Should there be a same sex marraige amendment

View Poll Results: How useful would this be for a newbie programmer?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very useful

    5 62.50%
  • Somewhat useful

    2 25.00%
  • Not useful

    1 12.50%
  • Just plain confusing!

    0 0%
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: Should there be a same sex marraige amendment

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    68

    Should there be a same sex marraige amendment

    Personally, I think marraige should be between a man and a woman. What do you think?

  2. #2
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=254361

    Another discussion

    //edit One thing people don't get is: it cannot be left to the states. WHy? Because if one state passes it, all the other states MUST recognize it. It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue in this case. John Kerry stating that it's a state issue is getting around answering straight questions directed at whether he supports the amendment or not. One may dislike Bush's point of view, but you know EXACTLY where he stands.

  3. #3
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Since we have not had, or needed a constitutional statement
    prohibiting homo marriage, we may conclude that it has never
    been permitted in the past, being considered unthinkable.

    And yes, marriage is a state institution in the USA, not Federal,
    although we recognize the marriages performed anywhere on Earth.

    I think that any attempt to amend the Constitution puts the normal
    people on the defensive, attempting to prohibit something new
    and trendy.

    Gay marriage will collapse of its own weight when people come to their senses.
    Leave the Constitution alone. It is not an instrument for micro-managing
    social policy.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    "I think that any attempt to amend the Constitution puts the normal
    people on the defensive, attempting to prohibit something new
    and trendy."

    but the 'normal' way of like is under attack. judges and mayors are defying state law. Laws that the people voted in place. it these people are allowed to do this in one state they will go on to make a mockery of the entire nation. ifs a rediculas cause. equal rights is one thing but this goes way beyond that. bearded brides and **** in a tux with a minister in a sailing harness is not marriage.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    LA, CA
    Posts
    292
    I think that "land of the free" means you should be able to have FREEDOM to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't step on the rights of others. I have no desire to marry a man, but if the guy next door wants to marry his lover why should that concern me? and why should that be illegal?
    A mind full of questions has no room for answers

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    There is one way to settle it fairly and that’s to do away with state sanctioned marriages altogether and just have civil unions for everyone. Then if someone wants to be “married” it can be done in a church or other place but not in itself recognized as legal. Do you think that would make them happy? I do.

    the idea is not to make it a crime but just not legitimize a "marriage" between the same sex. This in no way defames a union between two of the same sex and i actually salute the person that has the guts to come out and say "this is what i am. if you dont like it oh well.” That IS great and deserves respect.

    just like i 'usually' hold in high regard acts of civil disobedience. It normally takes the courage of one’s convictions to risk jail time and fines to protest what you believe or don’t believe in. that’s not the case with the mayor and judges in frisco. They risk nothing and just give the law and all opposed the finger because its going to be their way no matter what the people voted for in the past or no matter what anyone else wants now.. These are the people that above all others should live the law. Not make a mockery of it to bolster their political aspirations in a gay town.

    Hasn’t marriage as we know it taken enough of a beating. Its lost so much of its meaning already and I think this will just kill it. If equal rights and privileges are given with a civil union then why is the “word” marriage so important. To me Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Its something sacred. If gays want to have their own “sacred” let them make one don’t step on mine. Why would someone who’s “out and proud” living their new like style want to do something so middle American as get married…I think its just to screw with us or maybe themselves. if most Americans disagree that doesn’t make me wrong this is a free (somewhat) country and I can feel as I so please but I will abide by the democratic process. Which is more than these frisco politicians can say.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted here by Tedob1

    Hasn’t marriage as we know it taken enough of a beating. Its lost so much of its meaning already and I think this will just kill it. If equal rights and privileges are given with a civil union then why is the “word” marriage so important. To me Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Its something sacred. If gays want to have their own “sacred” let them make one don’t step on mine. Why would someone who’s “out and proud” living their new like style want to do something so middle American as get married…I think its just to screw with us or maybe themselves. if most Americans disagree that doesn’t make me wrong this is a free (somewhat) country and I can feel as I so please but I will abide by the democratic process. Which is more than these frisco politicians can say.

    I'm heterosexual, but I support gay marriages simply because I honestly see it turning into a form of descrimination if they are banned. You accuse them of stepping on the sanctity of your belief of marriage, but I think there is little room for argument considering the monsterous divorce rates facing our country today. Maybe if it wasn't so easy for a man and a woman to get married, there wouldn't be this problem, a lot of people jump into it out of wedlock, religious obligation, and to rid themselves of abstinence.

    Secondly, giving them every single right, but calling it a "civil union" seems odd. It just seems like a play on words and a sense of insecurity. If you will concede all the rights, then how are your preserving the sanctity of marriage?

    Finally, in some sense, it doesn't matter what results as long as it isn't an amendment. Review the amendments, the only one governing social policy ended up being repealed because of the outlash it created.

    I guess I just don't understand how this effects all us? It really doesn't bother me, and I don't see how it bothers others claiming they are redefining marriage. I know my definition isn't official, but I see it as a legal recognization of a relationship not bound by blood.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    120
    i couldnt agree more "the mormon" send all the gays to canada bcuz marriage is for man and woman not man and man or woman and woman!
    P-I-M-P

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    210
    mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
    n.

    1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
    b. The state of being married; wedlock.
    c. A common-law marriage.
    d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
    2. A wedding.
    3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
    4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

    ----

    In my opinion, as an non-US citizen, it should be outlawed everywhere. It is unnatural; it is not marriage. It goes against the very foundation of 'marriage'. It raises all kinds of issues, especially in regards to child-ownership and whatnot.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted here by Abtronic
    mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
    n.

    1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
    b. The state of being married; wedlock.
    c. A common-law marriage.
    d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
    2. A wedding.
    3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
    4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

    ----

    In my opinion, as an non-US citizen, it should be outlawed everywhere. It is unnatural; it is not marriage. It goes against the very foundation of 'marriage'. It raises all kinds of issues, especially in regards to child-ownership and whatnot.
    I guess we should just make it illegal then to be homosexual since if you are, descrimination is inherent. As a US citizen, I know this country has jumped these hurdles before, we as a nation are probably just not ready to do so yet.

    I find the situation rediculous in that everyone found a common cause when it comes to something harmless. We as humans rarely unite on anything unless its to bash a group of people.

    The sanctity of marriage has been under attack much long before this situation ever occurred.

    Something hilarious is how no one will answer this question: How does it personally effect you? IMHO, it personally does not effect a good 80-90 percent of us, which is a satisfying number to me considering you need less of that to get an amendment passed.

    The foundation of marriage, ha! What about the foundation of this nation? People came here because they were ostracized and persecuted for their differences.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •