|
|
|
Terryt88
Skeptic Friend
USA
120 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2004 : 09:53:57
|
I'm actually surprised no one has already started a thread on this one by now, but here goes.
A little background info:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.marriage.reacts/index.html
Or if your a Fox News bubba:
(Edited to add: This is actually a transcript of what Bush said and not a Fox News story.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112326,00.html
I never saw this coming in a million years. I mean Bush has talked big about a lot of [in my opinion] ridiculous things, but amending the Constitution is an exceptionally big one in my book.
I mean he actually wants to make an amendment that would justify the curtailment of civil rights! The last time an amendment was made that restricted rights was the 1920's prohibition of alcohol. And we all know how well that one went down..
So possibly I am missing something? I have heard many conservatives say that gay marriages "will cheapen marriage" or "are morally wrong." Are these reasons good enough? Reason enough to deny a simple marriage license to two people in love? My opinion is no, but I really want to hear both sides.
What is your take on the topic?
|
Edited by - Terryt88 on 02/25/2004 09:56:36
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 10:35:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Terryt88
I'm actually surprised no one has already started a thread on this one by now, but here goes.
A little background info:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.marriage.reacts/index.html
Or if your a Fox News bubba:
(Edited to add: This is actually a transcript of what Bush said and not a Fox News story.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112326,00.html
I never saw this coming in a million years. I mean Bush has talked big about a lot of [in my opinion] ridiculous things, but amending the Constitution is an exceptionally big one in my book.
I mean he actually wants to make an amendment that would justify the curtailment of civil rights! The last time an amendment was made that restricted rights was the 1920's prohibition of alcohol. And we all know how well that one went down..
So possibly I am missing something? I have heard many conservatives say that gay marriages "will cheapen marriage" or "are morally wrong." Are these reasons good enough? Reason enough to deny a simple marriage license to two people in love? My opinion is no, but I really want to hear both sides.
What is your take on the topic?
Never saw it coming? How? He had been metioning ever since the Massachusetts decision that he would push for a marriage protection amendment. He later backed off, but in light of other "clear confusion" he has now re-upped this stuff. Even the conservatives in the Republican party think this is a bad idea. But, Bush seems to think that the Moral Majority (which is neither) needs to have a strong voice in US politics.
Hard line conservative Repubicans claim that homosexual marriage would cheapen the institution or are morally wrong. These reasons join religious marriage and civil marriage as one. They are quite different. The reasons given are not even valid. How does a civil marriage (extension of benefits to marriage partners, tax benefits/liabilities, preferential treatment when adopting in some areas, property succession rights, ability to legally make medical decisions for a significant other, et. al. non-religious governmental perks and responsibilities.) between two same-sex people cheapen the marriage of a heterosexual couple? IMHO, what Brittany Spears and idiot friend did in Vegas went a lot further to cheapen the idea of marriage than any homosexual marriage ever could. It does not require churches to perform them, nor does it require anyone but the government and health care agencies recognize it.
As for the moral issue, the AFA (American Family Association) tried an online poll to forward their skewed views. When other people who did not agree with the premise of the poll got wind of it, the numbers shifted to a more reasonable breakdown and the AFA abandoned the poll.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61982,00.html
In addition, one must ignore the 14th Amendment which ensures equal protection under the law. The only way to do it would be defining the term "marriage" as a Constitutional Amendment.
Bush and his extremist cronies think they have the support for this. I believe he will get a nasty shock. When this issue was polled in Wisconsin, 66% were for homosexual marriage or a civil union which would extend the exact same civil benefits and responsibilities entailed in a marriage. The fact that some states have tried amending their own state constitutions to ban gay marriage and failed speaks volumes. Amending the US Constitution takes a lot more than amending a state constitution.
Homosexual marriage will be good for the country. The increase in taxes at the federal level and increase in license fees at the local level will help. It would also be consistent with the Constitution. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 11:12:06 [Permalink]
|
I heard a bit of Bush's announcement on this matter yesterday on NPR. I found it extremely hypocritical of him to talk about this amendment as an answer to "activist courts" when he's made two recent "recess appointments" of Federal judges who were highly controversial (at least to Democrats in Congress).
And I'm also waiting for someone to explain how homosexual marriages will do any damage whatsoever to the "institution of marriage," when from what I've read recently, Protestant ministers have a divorce rate roughly equal to that of the rest of U.S. citizens. In other words, the people who should take "'til death do us part" the most seriously, don't, so why should anyone else?
Wolf Blitzer just (like a few minutes ago) read an email on this subject on CNN, in which the writer basically said that if people were serious about protecting marriage, the proposed amendment would be to make divorce illegal. Now that's funny.
Another email read talked about how homosexual marriage is supposedly against "Natural Law" (as well as God's law, neither of which govern the U.S.) in that it interferes with the production of children. How naive does someone have to be in this day and age to insist that marriage is required before having children, or that marriage ensures that a couple will have kids?
Not to mention, of course, that a rather large percentage of homosexual couples wouldn't have kids, whether marriage is legal or not. Did the writer think that there's some drive to get married that will overwhelm a person's sexual orientation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 14:26:41 [Permalink]
|
If it weren't for "activist courts," we wouldn't have had to deal with Bush at all. Believe too, that a "marriage" must be between a man and a woman. As well as equal treatment under the law, means some sort of legal status between same sex unions, must be reconized, having the identical benifits of a 'classical' marriage. Just call me fuzzy...  |
 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 15:06:06 [Permalink]
|
This pisses me off.
Yeah, let's amend the highest law of the land to deny rights to an entire group of people. 
If there's anything worse than bigotry, it's bigotry under the guise of religion and "morality."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 15:46:54 [Permalink]
|
Relax, It ain't gonna happen and the Poltroon in Chief knows it perfectly well. All this booshwa is just a handjob for his core constituancy; the neocons and the more rabid of the fundies.
I don't see any way that 2/3 of the Congress will support it, and even then, it will require some thirty eight (I'm a little fuzzy on that number -- correct me if necessary) states to approve it in referendum (that's you 'n me voting, not the state polititions). It didn't happen for flag-burning, which never made it to referendum, and I don't see it happening for this nonsense.
I myself, think that it ought to be left to the states and to the churches concerned.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Terryt88
Skeptic Friend
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 16:38:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Quoted from Dave W.
Wolf Blitzer just (like a few minutes ago) read an email on this subject on CNN, in which the writer basically said that if people were serious about protecting marriage, the proposed amendment would be to make divorce illegal. Now that's funny.
quote:
Quoted from Nubiwan
Believe too, that a "marriage" must be between a man and a woman.
Why? Is this just a legal definition? If so, can we not redefine it to reflect our society today?
quote:
Quoted from filty
Relax, It ain't gonna happen and the Poltroon in Chief knows it perfectly well. All this booshwa is just a handjob for his core constituancy; the neocons and the more rabid of the fundies.
I don't understand why he did it now though. I mean, if I were a moderate voter in the upcoming election, I would look at this and say "Wow, this guy is no 'Compassionate Conservative.' This guy is really trying to stick it to Gay America."
He must have known this would have the kind of back lash in the media that it did. One could only speculate that it was to draw attention away from other issues he was dealing with (WMD, Vietnam service, etc.)
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. -George W. Bush [Transcript of speech]
I still don't see how a gay couple is any less equipped to "love and serve one another and promote the welfare of children and the stability of society." |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 16:54:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. -George W. Bush [Transcript of speech]
Sadly Bush continues to promote falsehoods. Not every culture has encouraged or honored a union between a man and a woman. Not to mention the polygamous cultures but there are also cultures where the sexual intercourse with a woman is considered so disgraceful they must go to the jungle to do it and are not allowed to do it in the village.
I believe these tribes are in Papua New Guinea, where young boys get a male "companion" at a fairly young age and live in a house of all men. Only later do they have intercourse with a woman and that is done out of the village.
http://www.gettingit.com/article/56
Also this seems to be a practice of at least one North American Indian culture:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/marriage/marriage_6.htm
quote:
The anthropologically most well known transvestites who also often happened to be homosexuals were the berdache , or two-spirited, men of the North American Great Plains Indian tribes. These men led the lives of women and had socially accepted statuses--they were valued members of their societies.
Heterosexual Plains Indian men who were going on hunting or war expeditions generally held the view that sex with their wives or other women was polluting and depleting. In contrast, a two-spirited man did not pose these dangers. As a result, two-spirited men were regularly taken along to perform women's chores and to entertain. Some of them were renowned story tellers.
Here is the tribe I was thinking of above:
quote:
The Etoro and some other societies of the Trans-Fly River region of southern New Guinea provide an extreme example of the social acceptance of male homosexuality. Apparently, all Etoro men engage in homosexual acts and most also marry and engage in heterosexual acts with their wives. However, heterosexual intercourse is prohibited for up to 260 days of the year and is forbidden in or near their houses and vegetable gardens. In contrast, homosexual relations are permitted at any time.
So Bush's claim that a union between a man and woman is encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith obviously flies in direct opposition to the facts.
Maybe he meant all cultures and religions that fit his world view. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 16:59:43 [Permalink]
|
NubiWan wrote:quote:
If it weren't for "activist courts," we wouldn't have had to deal with Bush at all.
Are you sure about that? My memory ain't what it used to be, but I was under the impression that no recount ever found Gore to win, anyway.quote:
Believe too, that a "marriage" must be between a man and a woman. As well as equal treatment under the law, means some sort of legal status between same sex unions, must be reconized, having the identical benifits of a 'classical' marriage. Just call me fuzzy...
Let me get this straight: you want the same legal protections and rights for homosexual couples as for heterosexual couples, you just don't want it to be called a "marriage?"
Terryt88 wrote:quote:
I don't understand why he did it now though.
Because other programs of his have hit brick walls, so backing the marriage amendment, which has zero risk for him, might help get him back into the good graces of the religious right. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 17:08:58 [Permalink]
|
The republican/Christian right has been trying to legislate morality for decades.
As far back as the early eighties they pushed for amendments to the constitution. In fact, I remember the eighties were really a scary time for liberals and even centrists. Who can forget the term “Card carrying liberal” coined by one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters.
Does anyone else remember during the height of the Reagan era when the republican/Christian right was trying to gather support for a constitutional convention?
Yes, they wanted to rewrite the Constitution so it better reflected Judeo Christian values. Well, Christian values anyway.
Among the things that the new constitution would have prohibited were abortions, flag burning, and I seem to recall even the teaching of evolution would have been outlawed. Prayer, (Christian) in public schools would, of course been mandatory. And those are just the ones I can recall off the top of my head.
It sends a chill down my spine just thinking about it.
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 20:09:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Terryt88
I have heard many conservatives say that gay marriages "will cheapen marriage" or "are morally wrong." Are these reasons good enough? Reason enough to deny a simple marriage license to two people in love? My opinion is no, but I really want to hear both sides.
What is your take on the topic?
My wife and I (23 years) have talked about this since the Mass. ruling and we just can't see that gays and lesbians marrying will have an impact on our marriage and how we feel about each other. I have yet to read or hear a reason that would have a negative impact on our marriage. It's just more nonsense from a desparate president. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 23:32:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it weren't for "activist courts," we wouldn't have had to deal with Bush at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? My memory ain't what it used to be, but I was under the impression that no recount ever found Gore to win, anyway
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, OK, as many times as me recounted, it always came out 4 to 3 in Shrub's favor. However in the 'popular' vote, yas know, the "One man, one vote" thingy, Gore won by half a million or so. IMO there was no pressing reason for the Supreme's rush to replace the people's vote with their own mandate so quickly. Things would have worked themselves out soon enough, probably even with the same sad result.
quote:
Let me get this straight: you want the same legal protections and rights for homosexual couples as for heterosexual couples, you just don't want it to be called a "marriage?"
Yep, but then that's just silly ol' fuzzy me. There is something to that "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," stuff, true for the vast majority of humanity throughout history till present, that IMO shouldn't be discarded in a brief moment of current PC fasion. Do you think such a union called anything else, but "Marriage," would fail in correcting the same sex couple's legal slight? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 03:48:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stargirl
The republican/Christian right has been trying to legislate morality for decades.
As far back as the early eighties they pushed for amendments to the constitution. In fact, I remember the eighties were really a scary time for liberals and even centrists. Who can forget the term “Card carrying liberal” coined by one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters.
Does anyone else remember during the height of the Reagan era when the republican/Christian right was trying to gather support for a constitutional convention?
Yes, they wanted to rewrite the Constitution so it better reflected Judeo Christian values. Well, Christian values anyway.
Among the things that the new constitution would have prohibited were abortions, flag burning, and I seem to recall even the teaching of evolution would have been outlawed. Prayer, (Christian) in public schools would, of course been mandatory. And those are just the ones I can recall off the top of my head.
It sends a chill down my spine just thinking about it.
I remember it quite well 'cause it was then that I first joined the ACLU. I've been a card-carrying member, off and on, ever since. I fear that the day might coming when they will be all that stands between us and our fundementalist compatriots forming a theocractic society fully as vicious as any to be found in the Mid-east.
I've renewed my membership recently, after a lapse of several years. I blame the lapse on that scoundrel, Clinton, who was just not devout enough to scare me. I'll not make that mistake in judgment again because I now realize that Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, et al hate it when times are good for everybody and will go to any extreme to change that unfortunate state of affairs. When times are good, not so many folks want to persecute everybody else, and we can't have that, now can we?
Consider this post a shamless plug in support of the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/safeandfreemain.cfm
Incidently, it is interesting to note that there are quite a few conservative members, proving that true conservatives are not the lunatics our current 'administration' makes them appear, by example.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 07:52:38 [Permalink]
|
I admit my personal ambivalence toward marriage. However, cultural changes in the last generation or so have made marriage less necessary than it was even for my mom's generation. Women now don't need to marry in order to have sex, support themselves financially, or even have children.
So when I read statement's like Bush's on the timelessness of marriage, loving and serving one another, etc., I get the heebie-jeebies. It feels to me like he's speaking about another time and place, not about today. (Just the word "serve" sends shivers up my spine.)
I think the cultural conservatives, once again, are trying to hang on to values of the past. It's as if they think that by making marriage only for heterosexuals, they can somehow fortify an institution that simply doesn't mean what it used to.
I don't mean this as an indictment of marriage. Just that as usual, the conservatives are ignoring very real and important cultural shifts. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 08:39:14 [Permalink]
|
In truth, in order for enactment of gay marriage, legislative bodies should have to pass a law. Many states already note that marriage is only between man and woman and, thus, it is not likely that this would ever occur. Thus, the route of skirting the laws of the land by way of the courts is the way being taken by gays. This way would not be possible without judicial activism that believes in interpreting constitutional law in whatever manner the judge deems appropriate. Original intent of the law is ignored, and thus this "activism" is actually lawless behavior by judges who usurp the Legislature's constitutional right and duty as the only body that should make law (see all constitutions). This insures the the government will remain "of, by, and for the people", as these representatives are directly elected by the people. THe judicial branch was never meant to enact or interpret law as they pleased, but only in accord to original intent of the law makers. THis activism is lawlessness on the part of judges. The real Amendment should be to check the Supreme Court by way of the President and Congress or States, in order to shoot down any bogus decisions they make outside the original intent of the law makers (Congress).
That being said, it is clear that judges have already overstepped their bounds many times and forced this issue of legitimate marriage into the hands of Congress. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, contrary to the opinion of people in this forum, who do not represent the majority of Americans.
Natural law strongly supports marriage as only between man and woman. Natural law dates back to the beginning of civilization. Homosexuality has always been considered a perversion and never a "natural" behavior. To approve a perverse union and make it equal with a natural union would indeed denigrade the institution of marriage. To change the definition and purpose of marriage does nothing but destroy the intent of marriage, to support the natural union of a man and woman and the natural procreation that follows. That which is supported by law is encouraged in society. Gay unions should not be encouraged, as they are perverse and will lead to more homosexual activity in society which is detrimental to all. All homosexual unions reject natural sex and participate in perverse sex which naturally leads to many diseases and consequently, to shortened lifespans among homosexuals, the median for both sexes being under 50 years at this time. Compared to natural unions whose participants enjoy a median lifespan of 70's and 80's.
It is also clear by way of gay rights activists, that they are not intent in being protected within society, but are seeking rights beyond protection, wanting confirmation and support from all of society. How does one who believes in the perversion of homosexual lifestyle ever come to grips with publicly supporting such behavior? By laying down their personal beliefs and ignoring them and becoming a hypocrite, or abandoning their personal convictions entirely. This is the only way the two can exist in society in peace. The opposite reaction is to strongly oppose homosexuality. If this behavior is accepted by law, then those who oppose it as immoral will be denigraded in society and put down by law. This is exactly what the gays want to happen. Today, the tables are turned, as they should be, against homosexual behavior. Acceptance of the same by society, will destroy morality in society. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, will all be negatively impacted when perversion is lifted up equal to natural unions. How does one practice their religion with freedom of conscience when laws directly oppose that conscience? All standard religions prohibit homosexuality, not just Christianity. Thus religion also supports natural law of man/woman union.
No, my fellow skeptics, you cannot call this a matter of civil rights when to give this right would be to take away other's rights. Such is not a true civil right. No, this matter has to do with giving special rights to a small group and that should never be part of a democracy. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 09:08:01 [Permalink]
|
NubiWan wrote:quote:
However in the 'popular' vote, yas know, the "One man, one vote" thingy, Gore won by half a million or so.
Yeah, well, as far as I can tell, the electoral college was created by a bunch of activists over 200 years ago. Blame them for Bush's election.quote:
Yep, but then that's just silly ol' fuzzy me. There is something to that "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," stuff, true for the vast majority of humanity throughout history till present, that IMO shouldn't be discarded in a brief moment of current PC fasion.
Except that you know the truth: that Bush either lied about "every religious faith" or is simply too naive to know better. And allowing same-sex couples does nothing to eliminate the "institution" of marriage at all. Nor does it sully or cheapen it whatsoever.
And the idea that the upheaval is simply due to "current PC fashion" is ridiculous. Here, the arugment is about what's just. Aside from your fuzziness, what it is about two women (or men) - who treat each other as if they were a married hetero couple - which is so fundamentally different that it should not be called a marriage? Are there any solid reasons, or do they all simply hang on your emotional comfort level?quote:
Do you think such a union called anything else, but "Marriage," would fail in correcting the same sex couple's legal slight? If so, why?
No, perhaps it's just silly ol' me thinking that it's silly to argue over the name.
Let's assume, for example, that all the rights and protections offered by hetero marriage are conferred to homosexual couples, but the law calls such unions "froobies." As in "Jack and Mike are getting froobied." Would you really prefer a 1040 form which says, "Married or froobied, filing jointly" over the wording we've got now? After all, being froobied puts one into exactly the same tax brackets as being married, so froobied couples won't have a new filing status of their own. The additional text itself, on the forms and throughout the instruction books, will cost more to taxpayers, every year.
Finally, hasn't it already been demonstrated that "separate, but equal" simply doesn't work? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
