Note, this is not a topic about being gay, or whther or not it's right. DOn't post "wl i tink it goez agnst natur" or "al anti ghey peeps r relijis extrmsts! lol". Please, that's not the subject.

Well, unless you live under a rock(or don't live in the US) you'd know that there is a movement to ammend the constitution regarding gay marriage. This ammendment will say "MArriage is the bond between a man and a woman". Now, no matter whne it was written, I'll bet you the ofunding fathers had no intention of telling people what marriage was. I can't think of a good reason to have a fucking Ammendment on something as trivial(on the national level) as marriage.

Your thoughts?

At 6/5/06 03:42 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

I can't think of a good reason to have a fucking Ammendment on something as trivial(on the national level) as marriage.

Your thoughts?

Well I don't know what to say on account that you said that this motherfucking post wasn't suppose to be about how gay marriages go against nature or all anti gays are religion extremists.

Perhaps if you could give me an example of what to fucking say, you'll get my thoughts then.

With one or two democrats supporting it, and a lot of Republicans opposing it there is almost no chance of this passing.

This is just something to bring the religions right voting republican on the elections this year, not that a lot of them don't alreayd vote that way.

At 6/5/06 03:42 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

I can't think of a good reason to have a fucking Ammendment on something as trivial(on the national level) as marriage.

Amen to that. This should be battled out in the legislatures and courts of our country. We shouldn't try to change the charter document of our nation for something that so, well, trivial.

Oyy marriage has been around longer than the existence or acknowledgement of god.

Marriage has been around for maybe as long as a 100 thousand years. While the acknowledgement of a single entity has been around for abuut 4 thousand years. Do you get my point yet?

And Marriage was not originally a union it was a way in which a male could own a female as property.

What we define as marriage has changed to an equal sense of mind, but still we are trying to institutionalize it as a means of oppressing people.

We should just ignore the whole issue and concentrate on more important matters. Like terrorism and the environment.

I live in Canada.

At 6/5/06 05:47 PM, wexer9 wrote: I live in Canada.

So whats Canada's stance on gay marriage, is it legal up there. I never really thought about it before.

Yay trying to save senators by beating a dead horse with an old bat. :D
Everyone turned on Bush as soon as this whole immagration thing started lol.

At 6/5/06 06:30 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/5/06 03:46 PM, KemCab wrote: Bush is just trying to appease religious conservatives on his side by supporting it.

I don't take the passing of it seriously.

Agreed, Bush is only pandering to his conservative allies, being this is an election year. The last time we had the "anti-gay ammendment movement" rear it's ugly head was back in 2004.

I don't think so.
I believe he genuinely believes that gay marriage will do some kind of harm, although he never states how.

Although, I hate the times when he was like, "I do have some gay friends."

Maybe he is against happiness and not homosexuality. And he confused over the term, "gay."

In my personal opinion I don't think homosexual marriage is legitimate. I think they should have the right to civil unions, though.

Why?

Because the term marriage must be so sacred, even though it's been around much longer than it's present definition?

Again, ignorance is bliss.

At 6/5/06 07:10 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: Why?

Because the term marriage must be so sacred, even though it's been around much longer than it's present definition?

Again, ignorance is bliss.

Because marriage has been defined as a special union between man and woman, why should we overturn it on a mere whim? I have no problem with giving gay people the exact same legal status as a married couple, but the mantle of marriage is sacred in itself. Gays want equality and they can get it with civil unions: I don't see the big deal. Why try forcing the government to make gay marriage legal when it would only serve to upset half of the population?

My course of action is the most logical as it would give everyone the same benefits and appease everyone.

# the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
# two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
# the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
# a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

princeton disagrees

At 6/5/06 07:17 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

At 6/5/06 07:10 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: Why?

Because the term marriage must be so sacred, even though it's been around much longer than it's present definition?

Again, ignorance is bliss.

Because marriage has been defined as a special union between man and woman, why should we overturn it on a mere whim? I have no problem with giving gay people the exact same legal status as a married couple, but the mantle of marriage is sacred in itself. Gays want equality and they can get it with civil unions: I don't see the big deal. Why try forcing the government to make gay marriage legal when it would only serve to upset half of the population?

My course of action is the most logical as it would give everyone the same benefits and appease everyone.

The point Annunaki_Decendant made above is that marriage has always changed its meanings on a mere whim. Do you think we got the idea from religion? No. Marriage just recently became a big deal when women obtained equal rights as men and we had to change the definition again. And then, after that, we decided to change the definition again allowing interracial couples to marry. Those were both "mere whims". Why should this time be any different?

And who is anyone to say what "ruining the sanctity" of marriage is? I hold that there is nothing less sanctimonious than something that can be taken away by a few court cases. Besides, we're talking about marriage in the government sense, not marriage in the religious sense. No church will ever be forced to marry a same-sex couple. There is something against that in the Constitution.

Marraige is a state protected power.

I'm against anything that gives more power to the federal government

At 6/5/06 07:17 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

At 6/5/06 07:10 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: Why?

Because the term marriage must be so sacred, even though it's been around much longer than it's present definition?

Again, ignorance is bliss.

Because marriage has been defined as a special union between man and woman.

But it never was to begin with. Marriage was just a tool in which men can control women and oppress them as property.

It wasn't until much later as intellectual thought continue to evolve that equality was treated in the household between man and wife. And this came about as a means of dealing with survival over nature.

why should we overturn it on a mere whim?

Because it's wrong to oppress people.

And marriage is just a tool to create oppression as it was invented for.

I have no problem with giving gay people the exact same legal status as a married couple, but the mantle of marriage is sacred in itself.

Because the word is sacred?

Let me remind you that marriage does not mean special union between man and woman.

Marriage means "special labeling union" of man over woman.

Think of how many men in history could simply own a woman by having her married to him. Think of Julius Caesar and other people that had used such a term of marriage that predates the one found in the bible.

Marriage is not holy, you only make it holy if you want it to be holy.

Gays want equality and they can get it with civil unions.

But a civil union is just another word for marriage. So why can't they call it marriage?

Marriage was never invented to be a special union between man and woman. Why use it in an ignorant manner that it was never intentionally invented for?

I don't see the big deal.

Because oppression is wrong.

Why try forcing the government to make gay marriage legal when it would only serve to upset half of the population?

It isn't gay marriage. A marriage between two people of the same gender is not gay, it's homosexual. When I say that, I'm talking about the term "happy."

My course of action is the most logical as it would give everyone the same benefits and appease everyone.

Not really. Because you can then just take away special privledges given to civil unions, simply because you want to make them as much different from that of marriage.

At 6/5/06 03:42 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: I can't think of a good reason to have a fucking Ammendment on something as trivial(on the national level) as marriage.

Without an amendment to the Constitution, liberal judges can institute gay marriage in a flash, without any say from the folks and no way for democratically elected officials to change the decision. I see it as a way of protecting the will of the people; after all, we could always just reverse the decision in the future. This way, liberals can't use judicial activism to force gay marriage on America like they used it to force abortion on America. Of course, it stands no chance of passing, so who really cares in the end what the reasons are.

But almost all judges are conservative, since they are most oftenly appointed by conservative executive officials.

At 6/5/06 07:46 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: But it never was to begin with. Marriage was just a tool in which men can control women and oppress them as property.

In most cultures, men could not have gotten out of marriage though. So your description seems a bit lacking. The reason for the whole "eternal bond" deal is for the security of the entire family, particularly for the children. Societies instituted marriage, in part, to ensure that the children always had a provider to take care of them. In fact, it was customary (in a lot of cultures) for a brother of a deceased father to care for the father's children and wife (he and his deceased brother's wife would automatically be married). That doesn't sound like an institution designed to oppress women to me.

At 6/5/06 07:49 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: But almost all judges are conservative, since they are most oftenly appointed by conservative executive officials.

Won't always necessarily be the case. If Kerry had been elected in 2004, we'd probably have a liberal-leaning Supreme Court right now.

At 6/5/06 07:46 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: But a civil union is just another word for marriage. So why can't they call it marriage?

They can not call it a marriage because if they were to call it a "Homosexual Marriage" there would be tons of uproars about it from the anti-gay-marriage movement. If they were to say a "Homosexual Civil Union" that would please alot more people and would most likely prevent alot of upset feelings on both sides.

Because oppression is wrong.

Whats cruel about a Civil Union? Public wouldn't even accept Gay Marriage anyways. Sure they may be married in the courts eyes but not the publics. In my opinion this isn't an oppression and it doesn't even come close.

It isn't gay marriage. A marriage between two people of the same gender is not gay, it's homosexual.

Gay Marriage. You say tomato I say tomata. (Doesn't matter. I would suggest dropping it)

Not really. Because you can then just take away special privledges given to civil unions, simply because you want to make them as much different from that of marriage.

No that wouldn't happen. No one would let that happen. Its under Vermont "LAW" that Civil Unions get the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities as spouses in a marriage. What special priviledges would be taken away from "LAW"? If they did there would be an uproar. Now that Annunaki would be oppression.

Correct if wrong

At 6/5/06 08:28 PM, TheBlueBullet wrote:

At 6/5/06 07:46 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: But a civil union is just another word for marriage. So why can't they call it marriage?

They can not call it a marriage because if they were to call it a "Homosexual Marriage" there would be tons of uproars about it from the anti-gay-marriage movement. If they were to say a "Homosexual Civil Union" that would please alot more people and would most likely prevent alot of upset feelings on both sides.

Then make sure it's the same thing for everyone. No one gets married until it's ordained by a church and everyone can get a civil union. This equalizes everything for everyone and appeases everyone. I can't see an uproar starting from that. I mean, even if it did end up being this way, people could still say "I'm married" anyway. It would still be considered a marriage, but it has to be the same for everyone in the court's eyes.

Because oppression is wrong.

Whats cruel about a Civil Union? Public wouldn't even accept Gay Marriage anyways. Sure they may be married in the courts eyes but not the publics. In my opinion this isn't an oppression and it doesn't even come close.

Nothing is cruel about a civil union until you differentiate the names for different groups of bound couples.

It isn't gay marriage. A marriage between two people of the same gender is not gay, it's homosexual.

Gay Marriage. You say tomato I say tomata. (Doesn't matter. I would suggest dropping it)

Not really. Because you can then just take away special privledges given to civil unions, simply because you want to make them as much different from that of marriage.

No that wouldn't happen. No one would let that happen. Its under Vermont "LAW" that Civil Unions get the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities as spouses in a marriage. What special priviledges would be taken away from "LAW"? If they did there would be an uproar. Now that Annunaki would be oppression.

It's still a difference. In this case, the officials handing out licenses cannot be fair if they call one legal binding a marriage and the other a civil union. Until the State government calls every union under the law a civil union, there will be no true equality. And this amendment will mean nothing if passed because the federal government cannot dictate what a church deems appropriate in terms of married couples.

I'm thinking long term, Bullet. If you want to call it a civil union for one group, you'll eventually have to call it that for every group in order to have true social equality. Therefore, the churches will again have the power in the spiritual binding ceremony we call marriage and the state gives the rights to everyone under the same name, civil union.

Correct if wrong

I think an amendment either way is stupid. As many have said already this is a trivial matter. We should just let the states decide for themselves and not force any of the states either way with an amendment. If California wants it, all power to them. If Texas doesnt, no problem. But they must uphold that they put faith in each others laws.

At 6/5/06 09:12 PM, Dulnar wrote: people could still say "I'm married" anyway. It would still be considered a marriage, but it has to be the same for everyone in the court's eyes.

Of course. If it wasn't same for everyone in the court's eyes then I could see some problems. Its the courts job to decide stuff like that. The majority of people do not want Homosexuals to get married. (Such as California) I was saying that in the Courts eyes they may be "married" but the majority of the public, I believe, will not accept it.

Nothing is cruel about a civil union until you differentiate the names for different groups of bound couples.

True, but will that ever happen? Are you talking about bound couples meaning gay couples or bound couples as in boy/man couples and man/animal couples?

It's still a difference. In this case, the officials handing out licenses cannot be fair if they call one legal binding a marriage and the other a civil union. Until the State government calls every union under the law a civil union, there will be no true equality. And this amendment will mean nothing if passed because the federal government cannot dictate what a church deems appropriate in terms of married couples.

Changing Marriage to Civil Union might be a good idea. Just an idea. It would end court discrimination mabye? I can see the point though of it not being fair. Calling one group a Married couple and the other a Unioned Couple.
It will mean something. It means that the Gays will no longer be able to hold the title "Married" under court ever until it gets appealed. I don't think the Church can dictate marriage, can they?

I'm thinking long term, Bullet. If you want to call it a civil union for one group, you'll eventually have to call it that for every group in order to have true social equality. Therefore, the churches will again have the power in the spiritual binding ceremony we call marriage and the state gives the rights to everyone under the same name, civil union.

Isn't that the way it already is? Or does the Court see it as Marriage and not a Civil Union?

Correct if wrong

At 6/5/06 09:31 PM, W31RD0 wrote: I think an amendment either way is stupid. As many have said already this is a trivial matter. We should just let the states decide for themselves and not force any of the states either way with an amendment. If California wants it, all power to them. If Texas doesnt, no problem. But they must uphold that they put faith in each others laws.

Yes it is. Its should be the States power not the Federal. Agreed.
Extra. California doesn't want it.

At 6/5/06 09:44 PM, TheBlueBullet wrote:

At 6/5/06 09:31 PM, W31RD0 wrote: I think an amendment either way is stupid. As many have said already this is a trivial matter. We should just let the states decide for themselves and not force any of the states either way with an amendment. If California wants it, all power to them. If Texas doesnt, no problem. But they must uphold that they put faith in each others laws.

Yes it is. Its should be the States power not the Federal. Agreed.
Extra. California doesn't want it.

Really? I thought it was just the govenor that opposed it. Being that CA is such a liberal state, and they generally side with Oregon on most issues.

At 6/5/06 09:42 PM, TheBlueBullet wrote: Isn't that the way it already is? Or does the Court see it as Marriage and not a Civil Union?

Marriage licenses are handed out, aren't they? And you can get married under the court. And if it weren't already like that, there would be no need for a mention of the amendment coming up.

There has alwaysbeen 2 veiws on marriage.

1 The churches view is that Marriage is between a man and a women. Now that might sound good and all but what If your athiest or not a christian or someonewho supports gay marriage. What should you do. By passing this law your are promoting one religion over another.

2 The legal veiw Now what must of you don't understand is that when you get married you also get alot of benefits with taxes and such not sure of all the benifits you get but. Why can't a gay man get the same benefits that straight people get. And before anyone says being gay is an offense against god. Stop reading the bible for moral code because guess what It teaches hatred bigortry and superstition. Also If your gonna be so literal on the bible would you Sell your daughter into slavery or stone to death disobediant children. I dare aqnyone here to read the bible cover to cover Because we need more athiest and nothing will get you there faster than reading the bible.

At 6/5/06 07:46 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/5/06 07:17 PM, JadedSoB wrote:

At 6/5/06 07:10 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

why should we overturn it on a mere whim?

Because it's wrong to oppress people.

And marriage is just a tool to create oppression as it was invented for.

But if marriage is just a tool for oppression, then why redefine it so that it is expanded to cover homosexual couples? Is expanding oppression desirable? Funny, I'm married and I don't feel the least bit oppressed by it and neither does my wife. We chose to commit to each other; there was no coercion.

How about everyone (heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals) has the right to form a civil union/domestic partnership that grants legal benefits and we leave marriage to religious institutions? Then no one will have to be "oppressed" to get legal benefits.

The current Congressional action is rather pointless, since it is guaranteed to not pass. I'd rather Congress focus on where something can be achieved.