. Marriage is just a word. Gosh, you're determined to make sure that I said this, whether I did or not. I will give you this, because this I did mean:Some involved in the fight to promote same sex marriage are involved in it because they are part of the homosexual/anti-homosexual battle. If emotions weren't involved, they wouldn't be involved, either.There are political sides. People on those political sides get involved in political battles, because they are part of the battle, whether or not the issure really matters to them. For most, it's just a battle. For those who protest and march, many go over the edge, it becomes life to them and the emotions are extreme and unreasonable. On both sides.

This is a good point, I think. In fact, the constitution is not really a document of law, but it defines government rather than establishing law. It gives congress the right to establish law, but it doesn't really establish law itself.The amendments do establish some law in order to preserve rights, which seems to me a justifiable reason for putting laws into a document that is not meant to be a set of laws. Preventing behaviors is supposed to be in the laws, not in the constitution, because it ought to be easy to change such limits on freedom if we decide we made a mistake earlier.I wrote this off the top of my head in response to your rather fascinating post, so I apologize in advance if it turns out to be stupid.

Ok, I took a gander I wouldn't solve any of those problems by allowing same sex marriage. I'd find a different way, especially since I'm one of those that doesn't want same sex couples to be able to adopt. That won't affect this issue, though, because I'm not for the constitutional amendment that's under discussion, anyway.Either way, the topic I was discussing was whether being for the amendment constitutes hatred. I think we've decided it'll stay at an impasse.

I'm talking about the word marriage. It has traditionally and legally meant a long term union between a man and woman. That's not arguable. The reason there is a debate is because that's the way it is and people want to change it.I'm not worried about my marriage. I'm not even for the stupid amendment to permanently end the possibility of same sex marriages.Nonetheless, I'm accurately describing the issue. Will marriage be redefined to include same sex couples. I'm not even sure what bothered you about me saying that.

I'm not sure I do care. I'm sure not for amending the constitution to address the issue. I got involved in the thread because jar said the amendment constituted hatred. This question was concerning same sex couples being able to adopt. That would be a long drawn out discussion that you and I would never agree on. When it becomes legal, which it will, no one will consult with me, so we don't have to worry about my position, anyway.

I was just saying that not all those that wish to legislate morality are practicing hatred. Nothing more.In the United States, homosexuality is quite legal, and general public opinion is that it is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Therefore, I assume that the laws of the United States are going to treat it as a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Those laws do not completely reflect that now, although they've been moving in that direction for a while. They will continue to, and I don't think it can be otherwise. I don't even want it to be otherwise. Sorry, I didn't catch that you might be waiting for a response from me. I'm sure that's my oversight, but it happened because I don't want to legislate against homosexuality, so I never gave a thought to arguing for it.To me if you legislate against homosexuality, you're also going to have to legislate against pre-marital sex and adultery (the latter is legislated against in some places, like the military). In fact, you'd end up legislating against all things that are sin by mainline Christian standards, and you'd wind up back in Calvin's Geneva, a place I wouldn't care to live or, in fact, be allowed to live.

Well, you can call it intolerance, hatred, and fear, but we've had a lot of homosexuals visit this community, and one that stayed for over a year just to visit. I don't think they've felt hated or feared.Obviously, love for us does not include allowing any and all behavior that might be practiced. Homosexuals are not the only ones that have limits on their behavior when they stay here; everyone does. That's so in every society, and because ours happens to include limits on sexual behavior, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, doesn't mean that those particular limits are motivated by hatred and fear.