November 11, 2003 3:31 PM
I was doing some research on Dean, gay marriage and civil unions, and came across this quote from Dean in the Advocate:
Well, when same-sex marriages take place in Vermont, legally it's called a civil union, because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
I never knew this, so I looked it up. Sure enough, Merriam-Webster's definition:
Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
UPDATE, 3 YEARS LATER: Merriam-Webster has changed the definition.
The Definition of Marriage (11.11.2003)
Next Entry: The LA Premiere (11.12.2003)
Previous Entry: Scalia, Corruption, and Carpal Tunnel (11.10.2003)
Sarah:
the webster dictionary was originally written by a staunch christian man in the 19th century or so. He wrote the dictionary based largely on absolutes of the bible. There are more definitions pertaining to christianity in the webster dictionary than there are to other religions. Though I disagree with John Webster and others about marriage being based on hetersexuality, I do think a universal opinion would be that it is based on love. Love is love no matter what. It is the eternal, the intangible and the UNDEFINABLE. it cannot be contained.
Tue Nov 11 2003 7:04 PM
Paul in OC:
Speaking of dictionaries, did you know that Tolkien edited words starting with "wa-" in the Oxford English Dictionary, circa 1919? He apparently had particular trouble coming up with a definition for the word "walrus". I got this bit of information from a Talk of the Nation interview today by the author of a new book, The Meaning of Everything. I find it very interesting that it took them 70 years to complete the first edition of the OED.
Look up the definition of "abbreviator", in the OED. Supposedly, the definition includes a reference to a person who draws up the Pope's briefs. No, not those briefs, the other ones.
Wed Nov 12 2003 12:16 AM
Corinne in Seattle:
Here's an interesting article on the Canadian Oxford Dictionary's plans to change that definition - http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/a/story/6355
As the heated debates in the US and Canada will attest however, what's really important is not how the dictionary defines marriage, it's how the law defines it.
In the US Constitution there is no mention of marriage being only between a man and a woman (they wouldn't have considered otherwise). In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage "for the purposes of federal law" as a union between one man and one woman. It also allowed that no state must recognize a union performed in another state that is other than that of one man and one woman.
Now Congress is considering enacting the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313) which would limit the jurisdiction of federal judges - including the Supreme Court - in decisions regarding DOMA, preventing them from interpreting that Congressional provision. http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3313.html
However, these bills can't actually prevent states from legalizing same-sex civil unions within their state. In order to do that a Constitutional Amendment would be needed. There is talk of such an Amendment for just this reason, but getting that through Congress would take much longer and be more difficult.
Here are some links on the current debates:
*http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/opinion/7298862.htm
*http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/states.marriage.laws/index.html
*http://www.theadvertiser.com/news/html/BCD417BF-DDCE-48FF-8DBC-CA118673C67A.shtml-Corinne
Mon Nov 24 2003 12:57 AM
marˇriage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.Hmmm the definition I looked up online at websters includes gay marriage. Is this a mistake or has someone realized that it needed to be added.
Sun Jan 18 2004 4:07 PM
The American Heritage definition seen on dictionary.com includes same-sex marriage -- that's the one you've got there, caprigod. It's the Merriam-Webster version found on m-w.com that doesn't include same-sex marriage. Sarah's comment above explains why the Webster version is so backward.
Sun Jan 18 2004 7:08 PM
Flamberge:
And why are we even talking about the origins of these books, these words, these terms and definitions, and proving or stating seemingly important facts that really are nothing, useless. There are a lot of other more significant things about life that should be talked about, not about these stupid dictionaries and their content...
Mon Jan 26 2004 4:19 AM
Flamberge:
Why are you people so into such very small discrepancies between these dictionaries? Can't we be more sort of UNIVERSAL or sumthin? And now I really know what geeks spend their time on. I don't really mean to insult anyone, really.
Mon Jan 26 2004 4:21 AM
adsware:
i dont know about this topic but can anyone of you help me to define the meaning of same sex marriage cause i have a law assignment ao that topic!
Tue Jan 27 2004 8:57 PM
adsware:
i notice that this community is concerned about same sex marriage problems that happen through out the country around the world. please be kind enough to help me to solve my assignment.
Tue Jan 27 2004 9:05 PM
GoodDoctor:
Don't get hung up on the dictionary. Dictionaries by their nature are backward-looking -- they do not invent words but rather define words in common usage. As usage changes, so do the dictionary definitions.
"A conservative is someone that thinks that nothing should be done for the first time."
Wed Feb 4 2004 1:26 PM
UScitizen:
The definition of "marriage" as determined by whatever dictionary is of little importance. The importance is that the U.S. Constitution states that all citizens have the right to marriage. If the politicians want to amend the constitution in order to accomodate their "moral" values then why should the U.S. constitution even exist! The right to marriage is every American citizen's civil and legal right as guaranteed by our fore fathers.
Sun Feb 8 2004 4:00 PM
averagejoe:
All citizens of age do have the right to marriage.
It just needs to take place by members of the opposite sex. The way it has been in most cultures for a very long time.
Thu Feb 12 2004 4:39 AM
liberty and justice for all:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is the first lines in most states constitution. My happiness lies with selecting the person i want to marry, society does not have that right. If gay people are treated as second class citizens, then why do they pay the same taxes? What is the harm? What are straight people afraid of? Does this affect your marriage? If you dont like same sex marriage, then dont marry one!!!!
Mon Feb 16 2004 7:01 PM
T.J Hamilton:
sounds like you want the definition of marriage to suit your cause.
If homosexuals can marry, why can't man and beast do so? why cant a man marry his sister? they "love" each other, dont they?
your argument is preposterous.
Sun Feb 22 2004 8:28 AM
njguardsman:
The question is not weather people have a right to marry, people do. Also the question is not that the constitution protects peoples right to marry, it doesnt saying that your not happy because you cant marry the one you love is a cop out! How many people propose marriage and get turned down?!?!? Are their constructional rights also being violated?!?!?
If I love my dog should I be allowed to marry it?!?!? How about if I love my car or what about my brother, my sister?!?!?
The issue before us is that same sex marriage is against the rule of law as it stands at this time where it is taking place in California, also marriage has been between a man and woman for as long as there have been people, this is a pillar of civilization and the glue that holds society together.
Homosexuals are trying to force their legitimacy on the vast majority of Heterosexual
people in this country. The law states we cannot discriminate against people based on sexual preferences among other things, yet they still announce that fact when they adopt when nobody cares, its none of out business, they can adopt as well as any single person living with another!Should gays be allowed to take care of each other (make the same decisions as a married couple) absolutely, BUT to call that marriage NO WAY! This is just another way Gays seek to legitimize themselves in the eyes of the rest to the country that just so happens NOT TO BE GAY.
Before you judge me as a right wing Homophobe, my Mother & Father and family (yes they were straight) raised me BUT my godfather is GAY! And I love him, I kiss him as I would my Father and I hope and pray my son is lucky enough to have some one of his character (Straight or Gay) in his life.
Tue Feb 24 2004 1:11 PM
Karen:
It seems to me that the definition of marriage *is* important here. If the law changes the definition of marriage, then what is classically defined as marriage will cease to exist, because it will no longer be defined the way it once was. In short, it will destroy marriage. This isnt about discrimination or inclusiveness; its about the destruction of the institution of marriage and the heterosexual family unit. This has already been accomplished in Scandinavia. The gay community there hid their own opposition to marriage during the debate because they knew that legalizing same-sex unions would affect a greater change. According to Norwegian sociologist Rune Halvorsen, The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark. . . was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality. Danish social theorist Henning Bech (also gay) dismissed the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy as implausible. This is because their ultimate goal was not about the "right" to have a legally recognized union with a "partner". Nor is it the goal here in the U.S.
Tue Feb 24 2004 5:43 PM
MikeG:
As for the topic of same-sex marriages, ponder this thought for a moment. Those who initially came to this continent and settled it, did so to escape persecution for their beliefs. Their descendants, our founding fathers, chose to continue that belief by writing the constitution to mandate equality for all. Regardless of the changes to our society over the last two hundred years, has the idea of fair and equal treatment for al Americans disappeared? We corrected the errors in the constitution by doing away with slavery, giving woman the right to vote and so on. Are we so enlightened in this new millenium that our leaders wish to disgrace the constitution by making it prejudicial against a particular group based on their beliefs? I am not saying I support gay marriages, but I believe the constitution should not be an instrument by which judgement is passed on someone for the choices they make for themselves. Only God himself can sit in judgement of man, man shall not judge man, lest he be judged himself. President Bush said in his speech that we must protect the sanctity of marriage. How does two men or two women being "legally" married threaten the sanctity of marriage? As for the Norwegian sociologist in the previous message, there is already an acceptance of homosexuality in our country, as long as they don't try to get the same rights legally that other couples have.
Tue Feb 24 2004 8:50 PM
njguardsman:
Please note that "constructional" was meant to be CONSTITUTIONAL in my comment of: 24 FEB 04 so that comment should read: "Are their constitutional rights also being violated?!?!?" I apologize.
Addendum: Should marriage include: marrying more that one person at the same time??? How about 50 wives or 20 husbands (this doesnt matter if your straight or gay), where does it end?
Wed Feb 25 2004 4:01 AM
theshewolf:
Actually, until recently, there was no requirement in law that marriage be between a man and a woman.
And althought the Christian religion frowns on same-sex partnerships, it is nowhere near true to say that all religions do. Keep in mind that Christianity is only the 3rd largest religion in the world, and my relgion states that anything which occurs between two consenting adults is O.K.
Why should MY marriage rights be predicated on YOUR religious beliefs?
Wed Feb 25 2004 11:30 AM
Drew:
Okay so after reading all this I have one question. At what point did it become acceptable in this country to ignore the separation of church and State. The legislation of defining what is and is not acceptable in marriage is based on (as several have said) the beliefs of one religion. To mean as soon as you start to pass legislation that tries to force beliefs from one belief system to everyone else regardless if they follow those beliefs or not you are going against a number of things this country if founded on. Do I agree with same sex marriages? That is irrelevant! What is relevance is that I have my beliefs and part of my beliefs is to evangelize those beliefs. However, there is no part of Christianity that condones me forcing my beliefs on others.
Once you start down this road what are you going to legislate next? There are two very large black times in world history where individuals (or groups) tried to force beliefs on others and destroy those that would not accept that. One of those times was the Christian Crusades which say the Brits decide that everyone needed to be a Christian, or be dead. Another one is the reign of Hitler in which everyone that was born of a different race and belief did not deserve life in his eyes. We may not be killing people because of their beliefs, yet, but we have in the past and what is to stop this being the fist step down that path again?
Wed Feb 25 2004 1:17 PM
Anonymous:
in the not too distant past inter-racial marriages were illegal
Wed Feb 25 2004 4:45 PM
Kevin:
Have we all become so blind as to not see that we are tearing our own country off of it's very foundations? Our constitution teaches equality for all... it DOES NOT SAY "equality for all, but the minority gets special benefits" We, The People of the United Sates, are going to stand by while the minorities tear apart our laws in the name of "equality" In the past 20 years our lives have been led by "minorities" who twist the constitution in whatever way suits them. Well guess what? I feel that my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is impeded becuase I cannot go the speed I want on the road, I cannot walk across traffic whenever I wish, I cannot call certain "colored" people names without fear of being labeled "Racist" and sued, I cannot beat innocent kittens becuase it gives me pleasure, I cannot walk around naked, thus expressing myself freely, I cannot kill individuals who look at me wrong, and I cannot create high explosives in my backyard for the sheer thrill of it. So now I am going to goto court and sue for my rights being violated. Damn all scientific research which contridicts my beliefs, your still violating my rights.
And, if a man wishes to marry another man, then I wish to marry my dog. And since my dog is now my spouse, then his "clinical visits" will be paid for by my HMO, his prescriptions will also be covered, and when he dies his burial will also be covered, and I will be allowed upto 2 weeks PAID leave for "Family Greivance period" but lets not stop there...
My friends and I think it'd be cool to act as 1 legal unit, so we want to get married. All 4 of us. we "love" each other, and therefore it against the constitution for you to impede my right to marriage. It is also against the HMO's for limiting their plans to 1 spouse, so I will sue them to change that too. Now all 4 of us have medical coverage and we all have legal ownership of each others belongings should something happen. And we could go on to... lets all be polygamists, and then I can claim 20 kids on my taxes and become filthy rich off the government, and at the same time be collecting welfare becuase I'm the only one working :)
If 1 minority can trample our rights and freedoms so can any other. I am 1 amungst 280 million, therefore I am a minority :)
Thu Feb 26 2004 1:57 AM
Anonymous:
Kevin- could you explain your extrapolation that if
two people of the same sex are able to legalize
their union then it follows that you could marry
your dog or a group of people could form a multiple
marriage?
That argument is used so often by those who oppose
same sex marriage that I need some help in
understanding its relevance, i.e, how do animals
and multiple partners fit into the known facts: two
humans of the same sex forming a legal union?.
Thu Feb 26 2004 7:14 AM
njguardsman:
FIRST Jeffersons use of the phrase was an argument that a wall existed in which the government would never interfere with religious activities, NOT that all religious expression would be removed from the public square.
SECOND Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and the fact that many on the FRINGE want to ram gay marriage down our collective throats re-enforces my belief that it is WRONG morally, ethically, and physically (even if it is legal). These are (more or less) the same people who say were currently fighting a/an un just war, that we are forcing our way of life on others but see nothing wrong in forcing their beliefs on us.
By doing this it destroys the very essence of what marriage is. How long before marriage becomes whatever suits the current fad (when it loses its meaning).
Thu Feb 26 2004 8:21 AM
Anonymous:
You misunderstand. No one wants to force you to
marry a person of the same sex as you are. That would
be "forcing their beliefs on you". The decision as to
whom you marry is absolutely yours alone.
However, what we both need to worry about is
anyone who believes that their personal religious
beliefs should dictate what is right for everyone
else.
In the U.S. marriage is a legal joining of two
people that mainstream religious groups are
allowed to perform (important distinction- allowed).
I personally would not choose to formally classify
a same sex union as marriage although I would not
have a problem with anyone informally calling it a
marriage. I think the insistance of classifying same
sex unions as marriage is damaging to their mission
which is, I believe, to acquire equal civil rights under
the laws.
There should be a legally sanctioned means for same sex
couples to acquire the same legal rights that opposite
sex couples have.Ennoia
Thu Feb 26 2004 8:55 AM
njguardsman:
So let me get this, Gays are persecuted because we dont call their civil unions marriage?!?!? Show me the one country were Gay people come from and Ill show you a minority why are they granted a minority status because of a particular thing they do?!?!? if thats the case, grant minority status to left-handed people since we live in a right handed world
Thu Feb 26 2004 11:18 AM
Anonymous:
Slow down and cease paraphrasing inaccurately.
Who said "gays are persecuted because we don't call
their civil unions marriage"?
What is exactly?
Bye
Thu Feb 26 2004 2:36 PM
Kevin:
" NEW
Kevin- could you explain your extrapolation that if
two people of the same sex are able to legalize
their union then it follows that you could marry
your dog or a group of people could form a multiple
marriage?
That argument is used so often by those who oppose
same sex marriage that I need some help in
understanding its relevance, i.e, how do animals
and multiple partners fit into the known facts: two
humans of the same sex forming a legal union?.Thu Feb 26 2004 07:14 AM "
Very easy. Homosexuals wish to change the definition of marriage from "Between a man and a woman" to "Between 2 consenting adults"So why cannot another minority, say people who believe in group marriage, change it further? Are you going to descriminate against them now? Oh we can't descriminate against 1 minority but uphold the other, thats just not right.
"You misunderstand. No one wants to force you to
marry a person of the same sex as you are. That would
be "forcing their beliefs on you""True, but they want to force us to look upon them as a couple equal to our own AND they want to force me to accept them as married, becuase if I do not, if I make the private decision not to acknowledge their marriage as valid, then I can be sued for discrimination, much like you can sue someone who does not acknowledge a bi-racial couple. It's called descrimination. A Fringe minority is trying to "feel accepted" and in the process is forcing everyone else to acknowledge their unions as valid, which many do not.
Fri Feb 27 2004 11:11 AM
njguardsman:
I AGREE with the above statement completely, This is not about love, this is about the definition of marriage and how people seek to destroy marriage by changing it.
Fri Feb 27 2004 9:29 PM
Dan:
As a married, heterosexual, Christian Canadian, Im really very interested in this issue and have given it a little thought. I havent taken an ultimate stand on the issue, but I think I need to make some comments in this thread specifically. Im reading a lot about rights and legality, and definition and destruction a heated, but strangely sterile, debate and some odd applications of reason that wouldnt hold much water outside of an elementary school yard. I think were forgetting what is primary, what sits as a foundation for the things in quotation marks above understanding. I dont mean sympathy or else Id have written that. I mean why the hell do we think the things we do, are we right, and does the history of our culture bear that out?
From what Im reading, and comparing it to even a brisk investigation of cultural history of both North America and the West in general, I think most of this debate is off track. The explicit understanding of sexuality (and thus marriage) as being strictly male and female is a uniquely Western and a uniquely modern phenomenon homosexuality as a word is only a little over 150 years old, and is an English one. Of course, people had been engaged in what wed consider homosexual activity since as far back as history can tell, but these acts would not have been considered homosexual in the sense of divergent or immoral. We idolize the Greeks and Romans these fallen empires were by and large the models of aesthetics and law for the founding fathers of America yet homosexuality was an accepted practice. Fast forward to the Age of Discovery, observers of indigenous cultures of North America noticed that sexuality was not as clearly defined as it had become in European (read: Christian) societies. Some men performed womens duties and even married other men. It was all par for the course, and in some tribes these folks (berdaches) were highly regarded as spiritual leaders and healers. Theres much, much more to be said, but I think this is enough to indicate that any historical, cultural or even biological precedent for heterosexuality is a Western dogma.
Speaking strictly within American history, there is an historical precedent for heterosexual marriage, yes. But America is new. Very new. The lack of homosexual marriage in the history of the U.S. is easily explained by the fact that by the time of confederation, homosexuality had long been a despicable habit in the eyes of the religious/political leaders and so it was suppressed. Like prostitution, adultery, alcoholism, drug use, and all of the other public secrets, no one made mention of it, so it didnt exist. There was a willing ignorance, and it continues. Laws and definitions, its been said in threads above, are merely a reflection of cultural norms, which clearly does not mean that those norms are right and even if they were right once upon a time, they may not have any relevance today. I think theres a warning about legal stultification a change with the times clause in the American Constitution, but Im not really sure. In the end, Im not sure where the idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman being an American cultural institution and the foundation of American values comes from. Aside from what Ive just written, if it were so sacred and foundational the U.S. should be a rotten shambles if the divorce rates, the spousal assault rates, the adultery rates, the marriage fraud rates all of which are extremely high by any standard of measurement were directly associated to the U.S.s cultural health. But theyre clearly not. Americas doing just fine, current Republican foreign and domestic policies aside. Youre not in as much trouble as most people think. Anyway, for those of who are worried that homosexual marriages will undermine and effectively destroy a hallowed American institution, I think its safe to say that the institution was never really there. Another dogma.
As for those of you who think that homosexual marriages will open a door into a world of flagrant marriages between siblings, people and animals, people and inanimate objects (cars?), I can only suggest that you give your head a shake. Certainly, the lack of restriction might make it possible, but not necessarily probable. And thats something that people living in country that is founded on the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have to accept. No restrictions of personal freedoms is a two-edged sword, meaning that your desires and values have as much credence as anyone elses, even if you dont like what those desires and values are. If they dont impede on your foundational rights, then its not your concern. Implicit in this is the expectation that people need to use common sense when it comes to what freedoms people actually should have. Marriage between two consenting adults who genuinely love one another is one thing, but the love between a man and his car is something else. At the very least, marriage either homosexual or heterosexual implies a sexual factor, and we cant have that kind of relationship with cars. I dont think it would be a stretch to say that anyone who genuinely wants to marry his or her car is actually mad. Incest is something else. The sexual and genuine kind of love that people are married for can exist between siblings. We may not like to think it, but it happens, and probably more often than we think. The wrongness of it depends on factors that dont apply to couples who are not so closely related. Certainly, theres no historical precedent against it. Whats left are biological concerns for any offspring. Currently in Canada, anyway first cousins can marry if they pass a test that determines if their offspring will suffer genetic deficiencies. After that, there are no barriers to the legitimacy of such a union, besides law and we all should know that laws can and often are wrong.
Homosexual marriage contains none of these concerns. Only until recently has there been actual laws enacted specifically to restrict homosexual marriage, and there arent many of them. Again, these laws are reflections of the prevailing values of those involved in the vote, which in a representational system means very little. So what the hell is the problem?
The only restriction now is that of Christian religious teaching. But this should not be enforced on a public that does not uniformly practice Christianity. Spiritual belief is, and always should be, a personal matter. Considering the words of Jesus, church and state never should have been joined in the first place. The non-institutional (but not anti-institutional) nature of Jesus teaching and of early Christianity was part of the point. The coercive behemoth that emerged hundreds of years later has arguably done as much damage as good, and I fear that it may continue that pattern in forcing a non-Christian public to abide by its own teaching which is, I might add, the teaching of Paul, not Jesus.
Tue Mar 2 2004 8:47 AM
Jon Lehman:
Comment on the definition of a conservative as being:
"A conservative is someone that thinks that nothing should be done for the first time."
No, a conservative is someone who thinks that some things are best left unchanged.
The difference between these two statements is self-evident. If you can't figure out the difference, maybe you should sit and stew on it for a bit.
Changing the definition of marriage isn't playing with fire, its playing with a nuclear bomb capable of destroying civilization.
The sooner conservatives wake up and take notice of what's going on, the better change we have of preventing a catastrophe.
Tue Mar 2 2004 3:52 PM
Newton:
What catastrophe? How does the artificial declaration or formalization of a union between two individuals lead to catastrophic failure of civilization? Humans have practiced whatever sexual practices they have since the beginning of civilization. One would be conservative or rather short-sighted in thought to not acknowledge that the mere formalization as in the construct of "marriage" will have little to no effect in the grand scheme of civilization's or mankind's progress because on a fundamental level people will still continue to practice these same sexual behaviors. In the past, only through natural selection and natural biological feasibility have people been able to reproduce viable offspring---the very sustenance on which civilization is based. Regardless of whatever artificial tools or mixed biological/genetic means we now have or will come up with for creating viable offspring, viable offspring and thus members of civilization will be created. Thus civilization will not end and a mere formalization or "universal acceptance" of marriage between any two beings cannot and will not lead to catastrophe by these means. To say so, is indeed short-sided and conservative. We no longer live in an era that can continue to ignore the basic scientific and biologically natural facts about creation and diversity.
On the contrary, the American society we live in is governed by some very conservative and backwards leaders, both in church and state. These leaders continue to disregard the separation of church/temple/mosque and state. The founding fathers indeed had some foresight and wisdom in declaring an independence and endorsing a Constitution away from the very conservative ideas of their past. The fundamentals to which they relied upon were based on rich philosophical ideas (Locke and others) and debate about religion, state, and the individual, concepts that even modern less-educated leaders (BUSH) and conservative members of today's society tend to forget. Indeed, since there is genetic penetrance of homosexuality that is observed in many different biological kingdoms, a society cannot continue to ignore and base its civilization on falsity and lack of realizing nature's truth. I believe that our founding forefathers had courage and wisdom to try to protect this genetic diversity by helping to estabilish a government and civilization that would be respectful of such underpinnings, even despite the fact that in practicality people are not created equal by their C/creator. It is the business and responsibility of government, our leaders, society, and civilization to respect this equality of treatment in the face of such diversity. That is the basis of this civilization in the United States.
On the contrary, an amendment seeking to redefine marriage as anything but would serve to be catastrophic to the very underpinnings and ideals of this civilization. However, the physical existence of mankind would not change much anyways because we would still be able to re-create through whatever means at our disposal, which should be nobody else's business except the C/creator's. Natural law will still continue to exist so long as it is still a requirement that a male and female gamete is necessary for successful reproduction. This inherently has nothing to do with the societal construct of "marriage". Even if we could change this natural law of re-creation and even if we could take the "gender" out of the equation, this would still have nothing to do with marriage or civilization, as both should and will continue to exist and evolve. It is a responsibility of civilization to be respectful and keep pace with this evolutionary journey that our C/creator put us on long, long ago in a quest for universal harmony and a grander existence with ourselves, Nature and our C/creator.
Wed Mar 3 2004 7:50 PM
roughrider:
What is the Big deal? If two human beings want to get marry and have the same benifits as everyone else then why not let them. How can religion play such a big role in all this? I wonder if the country is going back in time instead of moving forward.
Thu Mar 4 2004 8:47 AM
njguardsman:
NewtonOn the contrary, the American society we live in is governed by some very conservative and backwards leaders, both in church and state. These leaders continue to disregard the separation of church/temple/mosque and state.
AGAIN - Jeffersons use of the phrase was an argument that a wall existed in which the government would never interfere with religious activities, NOT that all religious expression would be removed from the public square.
Conservative, as a descriptive word, is generally opposed to progressive, or more specifically to liberal, socialist or revolutionary ideologies (because theyre wrong!).
people will still continue to practice these same sexual behaviors YES this is a behavior and you want a small segment of the population to get special treatment because of this. You want to subvert marriage into what you want it to be, how long before marriage becomes a free-for-all (marriage is what you make it).
What happens when N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man Boy Love Association) decides to get into the act???
In the past, only through natural selection and natural biological feasibility have people been able to reproduce viable offspring---the very sustenance on which civilization is based
So if civilization is based solely on the ability to reproduce, then a herd of: cattle, horses, a pack of wolves have their own civilizations. You are either bringing us down to the level of animals -OR- you are saying homosexuals are not a part of civilization because they can produce no offspring.
AGAIN The question is not weather people have a right to marry, people do. Also the question is not that the constitution protects peoples right to marry, it doesnt saying that your not happy because you cant marry the one you love is a cop out! How many people propose marriage and get turned down?!?!? Are their constitutional rights also being violated?!?!?
AGAIN - Should Gays be allowed to take care of each other (make the same decisions as a married couple) absolutely, BUT to call that marriage NO WAY!
AGAIN These are people seek our approval, to make us say Yes I/we accept you they for some unknown reason seek to be accepted by the majority of the population and if we dont they will force there views upon us by tearing down anything traditional and remaking it in their image.
Thu Mar 4 2004 8:59 AM
Newton:
I agree with a few of your points, but only in part. There may be some truth to homosexuals seeking acceptance into the "accepted norms" of society. There may be some truth to grabbing attention and changing the views of what are accepted "traditions". However, this is really a side issue which generates fear, loathing, and hate among those unwilling to have their accepted traditions or constructs accomodate or even expand to allow for a broader definition, which is more to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the inherent, unchangeable genetic diversity of nature. It is this type of bigotry, if you will, that really needs to stop. I agree that no one party should force their beliefs on another party, but to change the societal and socioeconomic definition of marriage to be more inclusive rather than exclusive should not be regarded as creating damage to the status quo, as it will still be allowed to continue its accepted traditions.
It basically boils down to economics and fear. I have to say throughout history greed and fear, all negative emotions, have been the biggest source of prejudice that mankind has ever had to deal with. This country was not founded on fear but was founded on independence, courage, and a bold willingness to accept diversity. Diversity is absolutely inalienably innate in all beings. A higher form of civilization respects that and accomodates for it.
As an example, let's suppose you suddenly developed Guillame-Barre's disease and had ascending paralysis of both of your legs, preventing you from walking. It would be wrong for you to be fired from work or lose some or all of your government or insurance benefits because of this genetic diversity that you had all along but that just suddenly became expressed. Further any laws or traditions that would serve to exclude you from such benefits would also be considered unfair and it would be emotionally and economically difficult for you to try to live your life in a society that was prejudice and exclusive against people who cannot walk. To some degree, this same situation is analogous to the marriage issue, which may seek to question allowing for the socioeconomic benefits that have been excluded for these people from day one, which may inherently have been wrong all along because of our ignorance of real and expressed genetic diversity or other factors. Any conservative or religious reasons for a practical legal definition of marriage that continues to be exclusive and discriminatory against an inherent genetic diversity would not be in the spirit of the Constitution. Again, the issues of separation of church and state come to play.
Conservatives need to stop imposing and enforcing their exclusive beliefs onto others, who simply by the fact of nature are not like them. This is a legal and economic issue, not a religious one.
Regarding your point about civilization, it would be ignorant and arrogant for us humans to say that animals do not have their own civilization. I simply do not know but dare not accuse otherwise. Again, this is a side issue.
Regarding homosexuals and reproduction. Obviously, if homosexuals were to be excluded and only allowed to mate among those of the same gender, it would be very likely that they would not be able to reproduce any offspring and very likely they would die off. While this may be desired by some, it would be wrong to exclude them from our civilization and not entitle them to same governmental benefits as everyone else. Further, today's scientific tools can help allow for homosexuals to reproduce. To ignore this reality and not accomodate for it is worthy of another debate, but needs to be resolved from a legal perspective now. In some ways, it may be more appropriate to not tamper with natural genetics to allow for asexual reproduction. But, it would be wrong to exclude homosexuals from society and civilization, even though inherently they would not be able to re-create non-artificially or without heterosexual mixing. At some point, society needs to decide where to draw the line if to draw one at all. While our civilization has accepted the genetic diversity of homosexuality as being an expressed phenotype, the question of whether they should be allowed also to reproduce asexually through scientific means needs to be answered. This probably speaks to the previous comments about people raising the question, where does it stop, if at all? I think this needs to be answered now.
From a family-oriented perspective, it may be better that children grow up in a family of two providers/parents than one parent. Practically, it is probably very likely some moms or dads simply cannot attract a mate of the opposite sex, simply do not want to, or are programmed not to. Whatever the reason, it is arguable that if two same gender or heterosexual providers were brought into the household that children would be better off than with one parent. I think a legal definition of marriage that would give benefits to these couples would help this "new" form of family unit.
Ultimately, as a society, we should not be struggling to come up with the right word for the overall concept. It is arguable that the term "civil union" should afford the same rights and benefits given to those under "marriage". Indeed, from any legal perspective the two should be regarded as equal. In this way, the conservatives would be more accepting and be able to perserve their bigotted ideals and continue to rejoice in their fear and loathing of people different than them.
Thu Mar 4 2004 11:57 AM
Newton:
In the blog above, in my analogy, consider muscular dystrophy or another genetic disease, a traumatic car accident, or Guillain-Barre, the latter of which can actually be acquired from Campylobacter jejuni.
Thu Mar 4 2004 12:26 PM
njguardsman:
Newton
As an example, let's suppose you suddenly developed Guillame-Barre's disease and had ascending paralysis of both of your legs, preventing you from walking. It would be wrong for you to be fired from work or lose some or all of your government or insurance benefits because of this genetic diversity that you had all along but that just suddenly became expressed.
consider muscular dystrophy or another genetic disease, a traumatic car accident, or Guillain-Barre, the latter of which can actually be acquired from Campylobacter jejuni.These are twists-of-fate that no one has control over AND if you think that Im not going to take care of my Autistic son because the Government has no law for it you should stop expressing your opinions because theyre worthless, Because of capitalism thats never going to happen, these people (during childhood, adolescence or puberty) decided that this is the way they were going to live their lives, just like addicts would love to have drugs legalized because thats the way they choose to live look at the problems with Alcohol (drunk driving, Alcoholism), Im not in any way calling Gays in any way lawbreakers or anything along those lines
AGAIN - you side step the issue, you yourself said "their behavior" that means they just do something that other people dont. I ask AGAIN why should a tiny part of the population be given special rites for a behavior?!?!?!? I DO agree that civil unions should give same sex couples the ABILITY to have the rights they need to make their unions work (you cannot discriminate on the basis of: sexual orientation, religion, race & other things)
Conservatives need to stop imposing and enforcing their exclusive beliefs onto others, who simply by the fact of nature are not like them. This is a legal and economic issue, not a religious one.
The main reason this country was founded was because of religious persecution
From a family-oriented perspective, it may be better that children grow up in a family of two providers/parents than one parent.
Yes but these children know who BOTH their mother and father are, be they separated, divorced, or dead. Your something is better than nothing approach is not what children need, if that was the case, we could get N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man Boy Love Association) members to be foster/adoptive parents how well off would these kids be??? Quality is better then quantity if one father is doing the job WHY does the child need two?!?!
conservatives would be more accepting and be able to perserve their bigotted ideals and continue to rejoice in their fear and loathing of people different than themSome background on me: I live in the northeast, in an urban area, Im in the military (we depend on each other and treat each other as equals) I went to a school where the majority of people were Black Americans and grew up in a Hispanic neighborhood. My godfather is gay.
I resent being called a bigot because I have conservative beliefs and values, so if you want to talk about bigotry we need to go somewhere else. You can disagree with me, tell me Im wrong BUT I draw the line at name calling, it just cheapens your argument
Fri Mar 5 2004 8:53 AM
dan:
njguardsman,
I'm not sure why you keep bringing NAMBIA into this as an example - ever heard of the 'slippery slope'? Pedophilia is a crime (for, I think, many obvious reasons), homosexuality is not. If homosexuals are able legally marry, it DOES NOT mean that pedophiles will be. Again, it's up to the legislators and voters to employ some common sense.
And, hey, even if the folks of NAMBIA were some day in the near future deemed some an appropriate authority to capable of legitimate and genuine relationships, who are you to say that they can't or don't - even if you think you're right? It's America, for God's sake, and no one person or group has a right impose restrictions on another.
Mon Mar 8 2004 5:32 PM
Paul:
It is interesting that we seem to be able to change the meaning of a word, such as gay. In the 1890's, it was considered the "Gay 90's. 100 years the "Gay" 90's means something so much different. We change word definations, sayings, etc to our own agenda. If a minority puts enough pressure on government agency's, such as Multnomah County Commissioner's, minus one of its board members, they, the commissioners seem to be able to change the rules on their own, even if it is agaist the laws of the County to please a small group. But if you or I do the same thing, we would be put in jail or fined or both. Come on people who is our represenatives looking out for, the majority or the minority (gays) in this whole mess. Besides how can, biologicaly same sex marriages have children, except the sperm from a man and an egg from a woman. It all comes down to money. Why not just call it a civil union instead.
Mon Mar 8 2004 7:38 PM
njguardsman:
Dan
I'm not sure why you keep bringing NAMBIA into this as an example because this is the kind of loop hole they need to push their agenda for legalizing relationships between men and boys"It's America, for God's sake, and no one person or group has a right impose restrictions on another." Then WHY are they forcing gay marriage on us?!?!?!? Whats to stop bi-sexuals to marry both their partners?
Again, if you read all of my statements, you can see that Im for civil unions BUT marriage is between a man and woman.
Wed Mar 10 2004 8:00 AM
That's horrible, njguardsman! Is somebody forcing you to marry a guy? And it must be horrible dealing with all those polygamous bisexuals in jersey!
Wed Mar 10 2004 8:08 AM
njguardsman:
OK, forcing us to ACCEPT gay marriage is this to your satisfaction Mr. Gilliam?!?!?
Wed Mar 10 2004 10:09 AM
Dan:
njguardsman,
This disctinction between 'civil union' and 'marriage' is a big - and unfortunate - sticking point, I guess. If under the law the rights assigned/allowed to a 'married' couple and to a civilly united couple (or whatever one might call it) are the same, then to me it's a nominal difference, a difference only in name, which makes one wonder: why make the distinction at all? Why restrict the use of a name to one kind of union? On what basis?
I know you have an answer and, of course, you are welcome to your conviction, as am I. My concern is (and I think this is the crux of the issue) that personal freedoms allowed under the constitution to all Americans could possibly be disallowed by an amendment that is based on the opinion of one group - even if that group happens to be a majority.
I would be equally upset if, for instance, an amendment were proposed that would restrict people from owning fire-arms. Personally, I don't like guns and what they're made for - and this a Canadian talking who lives an area where EVERYONE is a hunter - but my opinion shouldn't disallow for a freedom that is constitutionally - and thus supremely - guaranteed. As a participant in a constitional democracy that guarantees civil rights and freedoms, sometimes I'm required to put aside what I think is best and uphold a foundational document which expresses - I think we can agree - supreme values, values that not merely reflect (as Rousseau put it) the will of all, but the GOOD will.
That said, I still think it's silly to distinguish between 'marriage' and 'civil union'.
Thu Mar 11 2004 1:20 PM
njguardsman:
Dan,
AGAIN The meaning of marriage should not be up for debate, these people do not NEED marriage to feel validated in their relationships, they insist on trying to force this validation when there is no need the result is more distance between the groups because of resentment and jealousy.
Im STILL waiting for some one to prove to me the reason why a group of people are to be given special treatment under the law because of a behavior.
Sat Mar 13 2004 4:48 AM
Dan:
njguardsman,
I'll only say two things about validation, then I'm going to stop discussing this because I sincerely believe that no-one is able to prove anything to you - partly because in many ways an opinion on either side of this matter can't possibly be based on provable 'facts' (dig in to the social and scientific literature about homosexuality and you'll quickly find that its 'causes' are still not clear - so I'd watch your choice of the word 'behavior'), and partly because you've been given a LOT of reasons why a group of Americans should be able share in the liberties of their nation without fear of condemnation, and you don't seem to absorbing it. [tangent: Sexism is in many ways the same as racism, but because the 'behaviours' of a certain group are unfamiliar to us, then it's easier for those of the mainstream to exclude them. White folks used to (and still kinda) do it to black folks (or any non-white folks) but this generation knows and believes full well that such exclusion based on the mere color of skin is inhumane. The same applies to sex, no matter what definition - straight, homo, bi, trans, whatever. Exclusion is not an American value.] So I'd recommend you stop waiting for the big penny, 'cause for you it's not going to drop.
On to my thoughts about validation...
1. Heterosexual people don't NEED marriage to feel validated in their relationships either (and so many don't get married and are quite happy and healthy), so why insist on forcing a restriction when there is no need - the result is more distance between the groups because of resentment and jealousy. [Haha - see that? Your own words.]
2. From what I know, most gay and lesbian people don't want to get married - it's too square. Many of them - you're right - don't need the validation. They're quite happy to be livin' on the fringe, partly because in that they find identity, but also because they simply don't care. However, there is a small percentage who DO want to get married for genuine reasons and can't. It's frustrating that, in a country supposedly founded upon the ideals of civil liberties, they can't legally perform a simple ceremony that serves as a public expression of their love. For them, it becomes an issue of validation. And there's nothing wrong with that. Even - EVEN - if you bring in the statistic that only 7% of gay (i.e., male-male) marriages last more than four years (in Canada at least - based on a study done by the gay community) - it still doesn't mean that homosexual couples should be barred from marriage. In the end, 'validation' in this matter isn't about the individual relationships but about the supreme right of all homosexual people to be treated like American citizens - and 'civil union' simply doesn't do it.
Sun Mar 14 2004 1:46 PM
njguardsman:
Dan
Do you remember reading this??? The question is not weather people have a right to marry, people do. Also the question is not that the constitution protects peoples rite to marry, it doesnt saying that your not happy because you cant marry the one you love is a cop out! How many people propose marriage and get turned down?!?!? Are their constitutional rights also being violated?!?!?
Americans should be able share in the liberties of their nation without fear of condemnation - I resent the fact that you actually wrote this, we are the freest society in the world people die every day trying to get here! ALL Americans now share in all that is provided by the Constitution, the fact that some one wants to do something OUTSIDE of the Constitution does not make it right or wrong I cant go into the White House just because my tax dollars pay for it, I cant yell fire in a crowded theater just because I have freedom of speech. And guess what, my rites are not being violated because I cant do those things, show me where in America we have separate but equal: bathrooms, buses, restaurants for those on the fringe, is a Gay mans/womans vote worth more or less than mine?
Its become apparent to me that for you there are no absolutes with you. For better or worse you cannot change the meaning of things simply at your whim.P. S. Any Gay or lesbian who wishes to get married and cant do it here can go anywhere else where same sex marriage is done, thats the greatest thing about being American you are free to pursue your "happiness" how you see fit dont rely on the government for your happiness, seek it yourself!
Mon Mar 15 2004 1:36 PM
Sharon:
Don't you ever tire of political correctness? I do! I am a potter and desire a studio for my use in the downtown. It will just be myself and two other potters working in our studio. Anyhow the city became involved and desired for us to get the building up to codes for the American Disability Act! To the tune of about $50,000
spent on a building I don't even own. I thought this was quite perposterous and backed out. The bottom line is this, I can't wave a magic wand and make life a level playing field. How many have to back out to accomadate a few (in this case wouldn't be in the building) and how long
before a handicapped person demands the right to every remote area in the country. Sorry but I resent this. Life just stinks and we are all different but should words be redefined to serve the purpose of some. NO not even for many. Do your own thing call it something else but marriage is between a man and women. I for one am so tired of bending over backwards and changing laws for a few. Get over it you don't always get everything you want! Futhermore no one is taking away the right of gays to marry. They have the same right as anyone else they just need to find someone of the opposite sex!
Tue Mar 23 2004 10:25 PM
Saysah:
Dan, you are beautiful! I wish people such as you were more plentiful! Two thumbs up man!
Mon Mar 29 2004 7:09 PM
njguardsman:
Sharon,
You go girl!!! I'm with you 100% I wish there were more people like you in the world!!!!!!
Tue Mar 30 2004 1:01 PM
Anonymous:
You people are jackasses. The very argument that you pose-"you don't always get everything that you want"-is moronic. Why would you argue such an ignorant point when it could be just as easily turned around on your argument. Maybe you need to get over yourselves and think intelligently about this issue, instead of repeating your fallacious arguments over and over again (i.e. slippery slope-marrying animals; false dichotomy-love it or leave it).
Finally, I just want to confront the thought that homosexual marriage will undermine civilization. Yeah, that makes plenty of sense. Especially when we live in a world where the population is nearly out of control and, as a consequence, we have hunger, pollution, and global warming just at the tip of the iceburg. If anything, overpopulation should be the biggest concern as far as undermining civilization goes and heterosexuals are exclusively the cause of it. Yet, we discriminate against those who cause the least problems. Well, I guess that doesn't matter in the long run for us American WASP's. We can always bring back "manifest destiny" to justify conquering, murdering, and subjugating some more "savages"(a.k.a. whomever we deem fit) so that we can stretch out our legs. Right?????
Tue Mar 30 2004 6:23 PM
Anonymous:
By the way, let's back off from the "its a behavior" argument. Show me a study that says so and I'll match you one that says the opposite. Even if it is a choice, it still isn't right to discriminate against others because of it. How can it be that certain choices of the minority cause exclusion based the choices of the majority? Just in case you want me to spell it out for you, Christianity is a choice. Judeo-Christian values are the motivation behind this argument despite any attempt at putting up a facade. So, why does the choice of the majority make rules about what everybody else should choose? What if the U.S. had a majority of muslims and they decided that Christianity was undoing the moral fabric of their society? Would it be right for them to impose laws that limited the rights of Christians to practice their faith? What if the "under Allah" was exchanged for "under God" in the pledge or "In Allah we trust" was swapped for "In God we trust?" What if, at certain times of the day, principals sang Islamic prayers over the loudspeakers in public schools? What if Christians could be legally discriminated against in the workplace, like Homosexuals are today? Not im America. Sometimes people need to put themselves in other's shoes to understand what it means to be on the other side of the argument. When I put myself on the other side for the gay marriage issue, I find that I have strong beliefs, but the tradeoff between the impact that it has on me is tiny compared to the impact that it has on others. Nobody is forcing their beliefs on anybody by allowing gay marriage. That is why it is called ALLOWING and not BANNING. Inclusion, not exclusion, is what this country is founded on.
Fri Apr 2 2004 8:56 PM
dawn20:
I am doing an oral argument on same sex marriages. I would like to have some insight on some possible rebuttals to gay activists rationale for legalizing gay marriages in terms of 1.Equal Rights Amendment 2. Right to Privacy
3. How the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and 4.The Establishment Clause. If anyone has any thing to say please comment.
Mon Apr 5 2004 6:43 PM
David:
God created Adam and Eve... Not Adam and Steve!
Furthurmore, any loving relationships should not be included in the definition of marriage.
love is not all.
Pets can't marry human...
u understand?
a man can't get married with a man even though they fall in love each other..
Wed Apr 7 2004 1:46 AM
Melissa:
The guy above is very incorrect about over population and possibly gays being the solution. Why is it more then 15 million abortions are being performed every year, a person, a human being is aborted every 10 seconds. Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed around the world due to aids and wars and other various diseases. Millions of people are dying every year and we're complaining about over populating the earth.
On the subect of gay marriage, civil unions and all that crap... part of me knows and will say it many times that it's morally wrong. God created Adam and Eve, NOT, Adam and Steve. But, we are infringing on their right and choice to be married, stopping gay marriages isn't going to stop them from being gay. I don't believe it should be called "Marriage" though, I feel that is degrading to God's plan of coming here to earth, obtaining a mortal body, getting an education, marriage and procreating as he intended. When the constituation was written, they didn't define marriage as souly between a man and a woman because they didn't have to. Being gay wasn't a problem back then, they didn't demand marriages. Maybe if they had been bold enough to do that, then it would have been defined one way or another.
Wed Apr 7 2004 9:05 PM
Anonymous:
That's great! I'm glad that we in AMERICA feel that we shouldn't pass laws that are "degrading to God's plan." Especially since the first amendment states, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Oh, yeah. Here are some numbers from the "incorrect" guy above:Since 1950 the U.S. population has grown from 151 million to 293 million.
World population has nearly tripled since 1950.
The world population grows by over 75 million people each year.
Maybe you should check on facts before calling others incorrect. And I never said that gay people are the solution (In reality, I think they are simply becoming one of the scapegoats for all of our problems). I was just trying to confront the idea that gay marriage is at the forefront of undermining civilization.
And once again for all of the slippery slopers out there, you can say that if we allow gay marriage, then we're opening the gates for human/animal marriage, etc., but then I can say that if you ban gay marriage, then you can ban interracial marriages and marriages outside of your socioeconomic class, etc. It goes both ways. And actually, my slippery slope will hold more water because interracial marriage has been illegal in the past, yet I have never heard of anybody pushing legislation for human/animal marriage. So, let's drop it. We can come to rational decisions without all of the fallacies.
Sat Apr 10 2004 8:37 PM
jasmine walker:
THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE:
a husband and wife should always support each other, agree on important things like wat makes him happy and wat makes her happy, compromise on things, not to go out late at night with out each other, a marriage is a lifelong dicision but is the most beautiful thing on earth if you do it right, that will be the person that will lie in the death bed with you, that will know you better than your family knows you, that will comfort you in a way noone else in this world can, and that will secure you from any harm. that is a true marriage, if everybody looked at marriage as a gift from god he gave you a nother human being to share your life with to understand things you didnt to change all your bad habits, if people looked at marriage like that they WOULD BE HAPPY AND NOT DIVORCED!
Sun Apr 11 2004 10:54 AM
JJones:
I check Merriam-webster dictionary and it states:
The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Mon Apr 12 2004 6:44 PM
Michele:
I love this site! Keep it up!!! :-)
Michele
Louisville, Kentucky
Thu Apr 15 2004 10:17 AM
njguardsman:
That's great! I'm glad that we in AMERICA feel that we shouldn't pass laws that are "degrading to God's plan." Especially since the first amendment states, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Oh, yeah. Here are some numbers from the "incorrect" guy above:
Since 1950 the U.S. population has grown from 151 million to 293 million.
World population has nearly tripled since 1950.
The world population grows by over 75 million people each year.
So what does all this have to do with gay marriage ??? The truth is there are absolutes in the world and marriage is one of them, like dont murder anyone, dont steal.The fact remains guys are pushing their agenda and wanting our acceptance, to their disappointment theyre not getting it.
Save your overpopulation rants for another website, soon enough youll be saying we have an over abundance of methane in the air because of the large amount of livestock needed to feed the world.
Sun Apr 18 2004 8:10 AM
njguardsman:
"The fact remains gays are pushing their agenda and wanting our acceptance, to their disappointment theyre not getting it."
Sorry for the type O
Sun Apr 18 2004 8:12 AM
njguardsman:
One more time Mr Overpopulatin,
Jeffersons use of the phrase was an argument that a wall existed in which the government would never interfere with religious activities, NOT that all religious expression would be removed from the public square.
BTW Most law around the world has some basis in some kind of religious philosophy.
We see by the absence or repression of religion (radicals excluded: the Taliban and the current Iranian government for example) the effects in countries such as: Cuba, China, N. Korea, the former USSR and until recently Iraq.
Sun Apr 18 2004 8:22 AM
Anonymous:
Alright, I'll say it one more time. Population has nothing to do with gay marriage directly. People in previous posts have stated that gay marriage will undermine civilization. THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS FACING CIVILIZATION!!!!!!!!!!! I was using those facts to reply to the post that said overpopulation isn't a problem. How about you save your rants until you've read everything that was said? Thanks!
And you are correct, most law does have a BASIS in religious philosophy. Religion and government mirror each other in many ways, but that doesn't mean that they should be equated to each other. Besides, many religions do allow gay marriage as noted by many previous posts. Therefore, it can be argued that allowing gay marriage is very much based in religion, not an absence of religion.
As for the examples of countries that have an absence or repression of religion. You have managed to use yet another fallacy- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because their is a correlation between failing governments and an absence of religion doesn't mean that it is a cause and effect situation. You left out entirely the fact that all of those countries are ones in which the people are heavily repressed and ruled by one or a small number of elites. Do you think that may have anything to do with it?
Banning gay marriage isn't really about saving religion because allowing gay marriage wouldn't limit anybody's right to practice their religion. It's really about saving the current social order. Christianity is what is being used to justify it. That really upsets me because I hate to see the religion that I practice being used to take away the rights of other people. For me, Christianity is between God and me. Outside of that, my religious beliefs have no place in the lives of others. And I'm getting tired of getting lumped in with those Christians who impose their religious beliefs on others.
P.S. "The truth is there are absolutes in the world and marriage is one of them, like dont murder anyone, dont steal." Absolutes? Is that entirely true? It seems like, through my very young, naive, high school educated eyes, murder is acceptable and necessary to many people as long as we justify it with a name like "civilian casualties" in times of war. There are far fewer absolutes in the world than you may admit.
Sun Apr 18 2004 1:25 PM
njguardsman:
Well whom ever you are,
Yes I agree there ARE bigger problems facing civilization, chief among them is terrorism.
Ive based my opinion on MY Christian and ethical beliefs that apparently you havent (have you read your bible lately) and have you read what Ive written on this site on this subject?!?!?!?
As for the examples of countries that have an absence or repression of religion. You have managed to use yet another fallacy- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because there is a correlation between failing governments and an absence of religion doesn't mean that it is a cause and effect situation. You left out entirely the fact that all of those countries are ones in which the people are heavily repressed and ruled by one or a small number of elites. Do you think that may have anything to do with it?
Yes I do and being the son of a Cuban refugee, I have a little more insight into lack of religion/repression of people. Fidel knows if he allows religious freedom (letting the people believe theres something more) then his power will dwindle. After the Popes visit in Cuba people were arrested just for professing their faith (as in) long live the Pope!
Banning gay marriage isn't really about saving religion because allowing gay marriage wouldn't limit anybody's right to practice their religion.
No, but its against my religious beliefs and core values just like abortion is.
P.S. "The truth is there are absolutes in the world and marriage is one of them, like dont murder anyone, dont steal." Absolutes? Is that entirely true? It seems like, through my very young, naive, high school educated eyes, murder is acceptable and necessary to many people as long as we justify it with a name like "civilian casualties" in times of war.
No one can guarantee innocents wont die in war, thats why its WAR and not entered into lightly, those poor people are NOT murdered, they unfortunately are casualties of war.
BTW - War does not equal murder.
Mon Apr 19 2004 4:10 AM
Anonymous:
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! War is not entered into lightly? Who are Americans to make a claim like that? You are truly an amazing spectacle. If you would, please, give me a verb that describes what happens to those "casualties of war"? Are they unjustly killed? regretably eliminated? You can soften it up however you like, but they are murdered.
"No, but its against my religious beliefs and core values just like abortion is."
Then I must inquire as to why you think your beliefs hold precedence over the beliefs of others? Also, what are we doing by limiting religious practices in this country to Christianity? Once again, there are religions around the world that accept gay marriage. If we ban gay marriage, we are limiting their religious freedom and imposing Christianity. How is that any different from those governments that you mentioned, including Iran and the Taliban?
P.S. Please don't question my religious foundations. I HAVE read my bible lately. It must be different from the version you have. Mine focuses on compassion much more than it does laying my judgment on others. MY VERSION SEEMS TO PORTRAY THAT AS GOD'S JOB!!!!!!!!!!! But, then again, I am much too humble to think that I can handle God's work. I'm sure that you, in your infinite wisdom, can. So, who am I to argue?
Mon Apr 19 2004 1:06 PM
kathi:
Marriage is from the Bible, no matter what dictionary meaning you come across. Marriage was created for a man and women. I am against gays using the word marriage because of this reason. I do feel there should be some type of union for them to become one, but not marriage, thats already taken.
Mon Apr 19 2004 8:03 PM
njguardsman:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22 read these passages.
Then I must inquire as to why you think your beliefs hold precedence over the beliefs of others? Do their beliefs hold precedence over my own?!?!?
Maybe you can convince me why a group of people are to be given special treatment under the law because of a behavior.
If this is the case then we should give left-handed people special rites because they live in a right-handed world.
Wed Apr 21 2004 12:29 PM
njguardsman:
Then I must inquire as to why you think your beliefs hold precedence over the beliefs of others? Also, what are we doing by limiting religious practices in this country to Christianity?I seem to recall a religion based in Utah that practiced polygamy AND in order for Utah to become a state that practice had to be made illegal, is this also an infringement on peoples rites?!?!?
Thu Apr 22 2004 6:27 AM
dave:
two humans of the same sex can have a legal union...it's just not marriage. And it never will be...regardless of what some license says.
Homosexuals must lack creativity...quit trying to be straight.
-broad sweeping generalization
Mon May 10 2004 2:11 PM
Hale Becker:
Marriage should not just be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, it should be defined as a relationship between wo human beings that are in love. That is what marriage is about anyways. It is a union of people in love and those people would like to spend the rest of their live together. It is not a privledge. If you would like to talk about the topic please email any comments to [email protected] Thank You
Tue May 11 2004 6:46 AM
j keeker:
Let religion have claim to the word "marriage". This is the only word that seems to be the trouble. The gov't should only use the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" when legally authorizing marriages. This should take the steam out of both arguments against gay marriage. Gay people will have the same recognition as everybody else. Religion isn't being forced to change its view on marriage anyway so since most people get married through the church , they can still call it "Marriage". Gays getting married through churches that accept their lifestyle can officially call it "Married" as well.Everybody should be happy or at least nothing to complain about.
What do you think? Will it fly?
Jkeeker
Tue May 11 2004 8:06 AM
K and K:
We are doing a school project on gay marriages....
Why are they illegal? Because homosexuals are different. Marriage should not be defined as a man and a woman uniting.
Gays and Lesbians have rights too.
Tue May 11 2004 8:35 AM
Mys-T:
Hey! I'm doing an assignment on marriage and its values, and the way it has changed over the years. It's basically a look on how traditional marriages stuck to the whole heterosexual marriages and how, as time passes, gay marriages are now accepted. Does anyone have anything to say about this? Should we stick to the traditional values on marriage or should we conform to todays change?
Wed May 12 2004 5:43 AM
njguardsman:
I can...live with J Keeker's comments of Tue May 11 2004 08:06 AM, althought it's not what I want.
Thu May 13 2004 8:02 AM
Melissa:
So, take away all sexual orientation and marriage is just a religous commitment between two people and civil unions are commitments made not under religious authority (eg. going to the court house and buying a license and having a marriage solemnized by a judge.) When was it required to purchase a license to get married?
Sat May 15 2004 1:04 AM
njguardsman:
Anyone ever notice no-one ever brought up church & state issues when getting married in a religious ceremony but having to sign "official" (state) paperwork so the state could up your tax rate?!?!
I feel marriage was not a reason/excuse for the government to put their hands in your pocket.
Sat May 15 2004 8:12 AM
Despite impassioned arguments by proponents of changing the time-honored, common sensical, and historic dictionary definition of marriage as between a man and a woman . . . nothing is more important than maintaining the traditional sense and meaning. No culture has ever survived long-term in which homosexuality has been widely accepted, condoned, and even celebrated. None ever will. The consequences of a consensus abandomnent of adherence to this tenet will inevitably be - - in the long term - - virtual destruction of our culture as we know it, with devastating ramifications enconomically, politically, and eventually, our very freedom as a society, since we will no longer be able to achieve effective commitment to the basic foundational principles upon which our way of life and constitution were built.
Sat May 15 2004 2:20 PM
jennifer:
I am against same-sex marriages, but what people do is their business. My husband works for a company that allows same-sex partners to be on the health insurance, BUT before we were married I was not allowed to be on the insurance plan. That to me is so very wrong. If I may say, gays and lesbians are like heterosexuals in the since that they too can have multiple relationships. So those that work for the same company my husband works for can put their current "lover" on the insurance, but I was never allowed to be on the insurance, and now we are married. In my opinion homosexuals have MORE rights than heterosexual couples depending on where you live and work.
Mon May 17 2004 6:29 AM
jennifer:
And as for President Bush, I am a very proud supporter of him, and do not feel betrayed or lied to by him or his campaign. Bush/Cheney 2004!!!These Bush Haters need to get a LIFE!!!!!
Mon May 17 2004 6:34 AM
jaf:
As a Christian believer, I see homosexuality clearly defined in the Bible, along with other sexual perversions, as a sin. As a scientist, I see homosexuality as unnatural, a genetic defect. As a human being who was taught to love everybody by my Christian upbringing, I love homosexuals as I love any sinner, myself included. As an American, I realize homosexuals should have rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But gay marriage is wrong because it is the beginning of the redefining all of our fundamental moral values, which will lead us ultimately to no moral values, anything goes, just like Sodom and Gomorrah. We're already heading there thanks to radical liberal movements.
I used to call myself a liberal Democrat until I finally saw what this party is doing to this country. Its not a pretty picture. This year for the first time I'm voting Republican.
Mon May 17 2004 2:12 PM
Athena D:
Homophobia is gay.
perhaps if we redefined the meaning of a "dependant" in our tax laws this marriage issue would disolve.
The fact of the matter here, is 1/4 of all households in North America make up what we consider to be "normal"/atomic families.
The other 3/4 they are certainly not all gay but wolud more than likely qualify as dependant upon eachother for survival, family units but not in the traditional sense. So the exceptions to the rule are really the majority here. I give about 1/8 of my yearly income to my best freind, she is a single mom (I'm not shure she could live without the $ I send her) I can not claim her as a dependant even though she and her son are my closest family. If gay marriage is leagal that still leaves half of the households in the country as "other"...
A clearer and modernised definition of family and dependants per our tax laws would include ALL the exceptions to the rules and make this marrage issue a moot point. Common Law Family?
Thu May 20 2004 10:25 AM
njguardsman:
Athena D,
You raise some good points but the fact is your idea would make it too easy for people to "hook up" just for the benefits, it would be impossible for the government to keep up with all the people changing "families" because of disagreements and other things.
The government, try as it might cant be all things to all people this is the reason the country finds itself in the problems it's in today.
If you think the tax laws are bad now can you imagine how they would be putting your theory into practice?
Using your theory, whats to stop me from quitting my job and becoming a dependant on my best friend's taxes because I all of a sudden become lazy.
Thu May 20 2004 12:32 PM
jaf:
I agree with njguardsman. Liberal ideas like Athena's sound great on paper, but never work in practice. In fact, most often they generate the exact opposite of their stated intent.
Multiculturalism is a perfect example. We are becoming little pockets of separate cultures instead of a melting pot. An American should be an American and proud of it. I'm not saying we completely forget our individual heritages: that's still important; we still need to be individuals. I can't help but think of the example of the Tower of Babel: nobody could communicate with each other anymore and everything fell apart. I see that happening in America and it truly concerns me.
Fri May 21 2004 5:42 AM
While you see are pockets of different cultures, I see a slow merging of many different cultures into one. Check 2000 census statistics for the breakdown of interracial marriages.
http://www.multiracial.com/readers/lee.html
Or the infusion of black culture into suburbia with artists like Eminem. Or that half of the contestants on America's Next Top Model were of mixed race. Or the sushi restaurants popping up in the midwest.
And remermber, it was only 50 years ago that the schools were desegregated. Sure, we've still got a long way to go, but we are making progress.
Fri May 21 2004 8:54 AM
njguardsman:
Mr. Gilliam
There needs to be a common denominator that brings everyone together, a fire so whats in the pot actually melts (LANGUAGE). The Government prints its forms and other things in about 80 different languages, (being all things to all people) instead of rewarding peoples assimilation into the American culture if you will.
For the most part those who emigrate here are only here for economic reasons, they work two & three jobs and send all that money back home and they have all the justification in the world to do that, its perfectly legal but is it the right thing to do?
When my mother emigrated to this country she made it crucial to learn English so she would level playing field to help provide for her family. All the while not forgetting her family "back home". Evan now she still holds a special pride in becoming an American citizen. I dont see this sort of pride for the majority of todays immigrants.The strength of this country has long been legal immigration but somehow thats becoming no longer true that concerns me.
Even native born Americans think the country owes them something and for the life of me I cant understand that the mindset must change in both these groups
Too many people consider themselves AFRICAN American, ASIAN American, LATIN American instead of AMERICAN of African decent, Latin decent and so on.
People today regard the U. S. A. as a means to an end, a tool. They hold no real allegiance to their new homeland, and that makes us all losers
Fri May 21 2004 12:22 PM
jennifer:
why is it o.k for blacks, mexicans, and others to have their own groups in colleges, own radio stations, magazines, the list goes on, But when a white person(s) wants to have their own it is considered racist? I personally feel that blacks especially are segregating themselves by choice. Also, the slavery issue really pisses me off, because I am sure there are no former "slaves" still living, but yet ancestors of slaves want reperations??? Give me a break!! no one owes anyone ANYTHING for what happened in the PAST!! If anyone wants to do anything about the slavery issue go to Africa were there is still slavery going on in some parts. Black people are and were not the only ones in history who had it bad, evey walk of life had it bad including white people. Have you ever seen "The Grapes of Wrath"? Or how about the Jewish People? And for the record, I am an American of Black descent.
Fri May 21 2004 4:17 PM
johnny prophet:
I don't understand why people are so butt hurt over this isuue. Whether or not a marriage is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman is not going to harm anyone. Making it an issue just proves how little tolerance this country has.
Sat May 22 2004 7:27 PM
me:
I agree. As for civil unions, does anyone remember the Brown v. Board of Education ruling? Separate is inherently unequal. Forget the silly idea of having the same bathrooms--that is, as has been mentioned, simply common sense. Having separate names for marriage "alternatives" simply because marriage is "already taken" is silly, too. For a long time, women were not allowed any kind of religious teaching position, except that of Sunday School-type positions. Now 'pastor', for example, has expanded to include women. Marriage will not be hurt by expanding to include more people. Nothing can insult or degrade marriage as an institution (if you want to call it that) more than the high divorce rate and things like Britney Spears'...what, 54 hour marriage, was it? Heterosexuals have already pretty well degraded marriage--homosexuals haven't done a thing to it. In addition, using a single ideology to define a country's policy (this would be in direct violation of the 1st amendment, and various Supreme Court cases, Gitlow v. New York specifically) is wrong. Even if you believe that gays are radically wrong freaks of nature (which I don't, but you can...freedom of speech and belief--you like the first amendment, now, don't you?), you must acknowledge that they are human. With that, they are entitled, as you are, to marry their lover. Their status as a minority has nothing to do with it; the whole idea behind our court system is to protect the minority from the bigoted and status-quo majority. If heterosexuals were a minority, would you want your rights left banned?
And people marrying inanimate/nonhuman beings or objects, is utterly ridiculous. Does a dog have the same legal rights as a person? Does a car? Does a bicycle? Of course not. So, dogs can't get married; a dog can't marry a person, and vice versa. And a dog can't marry a bicycle, either.
And how is it anyone's business what people do in the privacy of their own homes, anyway? That we classify people by something that private (and that actually affects so few) is a sad commentary on our society's scatological mindset.
Sun May 23 2004 10:57 PM
me:
Oh, and Jenifer--about the racial groups in college? Yeah, well "white" is a pretty broad term. Usually those groups focus on some sort of cultural similarity they have in common pursuant to their descent. White groups are not banned, nor are they all frowned upon. In fact, the Daughters of the American Revolution is nearly all-white, but whiteness isn't the point. The same with most racial groups--it's not that they have a different skin-color or eye shape than whites. It's that they, unlike white people (who are mostly mutts), have a coherent shared culture. Kapish?
Sun May 23 2004 11:02 PM
jaf:
Re: I don't understand why people are so butt hurt over this isuue. Whether or not a marriage is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman is not going to harm anyone. Making it an issue just proves how little tolerance this country has.
On the contrary, this country is extremely tolerant, so much so that any group of individuals, no matter how small, can force their ideas to be accepted by everybody, except Christians, that is -- we can't pray in school or display the Ten Commandments.
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is fine with me and just about everybody, but when they want to change the fundamental, foundational, and ethical guidelines that our nation was built on, then they are tampering with our entire infrastructure. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian morality and that's what gives us our freedoms. Abusing these freedoms is like slapping our country in the face, biting the hand that feeds us, thumbing our nose at the basis of the rights that we have.
Of course, the irony is that you have the right to thumb your nose at what gave you these rights. Just like all those left wing liberals have the right to trash our country in a time of the MOST IMPORTANT WAR OUR COUNTRY EVER FOUGHT (and they don't even have a DAMN CLUE that what they are doing is aiding and abetting the enemy, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, Moveon.org, Moore, etc.)!
Anyway, sorry for the outburst. What the liberals and media are doing to our soldiers' morale and the rest of the country at such a crucial time in our nation's and the world's history for the sake of POLITICS is unforgiveable!
It actually is making me sick. I think the old school Democrats have to disavow and break away from the leftist liberal Democrats who are trying desperately to tear this country apart. I think more and Democrats are seeing that.Anyway, back to gay marriage. This is just a sign of the times, where all of our foundational values are being eroded to the point where there will be no moral standard, no value system at all. "Situational ethics" taught in schools essentially says you can make up your own morals as you go. That is a dangerous thing to teach. No standards to live up to anymore! No one can be perfect, God knows, but without standards no one will need to try.
Can anybody understand what I'm trying to say here? The decaying of moral standards is happening all around us, and the type of people we will produce in the next generations, people who do not understand the concept of morals and ethical behavior, I cannot even imagine.
Maybe I'm over reacting. Maybe I'm overly concerned. But every day I see signs ...
Thu May 27 2004 7:30 AM
njguardsman:
jaf,
All I can say to your comments above is: AMEN!!!!!!!!!
I just hope these sentiments get through to ALL people.
Thu May 27 2004 11:22 AM
spookyland:
Why is this stupid gay marriage thing being pushed down everyones throat??? gays and lesbians only make up about 6% of the population. I think that there are way more important issues at stake right now. and gays and lesbians are so screwed up any way. i mean why does one person in a female/female relationship have to look like a guy? i mean if that is the case date a frigging guy. and the same for two guys, it seems one has to be "pretty". again, if that is the case date a real girl. geez, get real lives and stop making it a public issue, it is getting pretty old hearing them scream racism and that they have no rights because they are gay. and you are not born gay, you choose to be gay!! you are born with downs syndrome, webbed feet, one arm or other disabilities. being gay is a choice. but it sounds like those that say they were born with it are trying to pass the buck because they do not want to have people know that they "chose" to live like that!
Thu May 27 2004 9:22 PM
Sheldon:
Marriage is between a man and a women. 2 gays getting maried is sexually demented kind of like a brother and sister wanting to get married.
Mon Jun 21 2004 9:12 PM
meeeeee!!!!:
jim,
you are such a LOOSER. Bush is the best president this country has had since his father. Kerry is a LOOSER!!! and Michael Moore is an even bigger looser!! Literally!!!!All you stupid-ass demoCRAPS ned to pack your things and high tail it to france. i'm sure they would love you there!!oh, and take all the fucking queers with you too!!!!!!!
Sun Jun 27 2004 9:46 PM
All this talk of dictionaries and definitions! My, my!
Ths solution is obvious. And elegantly simple.
The answer is to admit there is a public arena which must certify ALL joinings of two people and a private arena in which a ceremony is elective.
In the public arena ALL unions should be called CIVIL UNIONS. Delete the word marriage altogether, since it originally rose out of a religious ceremony.
Reserve the word MARRIAGE for the private arena. All ceremonies performed by ministers, priest, rabbia, mullahs, etc. will be referred to as marriages
It's a simple matter of semantics and acknowledging that the word MARRIAGE is just too loaded with religiosity to be in the public sector.
Mon Jun 28 2004 3:09 AM
BK:
Re-defining marriage is just one more step in the revisionist agenda. Before we get all mushy on the fact that marriage should be about love and not sexuality, consider that this whole movement began out of same sex couples wanting tax benefits. Very romantic. I don't oppose homosexual unions, just don't call it marriage. Marriage has been defined as a man and woman from the beginning of time. Let it be. If homosexual unions are recognized and all the tax benefits go along with it, few activist groups will have a problem with the exact term. Call it a civil union and be done with it.
Tue Jul 6 2004 7:02 AM
coco:
lang kwenta to!
Thu Jul 15 2004 8:18 AM
Daniel:
Why cant we just leave the subject of gay marriage to rest? We have plenty of other problems in our world today. FUck the conservatives!!!!
Mon Jul 26 2004 7:07 PM
jaf:
I agree: "Why cant we just leave the subject of gay marriage to rest?"
But it's the Liberals who are trying to force the issue, not the Conservatives. They keep trying to push the envelope and bend the guidelines of morality that have been in place for a long long time. Without clear moral and ethical guidelines, our country will sink further and further into a place where children will grow up with no moral foundations. Nothing will be sacred. They will have no respect for anything. The self-centered "Me" Generation to the nth degree. A scary thought.
I do agree that a Constitutional Amendment should NOT be required. The definition of marriage is the definition of marriage and no court in the land should be able to change it. How would you like to live in a country where any court can change the definition of any word at the whim? Another scary thought.
Tue Jul 27 2004 5:57 AM
njguardsman:
jaf,
I agree with you up to a point, I back an amendment if the radical left pushes the issue of same sex marriage.
Mon Aug 23 2004 8:35 AM
i love God:
I want to say that I am HUGE fans of "jaf" and "njguardsman" for all the wonderful, true things they are saying. These people need to read their bibles. The end times are coming, and we need to do everything we can to help people go to heaven! Jesus love everyone, even the homosexuals, and we just want to love them and help their future! They think we are hurting them, but in reality, we are saving them. Keep up the GREAT work, guys!
Fri Oct 22 2004 2:15 AM
Sean:
Hello Jim , I just wanted to say that I totally respect what your doing here .It is nice to see that someone is trying to do something about the problem rather than just sit around and complain about it.I must say that personally I think that no matter which presidential candidate gets into office we're still screwed.The only thing Kerry ever did right was marry that Billionaire lady.And Bush...Well Naturally being a gay man I hold a grudge against Bush for trying to legally prevent homosexuals from getting married . Then of course there is an even more personal grudge that I hold against Bush...My father was killed in this so-called war againt teorrism in Iraq trying to serve this country. When I look at the long list of the why's I continue to find no answers. We could have prevented this war and my father, rest his soul, could still be alive right now.Bush already took my father and I will NOT allow him to take away my freedom as an American Citizen."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or PROHIBITING the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or of the right of people to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievences regardless of race ,sex, or creed."(first Amendment) These are some of the words that built our constitution and our country, WE ARE A DEMOCRACY.We the people means ALL the people of the U.S.. I am a gay man and a natural born citizen of the U.S.A. and I am entitled to the same rights as every other heterosexual man in this country, and whether or not anyone likes it doesn't matter , because that's just the way it is.People so often try to use their religions as an argument against this movementbut what they don't realise is that Freedom of religion can be implied as freedom from religion. The bible has no absolute standing in American law, and because it doesn't , no one has the right to impose rules on anyone elsesimply because they percieve it to be mandated by the bible,etc.There are religions within the U.S. that have no issues with the fact that homosexuals exist in our country such as budhist, hindu's, etc.Therefore people need to keep their religions their religions and stop trying to impose and infringe on others right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Keep on fighting Jim asI fight along side you ."WE shall overcome!!!"
Fri Oct 22 2004 11:41 PM
Samantha:
If you want to believe that homosexuals are going to hell fine believe it your entitled to but we have the right to make our own decisions and if we don't choose to follow your religion we won't and you can't force us to so you go to hell and I will continue to enjoy my life as a thriving hot homosexual.Thankyou. It cracks me up when people talk so much shit about issues they have NO IDEA about ,like that jackass "SPOOKYLAND" who earlier in this little comment area made the statement that gays choose to be gay that they were'nt born that way . What I wanted to ask him was when was he last gay and just up and one day chose to be straight again and as soon as he tells me I will try that shit because you know what it would be alot easier to be a heterosexual and not have to be threatened and judged everywhere you go by your sexuality (because your different) .There's more to a persons personality than what they do behind closed doors and yet the massive numbers of homophobes that live in this country can't seem to get it through there thick heads. So b*tch get over it we're gay and we're here to stay AND there is NOTHING you can do about it. AND to the idiot who to called us democrats demo-craps and who needs to learn how to spell because he /she made themself out to look totally ignorant...YOU CAN ALSO TAKE YOUR ASS TO FRANCE, THANKYOU!!!!!AND if Hell exist and I'm going ,I will see your hateful ass there. TOODLES
Sat Oct 23 2004 12:15 AM
Anonymous:
Jaf You only see the outer crust of why us homosexuals find it so important to marry. IT'S NOT JUST FOR LOVE HONEY OR SO WE CAN RUN AROUND TOWN AND SCREAM , HEY WE'RE MARRIED!It is an important subject and there's alot more to it.Imagine devoting your entire life to your mate and not being able to get any benefits at all, for one married couples get tax breaks , they get widowers benfits if there mate dies, they can collect on there social security ,life insurance, health insurance ,etc. There's alot more legal resons too. So don't just try to brush it off and make it look like it's just a tag you get to wear. Marriage is an important thing and everybody deserves the right tro legally marry the person they love. I wish that we could hurry up and get it over with too , and as soon as our country decides to wake up and relise that legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do that's when it will be over. But until then we as a community will continue to fight FOR OUR RIGHTS!!!
Sat Oct 23 2004 12:29 AM
Anonymous:
HMMM ,BOSE RAVANAL forgot to read his history books tell him to read up on the GREEKS AND ROMANS and how homosexualactivity was accepted and even praised . I"M THINKING THAT THEIR CULTURE LASTED FOR A VERY LONG TIME OR AT LEAST THAT"S WHAT MY HISTORY BOOK SAYS ...GO BACK TO SCHOOL BOSE AND UNTIL THEN ,"SHUT THE HELL UP!!!"
Sat Oct 23 2004 12:35 AM
Anonymous:
Marriage was founded for the purpose of providing a stable family structure for the purpose producing and raising children. Love often had little if anything to do with marriage...
Fri Nov 5 2004 6:51 AM
jaf:
As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see, near the top of the building, a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle, who is facing forward with a full frontal view .... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Our nation was founded on a solid foundation of Judeo-Christian principles. Our Bill of Rights were derived from these principles. This foundation gives us the freedoms we all enjoy as well as an ethical and moral foundation.
Those groups who want to force a new morality into our laws are eroding away at our foundation. These groups should certainly have the right to their own beliefs. (At least a country as free as the United States allows them to. I can't say the same kind of tolerance exists in all countries.) But they should never force the government to regenerate a new foundation of principles to accept their beliefs that are contrary to those principles.
Homosexuality used to be considered a pathology. Now we are to accept it as a lifestyle. Well, okay, fine, the freedom of America let's you invent any kind of alternate lifestyle you want. But don't force it down our throats. Especially if it goes against our founding principles.
Marriage is clearly defined. Don't redefine it every time you create a new lifestyle.
Instead, petition for tax benefits. You have that right. But you don't have the right to redefine our nation's moral foundation.
Fri Nov 5 2004 12:00 PM
Just a little truth:
Holly tap-dancing-Christ!!!!
I just found this link and can't believe what I'm reading. OK let's figure this out. I don't think anyone here would object to the fact that it still and this point in our evolution requires a male and a female to conceive a child right? What scares me the most is the hypocrites that preach the bible but have never even read it.
Marriage is not a moral issue; it's a personal and religious issue. If anyone here wants this country to amend the constitution lets add a little biblical insight from interpretations of my favorite passages.
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
Now suck down your crappy wine, your stale biscuit, and shut the hell up
Fri Nov 5 2004 10:56 PM
Martia Robinson:
Gay marraiges are wrong and nasty
Mon Nov 8 2004 7:03 AM
crackermack:
Hatred is wrong and nasty.
Mon Nov 8 2004 7:57 AM
jaf:
Just a little truth,
Hey, guess what? Just because it's in the Bible, it doesn't mean God condones it. There's lots of murders in the Bible and envy and lust and greed and all those other things God doesn't approve of. The original and set-in-stone definition of marriage is one man + one woman. Tougher restrictions on marriage and divorce were made by man to keep people in line, but they were not God's original definition, which He never changed.
But my main issue is not forcing Christianity onto Americans, because our nation allows for freedom of religion. My main concern is the "redefining" of the "moral foundation" of the nation. When that happens, morality itself will become more and more meaningless and we will have no more foundation. The laws that govern our nation will no longer have any moral boundaries and the government will have the power to take away all of our rights as set forth in the "meaningless" Bill of Rights.
This would mean the beginning of the end of the liberties America holds onto.
Mon Nov 8 2004 3:23 PM
jaf:
An addendum: Though morality and ethical values are the basis of our founding principles, I still hesitate to support the legislation of morality, i.e. ammendments to the constitution to reinforce definitons of morality. That way begins to go in the other direction, towards a theocracy. But I definitely DO NOT want to see the legislation of immorality.
Our nation is a free nation which tolerates far too much already, hence the moral decay I see around us, but I still would not want to see those freedoms of expression squelched. Those freedoms allow almost any lifestyle to exist in our nation. But I don't want these minority groups to force their redefinitions of morality into the laws of our land.
The United States of America allows you to live your life the way you want; DON'T ABUSE THIS PRIVILEGE BY TRYING TO CHANGE OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING!
Imagine if every group of people with some new moral belief had the power to change a government's constitution..... What a lovely mad world that would be!
Tue Nov 9 2004 8:19 AM
Phil:
Some of you people are saying that the gay community arbitrarily decided that they wanted marriage. This something they've been fighting for some time now, and they have sat aside because the government politely asked them to. At what point does the GOP start using that ammendment to keep marriage strictly between man and woman, to make life even harder for the gay man or the gay woman? Doesn't ANYBODY remember those nice little anti-sodomy laws passed in Bush first term? Yeah... those weren't meant to target homosexuals [sarcasm, because it doesn't translate well on the internet] For a subject like this is progression or the people standing in the way WILL turn it into regression.
side note: seriously, you christians really need to stop whining about being opressed in some sort. You pretty much control the world, what more do you want?
Tue Dec 28 2004 9:36 AM
jaf:
I think you have it backwards, Phil. I don't think the eroding of our moral and ethical foundations is progression. That way lies regression, falling further into depravity, with no moral guidelines to gauge ourselves by.
What country did I just hear about that performed euthanasia on infants? Ah yes, the Netherlands. They're way ahead of us on the progression bandwagon.
And it certainly doesn't look to me like us Christians control the world. We're pretty much persecuted from all fronts: media, Hollywood, government & educational institutions. This last Christmas season saw more attacks than usual on the celebration of Christmas. It appears that the minorities rule while the Christian majority gets the shaft. No whining, just facts.
Wed Jan 26 2005 11:06 AM
Anonymous:
In What year did the US require marriages between men and women legal? Does anyone know?
New:PAL
Mon Apr 18 2005 7:14 PM
PA:
In what year did marriages in the United States between men and women become required by law? Does anyone know?
Mon Apr 18 2005 7:17 PM
Olu:
you guys seem to ignore where you came from -your origin. He who doesn't know his/her origin, may certainly not know where to go. As a rooted African, I would never question that marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.
Wed May 11 2005 10:36 AM
njguardsman:
You people need to back and re-read some of the blogs JAF & I wrote last year, you all are just REPEATING the same things over and over. JUST A LITTLE TRUTH tell/show me the paasage in the bible that talks about the United States by name? also here's a little bible stuff for you: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22, read these passages.
Thu May 12 2005 11:07 AM
abc:
I think everyone has the right to be gay, but pleace leave the difinition of marriage alone.
Mon May 16 2005 10:31 PM
BeenThereDoneThat:
I just don't get it. As a heterosexual who happens to be the product of a biracial family, I am intimately familiar with the ugliness of prejudice exerted by society upon a familial relationship that does not apply to the stereotypical "nuclear family" of years past. As a people, we've somehow managed to get around the idea that a "mixing of the races" doesn't have to be viewed as abomination, so why are we continuing to perpetuate the same ugliness with regard to same-sex marriages?
I simply do not understand how allowing the legal, lifelong union of any two consenting adults - regardless of sexual orientation - can possibly be a threat to the institution of marriage. Let's face it: Marriage in America is in enough trouble of its own making without adding the further prohibition of it.
My personal belief is that the love and (supposedly) lifelong union between two consenting adults - which ultimately defines the term "marriage", incidentally - should be closely protected and honored, regardless of the race, skin color, sexual orientation, or SES of its constituents. Today's society in the U.S. is in desperate need of more loving, successful, devoted marriages to help glue the deteriorating state of the family unit back together - not fewer.
Mon Jul 11 2005 1:03 PM
DUH:
I'm a minority.. and this issue, to me, is NOT about prejudice and minority rights.. They just use that standpoint to get their issues pressed. It is about the the protection of marriage and how gays are trying to gain recognition. Why do you think people are having such a big problem about it? Giving Homosexuals the term "marriage" would be defaming the term altogether. It would be a perversion of marriage. What kind of society are we if we are to allow this kind of immorality seep into our government? Most people would agree with me that protecting the instituion of marriage is very important. Homosexuals CAN be together regardless of if there is a marriage or not.. but why must they force everyone to recognize and change the definition of marriage?
Wed Sep 14 2005 1:01 PM
DUH:
The government does not define our morals.. it just governs... despite what the law says.. as upstanding citizens, we are to know better...we are held to certain morals... Obviously, most of us do not know better; therefore, the government is there to govern what we do... how can we let the government allow these loose moral laws come to pass.. what will happen to its people?
Wed Sep 14 2005 1:09 PM
NOgaymarriage:
Homosexuality is not only immoral it's unatural. God designed people to reproduce with members of the opposite sex. Not screw around with members of the same sex, adopt a child and call it marriage.
Wed Sep 28 2005 8:03 AM
Fiona:
I believe that people should have the choice of whether or not they are to get married (being straight or gay) or live in a defacto relationship.
I was wondering if anybody could help me understand what benefits there are for people of the same-sex to get married and also that of heterosexual marriages?
What is there to gain from a wedding ceremony and a piece of paper saying that you are united together, when people go outside of the marriage and have an affair anyway?
Let me know what you think, I would greatly appreciate it.
Fri Oct 21 2005 7:58 AM
Anonymous:
God created all things. What he created was not made in no mistake. He has a purpose for man and for women. Man can not give birth to children and women do not have semen. He created man and woman. God made women for man. if a gay life style is right then what is the purpose of two different genders. Why are there males and female? Were we created by coincedence? Does man have anything to do with women and women to man?
And Gay marriage does effect others. CHILDREN. It creates confussion! It effects society. It shouldnt be because Society needs to know THE Way not A Way.
Tue Nov 15 2005 12:39 PM
.:
in almost EVERY species on the planet there exists a homosexual tendency
was there ever any real nation to begin with?? you are creating imaginary boundaries to sepparate us, i am not American i am not European i am not male or female i am not just a human i am a species
what is this thing you call "God" ... it does not exist in my beliefs, but from what i have learned YOU cannot speak for it
children do not become tainted from being around gays and lesbians nor do they contract their "gayness" as if it were some disease
this is not a matter of infringing someone elses beliefs, it is a matter of allowing someone else the right to their beliefs
you cannot stop people from being what they are, yes i know that this includes rapists and serial killers, however, if a loving gay or lesbian couple were to marry in a Unitarian Universalist Church (one of the religions that allow it) i do not believe that they are hurting anyone in any way, do you?
the minority of homosexuals is not trying to suffocate you with their beliefs
we want only what you have the rights to
a husband or wife, children, and happyness
Mon Nov 21 2005 5:50 PM
NJGuardsman:
I disagree with your point, people are born with the propensity to become gay⌠or not, itâs their choice.
If I like something/want something itâs up to me to DECIDE if Iâm going to act on that or not â I love women I see good looking/ attractive women all the time BUT Iâm married if I choose to act on my âlikesâ what would happen, What would be the repercussions?
Put in simpler terms: All of us can play basketball, baseball, become actors/entertainers, politicians, doctors, officers in the military BUT only certain people actually decide to become or achieve these: Pro athletes, Senators, Brain Surgeons, win an Oscar or Nobel prize, become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and only 43 people in the world have become President out of all the people that have lived in America, BUT How many wanted to become President.
Just because you feel something, you donât have to act on it. I am not a Mason, an Elk so why should they be forced to accept me.
Why should I be given status/privileges as a married man if I am in fact not.
As Iâve said before âgayâ couples should be able to take care of each other, I guess I can buy off on civil unions but definitely not marriage.
Sun Nov 27 2005 8:53 PM
NJGuardsman:
Iâd rather live my life believing there is a GOD and at my death finding out there isnât, then live my live as if there is no GOD and at my death find out that there is.
Sun Nov 27 2005 8:57 PM
You should try living your life as if it doesn't matter either way.
Sun Nov 27 2005 11:42 PM
NJGuardsman:
"You should try living your life as if it doesn't matter either way." - So I should care less about my fellow man, run over old ladies in the street because they're in my way, kill doctors who commit abortions, assault homosexuals who throw condoms into churches, lie to incriminate those in power who have a different political opinion(s) then I do, is this what you mean?
Mon Nov 28 2005 7:17 AM
IowaBoy:
I've spent a lot of time reading through all the thoughts and comments above, and I'd like to share my musings on the subject with you....perhaps some food for thought...
Gay marriage or civil unions 'will' become the rarity in any case in the not too distant future. With scientific knowledge growing at an astounding rate each year, I believe it will come to pass that discoveries will prove homosexuality to be an illness....a genetic defect....a chromosomal anomally that will eventually be able to be corrected, perhaps even in the womb, through the use of advanced gene therapy. And at the point when this occurs, it will be interesting to hear from the gay community and their rights....will they choose the 'right to be normal'???....or will correcting the genetic defect before birth not be in the best interest of the 'fetus'....
so....now we can merge the debate of gay civil unions with abortion.....
any takers??
Sun Dec 4 2005 10:04 PM
Anonymous:
GAY MARRIAGE IS GAY
Mon Dec 12 2005 6:40 PM
south carolina:
for those of you that are taking it religiously and saying that this church lets same-sex marry. well maybe you should think on how long that church with that belief has been around. most denominations today have come to be because somebody didn't like the beliefs of the main exsiting denominations. so they creat something different to help themselves out and others who might agree. if you really think back to when america first started you wouldn't find homosexuals. to be this, you have to choose this.
think about it, how you got here was between a man and a women; not a man and a man or a women and a women. if there were only homosexuals nobody would be here. everyone would die off and then we would be the extinct species. i also read a comment on every type of species has homosexaul characteristics. to me that is just plan dumb. the animals were made a certain way to do those certain things. think about a dog, the reason that their female parts don't look like ours is because they have only one certain way of having sex. but if you know a lot about animals then you would also know that when a male dog humps another male dog it's for domination and protecting their territory.
for those of you that think that same-sex doesn't influence children, you are wrong. when children go to school not only are they looking at what you are teaching them but how you come across. they just might think well my teacher is right in school then she must be right with everything else. if a child is rasied by homosexuals they are going to turn out the same way.
for those of you that think that homosexuality is a desease you are wrong. for some it is a mental illness and that has to do with them thinking that their is no woman or man for them and they might find that in the past they thought that the same-sex might have looked good to them. everybody thinks that but at some point, like i am a girl and i think that hilary duff is pretty but i am not going to go gay because i just happened to think that she is pretty. to me homosexuality causes deseases.
but some people are born with physical problems and if you ask me the only surgerys that should performed on sexual parts of the body should only happen in this case. but you can't take a pill to help you become gay or to stop being gay. it's a choice.
everybody knows the dfinition that it should be a man and a women. and we all know that theirs nothing in the constitution but there are the laws of marriage and declarations of marriarge that state just a man and one women.
Mon Feb 20 2006 12:11 PM
Matt:
I am against gay-marriage. This is not to say that I hate gays or even dislike. I infact have several friends who are either bi-sexual or gay. So do not complain, saying that I'm dogmatic and narrow-minded. This article poses good reasoning as to why gay-marriage should not be legal.
The Same-Sex Marriage Debate: Who Has the Burden of Proof?
by
Jason Dulle
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------On the issue of same-sex marriage Christian apologists often feel the need to amass a good amount of arguments against same-sex marriage and for heterosexual marriage. While I believe we ought to formulate those arguments, tactically speaking that is not where we should start the public debate. To start with a defense of traditional marriage assumes that we carry the burden of proof when we do not.
The burden of proof does not lie with Christians and those who favor traditional marriage; the burden of proof lies on those who wish to change 5,000 years of human civilization. They must make their case as to why we should open up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples. The burden of proof is on the homosexuals.
The typical arguments they offer are love, equality, and freedom.
Love
"Homosexuals should be able to marry if they love one another."
This assumes marriage is about love. Who said that? Marriage neither brings love, nor secures it. Marriage is about families, and families are about children. Homosexuals can love one another without being married just as cohabiting heterosexuals can love one another without being married. Marriage does not add to that love.
Equality
"It's discriminatory for the government to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples."
Discrimination occurs when two equal parties are not being treated equally. While "discrimination" has a negative connotation, discrimination can be a good thing. We incarcerate murderers and reward law-abiding citizens with freedom. That's discrimination, but the discrimination is justified because there is a relevant difference between the two parties: one is a danger to society while the other is not.
Is there any relevant difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples that would justify treating the two relationships differently? Yes. Homosexual couples can, and same-sex couples cannot procreate. The government-which sanctions civil marriage-sanctions it because they are interested in children. Only heterosexual couples have the ability to produce children. Relationship that do not produce children need not be treated the same as those that do, particularly when the very reason government formally recognizes the institution of marriage is due to their interest in children.
While the love homosexuals feel for each other may be equal to the love heterosexuals feel for each other, the government is not concerned about promoting and sanctioning romantic love. The government is interested in children.
Freedom
"Homosexuals don't have the liberty to do what they want: marry"
The institution of marriage is not about freedom, nor does it confer freedom (it confers obligations and responsibilities). Marriage is about society putting their stamp of approval on a particular kind of relationship because it is in society's best interest to do so.
Homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, not because their freedom to have loving, committed relationships with someone of the same sex is being denied them, but because they are seeking approval, respect, and social acceptance. Homosexuals are free to engage in same-sex relationships, but society is just as free to withhold their approval from such relationships.
In conclusion, the typical arguments offered in support of same-sex marriage are insufficient, and thus homosexuals have not met their burden of proof. If the burden of proof has not been met there is no reason to change the institution of marriage to accommodate the unprincipled desires of a minority.
Mon Mar 13 2006 12:58 AM
Matt:
I am against gay-marriage. This is not to say that I hate gays or even dislike. I infact have several friends who are either bi-sexual or gay. So do not complain, saying that I'm dogmatic and narrow-minded. This article poses good reasoning as to why gay-marriage should not be legal.
The Same-Sex Marriage Debate: Who Has the Burden of Proof?
by
Jason Dulle
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------On the issue of same-sex marriage Christian apologists often feel the need to amass a good amount of arguments against same-sex marriage and for heterosexual marriage. While I believe we ought to formulate those arguments, tactically speaking that is not where we should start the public debate. To start with a defense of traditional marriage assumes that we carry the burden of proof when we do not.
The burden of proof does not lie with Christians and those who favor traditional marriage; the burden of proof lies on those who wish to change 5,000 years of human civilization. They must make their case as to why we should open up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples. The burden of proof is on the homosexuals.
The typical arguments they offer are love, equality, and freedom.
Love
"Homosexuals should be able to marry if they love one another."
This assumes marriage is about love. Who said that? Marriage neither brings love, nor secures it. Marriage is about families, and families are about children. Homosexuals can love one another without being married just as cohabiting heterosexuals can love one another without being married. Marriage does not add to that love.
Equality
"It's discriminatory for the government to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples."
Discrimination occurs when two equal parties are not being treated equally. While "discrimination" has a negative connotation, discrimination can be a good thing. We incarcerate murderers and reward law-abiding citizens with freedom. That's discrimination, but the discrimination is justified because there is a relevant difference between the two parties: one is a danger to society while the other is not.
Is there any relevant difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples that would justify treating the two relationships differently? Yes. Homosexual couples can, and same-sex couples cannot procreate. The government-which sanctions civil marriage-sanctions it because they are interested in children. Only heterosexual couples have the ability to produce children. Relationship that do not produce children need not be treated the same as those that do, particularly when the very reason government formally recognizes the institution of marriage is due to their interest in children.
While the love homosexuals feel for each other may be equal to the love heterosexuals feel for each other, the government is not concerned about promoting and sanctioning romantic love. The government is interested in children.
Freedom
"Homosexuals don't have the liberty to do what they want: marry"
The institution of marriage is not about freedom, nor does it confer freedom (it confers obligations and responsibilities). Marriage is about society putting their stamp of approval on a particular kind of relationship because it is in society's best interest to do so.
Homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, not because their freedom to have loving, committed relationships with someone of the same sex is being denied them, but because they are seeking approval, respect, and social acceptance. Homosexuals are free to engage in same-sex relationships, but society is just as free to withhold their approval from such relationships.
In conclusion, the typical arguments offered in support of same-sex marriage are insufficient, and thus homosexuals have not met their burden of proof. If the burden of proof has not been met there is no reason to change the institution of marriage to accommodate the unprincipled desires of a minority.
Mon Mar 13 2006 12:58 AM
I think gay marriage is evil. Same-sex marriages should be made void as it isnot a marriage
Mon Apr 24 2006 11:12 AM
Tom:
I think the error in getting like for likes legally recognized was not that they want to be together, but wanted to be recognized as "MARRIED". If another term could be identified as like and like being together, than use it. I am not opposed to like for likes being recognized and be equal with married couples. Just simply call it something else. If gay couples want to be recognized as gay couples, use a term that denotes them as legal gay couples.
Wed May 24 2006 2:03 PM
Bruce:
I think there is more to this than defining what marriage is because the term is being linked by several mis-guided conservatives to the preservation of "family" and their values. I challenge anyone to argue against the point that if we are going to link the two then does it not show "family values" if same sex couples are allowed to legalize their life together? Whether through common-law marriage or an official "marriage" and be granted the same respect and dignity herterosexual married couples are granted.
Wed Jun 7 2006 4:02 PM
Those who seek same sex marriage canât have it both ways, those on that side of the argument yell at the top of their lungs "keep your laws out of my bedroom" so that being the case why would they seek the government's "blessing" on something that is basically personal/private.
Wed Jun 7 2006 4:30 PM
Dave E.:
NJ:
Positive and negative human rights...look them up and maybe you'll come to a more informed understanding of the debate.
Wed Jun 7 2006 6:01 PM
Anonymous:
My goodness how you people can call yourself human when there isn't a gram of humanity in you. You are against gay marriage! You arer the same people that would love to get rid of all people you see unsutable for your fake christian society. You were the people who tortured black or shall i say coloured people, didnt let women vote etc. Cruel, evil, small minded and obviously disturbed individuals like your lovely president and his possy.
I hope you have wonderful life inbreading because that is the only "right" thing to do!!
How fortunate are we to live in Europe class, education and not to mention compassion run trough our veins. Shame you will never be like us, but then again we are superior.
With love and light,
UK xxx
Mon Jun 19 2006 11:32 AM
Anonymous
How can you call yourself human with the âif it feels good do itâ mentality?!? I guess that youâre fine with abortion too??? I suggest you rethink that stance since due to your all inclusive mantra Europe is dying and maybe by the turn of the century weâll be called on to repopulate Europe.
Marriage is a state in order to raze children where a mother and a father given optimal responsibility to maintain the family unit and by maintaining the family unit give the best chance to produce sensible intelligent and emotionally stable people for any given country! Are there those that to spite this become criminals yes but this is the best way.
Wed Jun 21 2006 5:58 PM
Dave E.:
I do not support any parent razing their child.
Thu Jun 22 2006 2:33 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Glad you picked up on that... hurt myself laughing.
Thu Jun 22 2006 2:50 PM
Anonymous:
Wow, it bewilders me that you "strait" people have us gays all figured out. You know exactly what we believe in. You are absolutely amazing.
Let me shed some light. I could give a shit less if I am "recognized" as being married. My sister is married to an asshole...do I support it, no, but I accept that she chose to marry an asshole. Being married is not just about being socially recognized, and that is not what we "gays" are fighting for. This is what I want:
I want to know that if I have children with my partner that they will not be taken away from their parent if I die. I also want to know that if I do die that my partner can make that decisions for a funeral as she knows I would want it. I want to know that my insurance will cover my partner who may not have the luxury of having a job that provided insurance. I also want to know that if I die my partner and children will not be ripped from our home because they are not my "family". These are the rights that you 'straits' get from marriage. You don't have to acknowledge me...but I do serve this country and pay my taxes just as you do, I deserve the same rights as you do, nothing more, nothing less.
Thu Sep 7 2006 10:45 PM
Anonymous:
Marriage = ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN for ONE LIFETIME!
Sat Sep 9 2006 8:22 PM
Anonymous:
I am a lesbian, and as I sit here and read all these homophobic comments, and reasons why the woman I love and I shouldn't be allowed to get married, I realize more and more what a sad state our country is in. To be honest I don't care if they call it marraige, civil unions- doesn't matter, just give me the same rights as straight people. How are you all so high and mighty anyway? Half of your so called marriages end in divorce- so actually I don't want to be defined as "Married" you people have screwed that word up. I simply want to be able to be legally excepted, and not denied my rights as a human being! My partner and I have raised three beautiful children, are putting 2 through college and work hard and pay taxes like everyone else.
What is wrong with the people that think they should be able to marry their dogs and car's if I can marry the love of my life? Anyone who ponders that is troubled and I certainly won't even listen to your aurgument seriously! My only hope is that one day everyone will wake up and realize that it is not important who loves who but that we love. A life without love is an empty one, and my life is full. I will pray for all of you who have hate in your hearts and use gods name to condone it.
Sat Sep 30 2006 10:35 PM
Evelyn:
Jason Dulle you are a disturbed and uninformed individual!!! Your argument makes no sense at all. Gay people simply want human rights! I want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital without the permission of another person, I want to be assured that if one of us dies our family will not be thrown out of the home we have paid for together. I want to be able to get health insurance from my partner's job because my job doesn't offer any for domestic partners. You say love has nothing to do with marraige? Then maybe you staight people have it all wrong and shouldn't be allowed to marry! Also, maybe you have not kept up with news, but oh my god, gay people can have babies! My partner and I can actually go to what's called a sperm bank, where men sell their sperm, to make a baby! So, once again you are wrong! Your argument about equality is moronic. How can you compare law abiding gay citizen's to murder's and people in prison? You make no sense. Thank god it is not up to you to uphold the law because you are indeed a disturbed bigoted man. I hope when your judgement day comes you won't be judged as harshly as you have judged other's. Oh, and one more thing please don't get married it isn't for you, since you don't think it's about love or equality or anything else redeeming. I also hope you don't have any offspring, and I really hope if you do their not gay. Even though it would serve you right! May god forgive your ignorance!
Sun Oct 1 2006 2:10 PM
Sergei Andropov:
Some thoughts:
Some people have stated that homosexuality is a choice. If that is so, why do gays so often go into denial? I have a friend who, in his youth, had absolutely no interest in getting married but knew a very aggressive matchmaker and wound up doing so anyway, and had two children. The marriage, for no readily discernable reason, wound up falling apart, and it was only later that he realized he was gay. Since (active) homosexuality is not permitted in our religion, he has resigned himself to a life of abstinence. Who on earth would choose that?
Speaking of religion; in my religion there are three "principle" crimes: Murder, adultery, and backbiting. The way I see it, either gays can commit homosexuality _and_ adultery, or just homosexuality. In any case, I don't see why the laws of my religion would apply to people who have never even heard of it.
Also, regarding the historical meaning of "marriage": you seem to be confusing marriage with monogamy and serial monogamy. There are many, many other kinds, including (but not limited to) polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, sororiate, leviate, etc. When somebody tells you that the 19th century ruler Fath Ali Shah had over one hundred wives, you don't say, "No he didn't! Marriage is between one man and _one_ woman, not one hundred!", you say, "Wow, that's a lot of wives!"
Finally, regarding the effect of changing the legal definition of marriage: People do not use the United States legal code as a dictionary. When the definition of "person" was changed to include corporations, nobody asked for Standard Oil's hand in marriage. It was recognized as a legal definition and therefore irrelevant to most people's lives.
Sun Nov 19 2006 11:21 PM
Evelyn:
Being gay is not a"Choice"! Did you make the choice to be straight? Instead of choosing to be with a man? Believe me no one would choose to be treated like a second class citizen or even murdered just to be gay! Your argument makes no sense. Your friend probably tried his hardest to " Conform" to society and denied who he was- finally he couldn't do it anymore. Maybe your friend can educate you a little bit. I sure hope so. Live and let live. This world has it all backwards, lets worry more about who people are killing then who people are loving!
Fri Dec 15 2006 8:55 PM
chris:
marriage is originated between a man and woman. it is meant that way because that is the way of conception to bring about new life. Not and never will be between a woman and woman or a man and man. That is not God's purpose and it is not natural. Just because certain individuals feel good about it, don't mean it's the right way. Eventually going the wrong way will catch up with those individuals and they will get whatever is coming to them.
Wed Feb 28 2007 1:45 PM
I think that getting his medical records and harassing him for a drug problem is wrong. Actually I think drugs should be legalized and treated like a medical problem. WBR LeoP
Thu Mar 8 2007 8:54 PM
lesbian:
If god did not intend for there to be gay people then why are we here? We are all gods children. Think of us wonderful gays as a god sent population control- ever think of that? Let's all worry a little less about who people love and worry more about who people hate!
Mon Apr 2 2007 6:59 PM
K Keats:
why does it matter? why are people so worried about the issue, why can't they just mind their own business?? gay people are people too, and deserve the same rights.. one cannot help who one loves.
Thu May 17 2007 2:05 PM
Anonymous:
If God send you, then why did he curse homosexuality in His word. If your parents are homosexuals, can you be given birth to?
Tue May 29 2007 10:43 AM
lesbian:
Mr. Anonymous,
For your information it is straight people that usually give birth to the homosexuals- so take it up with them! Have you taken the scriptures out of context? I believe so. People twist his words all the time! The reality is is that Jesus was there for all his people and would be there for me right now! I am one of gods creations- HE MADE ME GAY! Anyone who is that angry about gay people needs to look deep within themselves and figure out if they indeed are gay as well! GAY BY GOD!!!!!!!!!
Tue May 29 2007 3:46 PM
Lesbian:
P.S.
Gay and lesbian people go all the time to sperm banks or friends for donors! Be educated before you speak, you end up looking STUPID!!!!!!!We're here, we're queer and baby we aren't going away! Peace, love and queerness!
Tue May 29 2007 3:51 PM
glassman:
Before you go on ranting about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry you need to go back and really take a serious look at the Bible. First of all Jesus' life from birth to about the age of 9 and then absolutely nothing until his 30's what happened to all those years in between which we are not supposed to see. Does anyone know or realized that Jesus himself sanctified same sex marriage? You need to read the story of Sergio and Bacchus, who by the way are now saints, were gay and married in the eyes of Jesus. Bet most of you didn't know that. So before you jump on your wagon saying that allowing gays to marry will somehow destroy marriage as we know it, Heterosexuals are doing just fine destroying it on their own. We in America have the highest divorce rate, spousal abuse, and illicit affairs of any other country.
Wake up america your problem here is not whether gays can marry is you do not want to be shown up by a group of people who just might understand the actual meaning of marriage and hold true to it.
Tue Jul 24 2007 1:03 PM
nikki:
Im taking a marriage and family class the question was asked Compare and contrast the variations in types of marriages. Why do you think a number of these variations are illegal in the United States?
Tue Sep 4 2007 2:35 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
