Should there be a same sex marraige amendment

I look at this entire issue with extreme simplicity. The connection of a man and woman is a Thing; a thing that produces offspring which propagates the species. They are mother and father of a natural sense. No big deal except that different groups want that SAME thing when it's impossible. One can change the name of the thing all they want. Add or subtract definitions in terms, or TAKE AWAY rights of others to enjoy this current thing they have between a man and a woman and eventually their children.

One can do all of that and openly disobey the law in protest, in order to feel like they have this thing in their grasp, but it's not the same. It's impossible. So I wonder why a man and a woman cannot have their own thing, and a man and a man can have their own that. Why take away one's thing in order to try and mimic something that is impossible. A relationship between a man and a man and a woman and a man is NOT the same thing. It's biologically impossible, is what I am getting at. So what? Why does one seek to destroy the other? And force the people who wish to keep this thing between a man and a woman, fight for the right to keep relationships they have had since the evolution of mammal or the creation of man by god. Fight to maintain the difference between man and man versus man and woman. How could one imply they are the same?

Because common sense dictates they ARE different. One can define their love through commitment and even pursue the same legal rights without destroying the THING of others. But they choose to do so with the only cause in mind being destruction and dismantling of definitions to elevate their own selfish standing even though others may view them as equal citizens.

OK perhaps it's not that simple in it's definition.

So you are saying that only a coupleing that produces offspring shoul;d be a marrige in the goverments eyes? So you want the goverment to control who has kids....you want the goverment to control your sex life? Wow I thaught conservatives at least claimed they wanted less govermental controll in individuals life I guess they conservatism dose equal facism.

Come on guys we are talking about the legal definition of marrige here, no one is going to force your religion to marry a gay cuple...or you to accept them as married, this is just dealing with legal rights (inharitence, access, shared knowladge ect.) and benifits(tax break, insurance break.) it has nothing to do with the religious instatution of marrige.

What you are then implying is that every man and woman couple is in the relationship to eventually reproduce. While sex may be one of the many enjoyable parts of the relationships, not every couple desires children. While disgusting, two men can also partake in sexual relations while not reproducing. If a married couple of a man and a woman can exist without ever producing children, why can't a married couple of two men (or women) exist?

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying then is that, a man and a woman relationship (marriage) is possible because of their mutual ability to produce offspring together; therefore, a man and man marriage is impossible because they cannot produce offspring.

This confuses me because we are defining marriage by the couple's ability to reproduce. This, in my opinion, is dangerous, because today, straight couples use third party methods to reproduce (adoption, insemination, serrogates, etc.). This option is also available to gays, doesn't that then give them the right to be married according to your logic?

Quote:

---

While disgusting, two men can also partake in sexual relations while not reproducing.

---

You evidentally haven't a clue what some hetreosexuals do in their bedrooms eh? :lildevil: Might want to look at the Kama Sutra. What some homosexuals do is pretty mild to what some "straight" folks do.

Im kinda tired of seeing fags on the news saying "boo hoo want marraige boo hoo".

A: There is nothing that says peaple can't get married.
B: Getting married in a church is completly different in a courtroom. If its really about two peaple careing about one another then why don't they just find a church, and find a priest, maybe throw elvis into the mix. The only difference is a little piece of paper that comes in handy during tax time. If its really about the whole homo huging and careing thing then why should a peice of paper even matter... well the answer is clear MONEY! Come on, these guys are just as greedy as the *******s in suits and ties whether if peaple are willing to admit it or not.

Well everyone missed the point in emotion. A relationship that is a man and a woman or since copulation became the focus versus the point I tried to make, a penis entering a vagina can only happen one way. Between a man and a woman. So I say, what is wrong with a relationship that is limited to do that? Its very discriminating, because you have to be a man AND a woman to accomplish that. Sure you can get sex changes etc, adopt, artificially inseminate... But that only once again changes the definition and not the common sense rational.

I am not even saying couples want to have children and not basing my point on that I ONLY point out that there is no possible way that a homosexual relationship can equal a male and female relationship. Bballad, you even mentioned that it comes down to legal definitions versus religious one's. I agree there, but in all circumstances I have seen the legal definition of marriage is male and female. Why change a definition to include male and male. They are not equal. Meaning not that one is better than another but not the same, like and apple is not a pear even though both taste sweet, grow on trees, in the same climate and are delicious. Why not call it “bababla,” and define that as the: union of male and male or female and female and then pronounce them, husband and husband? Why take away a relationship defined as male and female? Yes why change the definition and if that change is the end result what would that definition be? A union of human and human? Or a union of Human, Human and Human? Why stop at 2? I hope my point was clarified a little.

I don't consider my view conservative. Religion and sex bias is not there. It a view on what is and what is not currently active and what could be in the future. I would call it liberal. But if you want a defining adjective the reproduction bit could be a limiting if not discriminating factor. Whether chosen to follow or not the capability exists in broad terms where same sex relationships they do not pre-exist. They cannot reproduce and sexual discrimination on certain terms is acceptable. I don’t have a problem with being expected to stay out of a woman’s dressing room, for example.

Even more ammunition for the context that they are NOT THE SAME. I am not defining marriage, it's already defined. I am saying there is no valid justification to change it's definition in my opinion, since man and man cannot equate to man and female. There is no substitute. You can't mix yellow and blue together and call it red. Is my point, if you do you are tricking society and making something new that has nothing to do with the traditional definition of green. You change it, that is not progressing, that is suppressing the reality for the benefit of those who wish to redefine it.

In addition this church and legal thing is muddled. For instance, a gay couple could go into a church of god that accepts them and get married, just like anyone and then go and get a civil union to make it a legal bind or contract. In essence, obtaining the social equality they desire and having society recognize their love. Why force their will on the heterosexuals and force a legal definition to make their union the same, when it is not?

|The|Specialist You obviously havent been married. It throws a lot of legal snages into things... I can legaly tell my wife anything regardelss of any nondisclousre i have signed (or security level on the doc) but she is considered to be held to the doc i have signed. I have power of attorny by default, I can demand to see her if she is in jail or a hospital. If my companiy offers me group insurance she can be included, inharitence rights, gardian ship rights of our children. If my wife is in an car accident and is unconcious the hospital must contact me as immediate family, with out the marrige we are not considered a family in the eyes of the law, social security and medicar issues...there are a lot of legal benifits that come with the legal institution of marrige above and beyond the tax advantage. These rights are what gay cupples are fighting for, the idea that a marrige is just a pice of paper or about havieng kids is smallminded and ignorant.

Under the civil union concept all those things are applied. Equal access to law of our society. Not event he extreme right denies those rights.

//edit, depending on the security level bballad, the spouse will have a similar background investigation and if he or she is not cleared, you are not cleared.

fair enpugh, but the general assumption is anything you know your spous knows. hens teh security clearence check for both of you.

RoadClosed there is no universal civil union law and in the states that have them the extream right is fighting them...so yes they do deny those rights thats the problem...hell i would be very happy if there where no legal marrige and every body had civil unions, as long as every body can get the benifits the law offers. Lets face it haveing people in stable long term relashionships is good for society and good for the econamy regardless of the genders of the couple.

Ok I have never read or heard anyone deny the Concept of Civil union in public outside of your typical massive extremist, who don't get much public support anyway. There is no civil union law because when support started gaining momentum, the gay community started fighting marriage in court. It was they who got the government involved. I recall many stating publically that civil union is not enough, they want "marriage" and nothing less.

Even high government officials in support of an amendment defining marriage as man and woman support civil unions.

I have heard the slogans that gays will not accept ANY compromise dozens, if not hundreds of times. SO I question who is the forward thinking side on this issue. One side is willing to give, the other is not. Society changes take time, forcing them upon the culture only wins the short term greed.