SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 13:24
VIEWED: 10943
PAGE 3 of 15
Quote:Enough of the “gay” political view is based on an anti-Christian and anti-establishment view that gay-marriage would probably be used as a bludgeon against religious institutions. But I don’t think preventing gay marriage is necessarily the way to prevent this, rather making sure that we stand up to the haters, whether they’re gay or not (though I’ll grant, many people don’t seem able to do this.)
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?
Quote:There are people already trying to do this now.]
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because I want to marry Portia de Rossi? I think Ellen would be better suited with the lumberjack type anyway.
Originally posted by Geezer:
But back to the original question in more direct form. How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It can't at all IMO, I'm just not getting why they feel they have to copy what breeders do.....?
Originally posted by Geezer:
How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way.
Who said anything about forcing churches to perform anything? It's a semi-serious question - I may have missed an announcement or something...
Quote:
Remember your Constituion?
At least as well as you apparently remember yours.
Quote:
No more than the government have the right to force churches to declare Bush the new Messiah, does it have the right to force so-called gay "marriage".
I'll agree with that as far as it goes.
Quote:
The line has to be drawn somewhere. (It was drawn back in 1776, but since the 60's that lines has been pushed back).
What line? Between what and what? Are you suggesting that the U.S. was some sort of moral utopia between 1776 and the '60s? The repeal of prohibition, for example, was just one of those freaky things?
Quote:
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?
Wulf (may I call you Wulf?), I find seeing, with any accuracy, 100 days into the future to be pretty damn stretchy; I'd best leave 100 years to intellects and imaginations more fertile than my own. As far as the slippery slope thing goes, I freely admit I have no well-reasoned response to that...except to say that, while I would certainly find it strange if my neighbor, Reg, up and eloped with the family Dachsund, I can't imagine what exact threat that would pose to me or any institution worthy of being instituted. As far as the demise of Reg's current, man-woman marriage goes, what really occurs is that if he's harboring those kind of feelings about Dachsunds, the writing is pretty much on the wall for that marriage, regrdless of what the Constitution bans or doesn't ban.
Quote:
All they would have to do is use the same arguments that the gays are using right now.
You mean the argument that goes, "I'm a human being just like you, and it's none of your gorram business who I marry"...or is there another argument? Again, a semi-serious question...
Quote:
If you want to argue that the social stigma of "marrying" you dog would stop folks, remember that there used to be a stigma aginst being gay.
That makes about as much sense to me as the argument I used to hear about (and which you sort of touch on) how recognizing and "accepting" gays in society in general would result in good folks - who had, I guess, previously been paragons of heterosexual virtue - suddenly running out to get fitted for mesh tuxedos and buying towel sets with the wrong pronouns monogrammed on them. I can tell you this - I ran into my old high school gym coach a few months back, and he's still as flamboyantly hetero as ever (not to mention all-American, bullet-headed, and Saxon-mothered...but I digress). He has apparently, so far, failed to seize his big "coming out" moment.
Finally, as a purely practical matter, I just have a real damn hard time imagining that there will ever be a significant percentage of any population that would MARRY A DOG...EAT a dog, maybe...
EDIT to correct certain inconsequential spelling errors.
It was a question of marrying it or eating it when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except that finn, I'd argue that you're playing games with the definition. Yes, the majority of Americans must have a problem with men and men getting married. People in both parties do. The parties aren't very different, either, when it comes to policy, in the end.
whereas conservative thinking versus liberal thinking is vastly different, in terms of philosophy.
But yeah, I was originally posting how I was tired of this 'marriage between a man and a woman' thing. I got enough of htat with Kerry and Edwards, and I believed they were pandering too. Sadly, this must be one of those things that they don't think is surmountable with a more heart-felt answer. Lose the Christians, lose the election. Nobody is willing to stand up and say, "I'm a Christian, and I believe in the right of a man to marry whoever he loves."
I just didn't think I was adding much to the conversation, so I dropped that post.
Wulfenstar,
you crazy. Churches are outside of state control. They don't pay taxes and they "supposedly" can't attempt to influence government policy. No law is going to make them marry a gay couple. How the fuck do you people get this shit turned around in your head?
People, "Christians," and I imagine, "Muslims" as well, want laws dictating that a man and a woman can't get married. They want the government to tell different factions of churches, which you and your buddies have no rights over, that they can't perform gay marriages.
These discussions are aout whether the state recognizes "gay marriage," and if it doesn't, quite frankly it is discriminating against religious freedom, and our fellow americans.
You and your biggoted church can continue to bar gays, even from your pews, if you feel that Christianly. You don't have a right to tell another Christian demonitation that they have to do the same thing.
.......
and on edit,
it's good to find some common ground with Finn and Geezer on this one -
not sure how, assuming you both did, you were willing to vote for an administration that used phobias about gay people as a wedge issue then. I appreciate that single issue politics is a little one-dimensional, and you were probably voting on alot of things, but they USED the issue...they intentionally targetted American Citizens in a discriminatory way for the sake of an election, and they were on the side of discrimination, of truncating civil rights.
It may just be one issue, but that seems like a pretty big fucking issue.
And the thing is, there was more difference on the issue of gay marriage than you would suggest Finn, between the candiates of the time,and of today as well(Mccain supported the Arizona ban on gay marriage and civil unions), and the Democrats weren't the ones to stir up the shit in the first place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.
The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.
As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.
I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong. But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point is this,
no branch of religion agrees on everything. No branch of religion can tell the other, "I'm sorry dude but the cross is an idol so you can't have those in your church and you can't wear them."
Religions are various, and nobody gets to claim that 'marriage' is theirs, any more than of the many different demoninations, any one of them gets to claim that Jesus is theirs.
Sorry, but your point is ridiculous. If a Christian Church, and htere are Christian churches doing it, decides to marry a man and a man, who the hell is the religious 'authority' that tellls them they are out of line?
the only point you could be making wher ethis might make sense is if you agree that the states have no right to recognize heterosexual marriages either, because marriage, afterall is a religious institution, and should not be sanctioned by the state...
except I remember a post the last time this discussion came up that talked about the history of marriage, and I thought it was state driven, or something to that effect. I'd have to look it up, but maybe the very premise is flawed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.
BTW, "I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are." Grammar. Use it, MFer?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I don't believe anything the man says.... well, anymore more than I believe what McCain says anyways.
He's half right here though. It certainly isn't something to regulate on a Federal level....
It's also not a matter to be handled by state law either though, and that's what he got wrong.
Marriage is not a civil matter. Marriage is most often a religious matter and it is always a personal matter. The state has no say in who somebody is attracted to. This is the ultimate example of legislating morality.
Just don't want to see dudes making out in public, kay? I can't smoke around you anymore, so keep that shit in the bedroom. (I can't even smoke in my bedroom according to my lease, so you got it better than me under those conditions)
Bottom line....
The Government telling a church that they cannot marry a gay couple is an equally heinous action as telling a church that they MUST allow gay marriages.
On a related note, telling the Boy Scouts that they MUST allow gays is like telling the people that they CANNOT form an organization like the Boy Scouts that allows gays.
The only thing the state has a say in is if the union is recognized as far as taxes and any public perks that straight couples get. I'm sure that there are states who would vote on that either way. Afterwards, you can choose to live in a state that recognizes the union, or choose to live in one that doesn't.
That's freedom, ain't it?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
K,
again
no gay movement is demanding that they be allowed to get married in any church, only that their marriage(if they find a church to do it), is recognized by the state.
which would also mean that judges would have to marry same-sex couples. That isn't a religious matter.
Where does this shit come from?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, but chicks makin' out in public- that's okay, eh?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Just don't want to see dudes making out in public, kay?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME