Should there be a same sex marraige amendment

Interesting. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned how not too long ago it was illegal (yes, illegal) for a white woman and black man to be married. And remember there was a time when women weren't allowed to vote nor were blacks "human". Heck, it was only a few years ago when a woman living with a guy but not getting married was a "slut". My SO (common-law) is of chinese decent. If this was the turn of the 20th century, I'd hate to imagine what things would be said (not that I'd really care what the old biddies down the street said anyways).

I can't help but see some similarities in this. IMHO (and for what it's worth), I don't think that gay marriages will make marriage more sanctified or less sanctified. Regardless of who the "lovebirds" are, it is love that makes it sanctified. Not a church. Not a religion. Love. Period.

Now on the question of the sanctity of marriage, how about this: an amendment that makes it against the law to abuse your partner. Spousal/partner abuse is still not fully recognized and requires the victim to press charges. Personally, I think that threatens the sanctity of marriage far more than a couple of queers showing they care for each other. How about proving you can financially support someone else? Or that you don't have addiction that could harm someone else?

Anyways, I'm perhaps rambling but in the grand scheme of things, I think there are far more pressing issues than this. People bemoan all that's wrong in the world and sit and point the finger at others but forget that the most powerful and moving thing that will hold things true is themselves.

*shrug*

I'm for it. I myself am strait, but gays should have every right to get married. The fact is they(most from what I understand) would like spousal(sp) inheritance and all that jazz. Why not give it to them? I have heard people that argue it is harmful in "some" way which is complete BS. Almost anything can be twisted to hurt someone, but the fact is that this is not intended to hurt people which more or less counts. I do not really forsee it hurting people. They should most likely have restrictions on gay adoption, for the kids sake, especially since they are not of consenting age and don't really have a choice..

-Cheers-

What's wrong with 'gay' marriage

Quote:

---

how about marriages involving more than two people? What possible reason could we find for "discriminating" against threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, etc.?

---

Interesting so like someone said since it is love which so call sanctifies it then I guess that having multiple partners to marry is ok. Especially if your in love. Hate to be in their shoes when this comes up.

The article you presented is interesting, but it still is only based on guesses, and possibilities in his view. This has been the case forever too, I'm sorry to go here, but we can't deny this sentiment, "Free the slaves? What? Make 'em citizens? What? Let them vote? What? Whats next? What, no Jim Crow? What? Whats next, integration? Oh ****, my daughter in the same classroom with the negro? What?"

We, the US (cuz I know there are others here, but I speak as a US citizen), fears everything new, different, and at odds with our current beliefs.

I'm not 100 percent gun-ho about gay marriages, but to the extent people oppose it, its rediculous when considering the society they defend.

I still question this, how does it effect you personally? What exactly is the sanctity of hetorsexual marriage?

My answers, it does not effect me, and by legitimizing homosexual relations with marriage might actually aid in a reduction of HIV, etc.

I think there is very little sanctity of heterosexual marriage left. People speak of the obscene choices homosexuals make, but we turn the other cheek at adultery, early marriage and high divorce rates. Hypacrits?

Quote:

---

Interesting so like someone said since it is love which so call sanctifies it then I guess that having multiple partners to marry is ok.

---

Don't the Mormons' practice polygamy?

Not officialy. The Church of LDS (latter day saints) stopped recognizing those kind of mormons, saying they were their own church, the FLDS (fundamentalist latter day saints). Just to throw in my two cents, it is my unwavering opnion that this is simply progress. as MsMittens said, beggining of the century to the somewhat recently, itv was condemned upon for a white woman and black man to get married. now look how many interracial couples there are. if you arec a religous person, and believe that a marriage between two men or two women is "sinful", then fine. that is your right to belive that. but just because president bush is a harcore christian intent on presering the "old ways" doesnt mean hundreds of thousands of gay couples shouldnt be given the rights of regular married couples.


slick

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but I think everyone needs to look at tha basis of the general anti-gay feelings in America. Understand that I am putting forth these thoughts in an attempt to explain the mindset, and not to inflame the issue.

I think that most of us will agree that the US judicial system was based upon the Bible, and that most of the people that claim to be religious in America are Christians. That being said, there is a story in the Bible (Old Testament) about two cities, one named Sodom and the other named Gomorrah. Now, these cities were destroyed by God, with fire and brimstone, because the cities were unrighteousness in the eyes of God, and one of the main themes in this passage is about the unrighteousness of homosexuality.

Now this destruction of two cities, because of the wickedness contained therein, is ingrained upon the mind of every Christian that has read the passage. When individuals attack the values and morals that are the basis of the Christian faith, and with the disregard of these values and morals happening to coincide with the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, this scares the crap out of most Christians. While God is just and slow to anger, it is shown many times throughout the Bible that God can be angered, and when angered His wrath is overwhelming. Christians beleive that if you allow unrighteous acts to occur uncontested, the God's wrath may be turned upon where they live, and no one wants to see their home, friends, and community destroyed.

Another factor here is that Christians are called to help sinners understand that God does love them, but that God does not want them to live in sin. Therefore, understand that truly devout Christians will oppose gay unions, marriges, and relationships, for this very reason.

And as a side note, I do not know of any major religion where it's base philosophy and teachings condone or encourage homosexauality. In fact, all of the religions I am aware of name homosexuality as something that is anti-whatever-religion.

Seperation of church and state. There is no viable reason that gays should not be married unless you turn to religion. It pisses me off when religious groups and such try to make other people do what they feel is right? On the other end, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegence was extreme as well. Doesn't this get old? The taking down of the Confederate flag from the SC statehouse.. Anti-abortion laws, there is no end to it.

-Cheers-

I agree with your argument OverdueSpy or at least where you are coming from, though, I do not believe it is just and I inevitably side with silver-bullets.

Of course, many aruge religion was the basis of the founding of the US, but slowly, surely, and rightfully, government needs to move away from religious tennets for direction. I'm not saying lets become an atheist-communist nation, but religion should not govern the people, even if indirectly. Many people feel if we lose religion guidence than we lose the morales of our society. I believe that is wrong and it doesn't give us a lot of credit as citizens. Morals can definitely be achieved without religious guidence.

For example, without religion, we should be able to allow gay marriages, but stop at the point of threesome + marriages.

I don't see how through religion you are suppose to love your fellow man, but if he has a different lifestyle, then you can condemn them. And the part about, God loves them but does not want them to live in sin; it reminds me of a news special I watched where people would kidnapp homosexuals and take them to a hospital to convert them back through heterosexual pornographic images and pyschological conditioning. In a religious statement, "they were just redirecting their path away from sin" eh?

So, OverdueSpy, I understand where you are coming from, but like Silver-Bullets said, its getting old. We fight wars to get rid of religious fundamentalists in other nations yet we have many running our own...

What is wrong with the generally supported idea of "Civil Union"?