Gay vs Traditional Marriage

[Hair-dawg]

Orin Hatch - "Gay marriage damages traditional marriage. We are not here to prevent equal rights to the people, but to preserve the traditional ways of the sacred bond of marriage. The debate also lies in keeping the three branches of government fair and equal. Both the legislature and the executive agendas agreed fully that a marriage is defined as a 'bond between a man and a woman' The only ones causing the troubles here are the judicial courts exempting the laws we pass and carrying out to whatever pleases them. These "rouge" and liberal courts are outnumbered 2-1. By passing the Gay Marriage Amendment we are balancing the three branches to a fairer stance."

Hilary Clinton - "If our goal is to preserve gay marriage, then why haven't we banned divorce policies in our country? Isn't Divorce a stronger threat to our traditional ways of marriage than two members of the same sex being married? We today live in a society today where divorce is at an increasing rate. Not only will divorce harm a society socially, but economically as well; by separations and judicial order. I for one was placed in a position in my life where I had to defend marriage, because I believed in it. I believe that the courts see this too, and that the "rouge" courts are similar to the ones that created desegregated schools, back in 1950s."

(Not directly quoted, see C-Span for actual debates and inputs)

My intention is not to slam people one way or another, but to keep active in politics of today.

[Hair-dawg]

See C-Span for more details (which will be tricky with all the coverage of the Democratic National Convention. Check listings on C-Span's site)

[La-Z-boi]

At 7/29/04 06:35 AM, Hair_dawg wrote: Hilary Clinton - "If our goal is to preserve gay marriage, then why haven't we banned divorce policies in our country? Isn't Divorce a stronger threat to our traditional ways of marriage than two members of the same sex being married?

Totally right.

[Twin-Uzis]

I don't get what the big deal is. If they love each other, let them get married, whether or not they're the same gender.

[fli]

Rouge courts... yeah right. There duty is to analyze and think critcally.

Thank god for Checks and Balances.

Next thing we know, Patriot Act will give the excutive all authority because they're not "cooporating".

[bombkangaroo]

rouge?

why would they make the courts pink?

[ShadowsFall]

Im afraid just I dont believe this is right. In the past 30 years or so things have just been changing too fast. Do you not think this is just anouther step too far? How many morals can you throw away without destorying society? Anyway the way I see it is the main reason for getting married in the long run is to have a family. Gays cant have children so why do they need to marry.

[theburningliberal]

At 7/29/04 08:29 PM, ShadowsFall wrote: Anyway the way I see it is the main reason for getting married in the long run is to have a family. Gays cant have children so why do they need to marry.

To have a family? Jeez... You need to pay a bit more attention. Even in the tradition of the religious marriage, marriage is an act that expresses the feelings two people have for one another.

That is, unless, you think that sex is only moral when a man and a woman are trying to conceive a baby?

[d4rkn1t3]

At 7/29/04 06:35 AM, Hair_dawg wrote: Hilary Clinton - "If our goal is to preserve gay marriage, then why haven't we banned divorce policies in our country? Isn't Divorce a stronger threat to our traditional ways of marriage than two members of the same sex being married?

so true, i remember saying this when i was arguing with my friend over this. although i hope they do legalize it wouldnt affect me either way.

[KWAS71KCK]

all this banning gay marriages is just stupid if you want my opinion. im not gay, but gay people have rights too, and honestly, why cant they get married? i don't see a problem with it. you see gay couples all the time out on the street, so why not let them get married? let them be happy, have some peace in the world and not so much controversy

[ReddSky]

Why not ban blacks, asians and middle-easterns from marrying? (sarcasim dont take it seriously).

Really its no different from gay marriage, theres 2 grooms or brides, that it, theres no rainbows or tight pants, even if there was it doesnt matter, because you dont have to go there.

[ShadowsFall]

At 7/29/04 10:19 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

To have a family? Jeez... You need to pay a bit more attention. Even in the tradition of the religious marriage, marriage is an act that expresses the feelings two people have for one another.

Yes that is true marrage is an act to show a couples true love. Yet most married couples throughout the ages have gone on to have families. Why would Gays need to marry- they can express there love without being marriage. If they dont plan to have a family whats the point. Most churches wont give them there blessing anyway and rightfully so.

[ReeferTaco]

At 7/30/04 12:36 AM, KWAS71KCK wrote: i don't see a problem with it. let them be happy, have some peace in the world and not so much controversy

Here here!!
I completely agree.

[gokusucks]

even as a catholic i really don't mind if they get married .

[N0mbre]

Did you mean "If our goal is to preserve marriage"?
That would appear to make more sense. As for gay marriage I havn't got a problem with it, if two people want to be together let them. However I am not so sure about gay couples having children. Not because of principle but because I believe it may affect the childs upbringing, i.e. teasing, discrimination, just not a 'normal' upbringing etc. In a perfect society I would see no problem with it but we don't live in a perfect society.

[The-Last-Cynic]

At 7/30/04 06:26 AM, ShadowsFall wrote: Why would Gays need to marry- they can express there love without being marriage.

They want it because they should be aloud to be able too. Also with marriage you get certain rights such as widows pension(sp)

:If they dont plan to have a family whats the point.
Many of them do have families, just instead of having their own they adopt.

[La-Z-boi]

At 7/30/04 06:26 AM, ShadowsFall wrote:

:couples throughout the ages have gone on to have families. Why would Gays need to marry- they can express there love without being marriage. If they dont plan to have a family whats the point. Most churches wont give them there blessing anyway and rightfully so.

I really don't know why you have something against it... Why won't you just let them marry ? They don't hurt anyone or something.. Besides, sometimes, a man and a woman are getting married because the have to. It's weird when you're 50 and not even married... as they say...

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 7/29/04 08:29 PM, ShadowsFall wrote: Im afraid just I dont believe this is right. In the past 30 years or so things have just been changing too fast. Do you not think this is just anouther step too far?

Who is to say when something has gone too far? It's subjective-- I don't think it has gone far enough.

How many morals can you throw away without destorying society?

What do morals have to do with men marrying men and women marrying women? What's keep society together? Men treating women as objects?

Anyway the way I see it is the main reason for getting married in the long run is to have a family.

I see it as an expensive and superficial way to show that you are in love. I don't care what's written on that slip of paper.

Gays cant have children so why do they need to marry.

You don't need to be married to have children. You can walk down an alley and get pregnant.

[Cattapillar]

Why not turn a gay marriage into a tradition marriage?

[Camarohusky]

At 7/30/04 01:26 PM, Cattapillar wrote: Why not turn a gay marriage into a tradition marriage?

How? Have one of the guys dress like a woman? Have one of the woman dress like a man? I think you could pull it off at least until after you got your certificate...

[PalmClease]

At 7/29/04 08:29 PM, ShadowsFall wrote: Im afraid just I dont believe this is right. In the past 30 years or so things have just been changing too fast. Do you not think this is just anouther step too far? How many morals can you throw away without destorying society? Anyway the way I see it is the main reason for getting married in the long run is to have a family. Gays cant have children so why do they need to marry.

So true. Spoken well.

There is not one legitament reason to be a homosexual.

I don't understand why you all are trying to force us to think that it is okay when all through history it has never been okay. And it totally goes agaist our beliefs. This country was founded and the laws were based around religion and the belief in God. You need to not forget that.

Your all lucky we accept it as much as we do now. Your just making it worse for yourselves trying to pull this crap.

For the most part people don't care if you choose to be gay. It's just dumb how you flawnt it as if your proud to be a sinner. As if your rebeling against someone (ie: your father,,, or the father(GOD))

It just isn't right.

Don't be mad at us for telling you, that you are wrong.... and you are.

[RedSkunk]

It was perfectly ok in Rome. And Greece. And before, when we were hunter-gatherers. And now. And...

[FatherVenom]

At 7/30/04 05:06 PM, PalmClease wrote: There is not one legitament reason to be a homosexual.

I can name that tune in one note. Genetics.

I don't understand why you all are trying to force us to think that it is okay

You don't have to think it's ok, just as long as you don't impede the happiness of others.

And it totally goes agaist our beliefs.

Speak for yourself.

This country was founded and the laws were based around religion and the belief in God. You need to not forget that.

Last time I checked, we stopped relying on religion to guide the laws when thousands of people were killed in our own country. True it wasn't the United States yet, but we learned our lesson, almost. *coughMcCarthycough*

[ShadowsFall]

At 7/30/04 08:32 AM, KirbyMan wrote: They want it because they should be aloud to be able too. Also with marriage you get certain rights such as widows pension(sp)

Dont you think we could be just taking things a step too far. Am I the only one here that think there could be something fundimentally wrong with gays marrying. When I picture marrage I only imagine a man and women- the way its always been. It seems pretty simple to me.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/30/04 07:19 PM, ShadowsFall wrote: Dont you think we could be just taking things a step too far. Am I the only one here that think there could be something fundimentally wrong with gays marrying. When I picture marrage I only imagine a man and women- the way its always been. It seems pretty simple to me.

But when I picture freedom, I see all people having and excercising all of the rights that eveyone else has.

[ShadowsFall]

At 7/30/04 05:06 PM, PalmClease wrote: So true. Spoken well.

Thanks palm- least someone see's sense.

[RedSkunk]

Marriage as an institution has been around for thousands of years. And those thousands of years have included the periods where homosexuality was ruled perfectly acceptable. Marriage hasn't only been "between a man and a woman", unless you're specifically looking at a slim part of European history or something.

[ShadowsFall]

Yes im looking at my european history.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/30/04 07:30 PM, ShadowsFall wrote: Yes im looking at my european history.

Must be a very shallow history.

[Wraith]

At 7/30/04 07:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Must be a very shallow history.

The Dark Ages demonstrated the best parts of human greed and deliberate ignorance, the Inquisition demonstrated the dangers of fanatical religion, but the Renaissance was a nice change of pace.