Marriage Laws

[Dutch]

I am all for exploring the issues here. But why must this highly debated, highly controversial issue be "steamrolled" through courts now? Why can't this be debated at length, studied thoroughly, and allow Americans as a whole to understand the issues at hand?

So far I've been told I'm ignorant of the issue. Fair enough, perhaps a lot of people are ignorant of the issue. Shouldn't this ignorance be solved before we assault the law books with new laws that are over the heads of most Americans? Seems fair to me.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

The problem with this distinction is that the horse has been out of the barn so long that it's been ground up for glue and Alpo.

Mrs. Gawd and I are a classic case. We're a mixed religion couple. I come from a Protestant background, she comes from an Eastern European Jewish heritage. Neither one of us has a whole lot of time for organized religion (though I do consider myself spiritual), so we were equally uncomfortable with marriage in a synagogue or a church. We married in a conference room at a local resort in a civil ceremony. It's still called a marriage. They don't call the buckskin we got a "civil union" certificate. Yet organized religion played no part in our marriage.

It is ridiculous to make this distinction. It won't ever seep into common practice, and frankly, it's splitting hairs at best in any case. And the trouble is there are a whole lot of people on the religious right that probably aren't all that fired up about the notion of "civil unions" either.

Exactly... very well said.

I don't think there'd be much of a debate if everyone felt the way the majority, or so it seems, of this board feels. There's some people who have a big problem with allowing gays to be "joined" in anyway. I've heard countless arguments... but I think it all boils down to people being "scared" (although this may not be the right word) of different people, who love differently then they do.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am all for exploring the issues here. But why must this highly debated, highly controversial issue be "steamrolled" through courts now? Why can't this be debated at length, studied thoroughly, and allow Americans as a whole to understand the issues at hand?

So far I've been told I'm ignorant of the issue. Fair enough, perhaps a lot of people are ignorant of the issue. Shouldn't this ignorance be solved before we assault the law books with new laws that are over the heads of most Americans? Seems fair to me.

People have tried getting this debated and settled for years now, its just now that its really coming to a head and getting a lot more media attention.

[Dutch]

I'm nervous.

I wonder what effect government law endorsing *as* fact that families don't need a mother and a father to be more effective will have on our society as a whole and on a micro level. What about children who have difficult times dealing with parents that are same sex having sex? What if they have a lot of social problems or have mental anguish? What if that only happens one out of 10 times, one out of 100 times, one out of a million times?

How many kids will have to suffer? Does anybody have exact numbers?

We say that a blanket law that anybody convicted of 1st degree murder will be put to death is wrong because we may make a mistake and kill an innocent person. How many innocent people? One, ten, a thousand? Doesn't matter, the fact that the government could put to harm one individual for no reason (even if it's at the expense of curbing homicides by 15,000 a year) is unacceptable.

These are liberals that make this argument. These are the same liberals that say nobody is going to get hurt by removing the value of a mother/father families from the lawbooks. But what about if one kid is severely damaged by this failure of not having a mother and a father? What about 10 kids? 1,000 kids? Does that matter?

We know that many children turn to crime when they do not have a mother and a father in their household. This is a statistical truth. Yet somehow, now, this is being overlooked?

Like I said, this should be fully investigated by as many people as possible before we take the, "You're just ignorant, let's vote now!" tactic that so many liberals like to use these days.

[Chubby]

Dutch - Rank in order of greatest in number to least in number...

a) 2 person families that care for a child
b) 2 person families that care for a child with a mother and father
c) single parent households that care for a child
d) 2 person, same sex families where a child is harmed
e) 2 person familes where the child is harmed with a mother and a father
f) single parent households where a child is harmed

[Masked]

Originally Posted by Dutch

These are liberals that make this argument. These are the same liberals that say nobody is going to get hurt by removing the value of a mother/father families from the lawbooks. But what about if one kid is severely damaged by this failure of not having a mother and a father? What about 10 kids? 1,000 kids? Does that matter?

We know that many children turn to crime when they do not have a mother and a father in their household. This is a statistical truth. Yet somehow, now, this is being overlooked?

So divorce should be illegal and all children born out of wedlock should be taken by the state a placed in foster homes with a mother and a father?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Like I said, this should be fully investigated by as many people as possible before we take the, "You're just ignorant, let's vote now!" tactic that so many liberals like to use these days.

You seem to be a little confused, you must be talking about the conservatives who are trying to ram the "no same-sex marriage" law through the courts.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm nervous.

I wonder what effect government law endorsing *as* fact that families don't need a mother and a father to be more effective will have on our society as a whole and on a micro level. What about children who have difficult times dealing with parents that are same sex having sex? What if they have a lot of social problems or have mental anguish? What if that only happens one out of 10 times, one out of 100 times, one out of a million times?

The following are my oppinions:

- If a child grows up (ie. adopted by) in a same-sex couple family, and learn to understand that while different then the so-called norm... is perfectly natural. Overtime the fact that the child has same-sex parents won't be a foreign idea... it would become as normal as being raised by a male and female. I may have a different perspective on this because I know a couple of people who have grown up primarily in a same-sex environment... and having grown up around them I see it as a relativly normal situation.

- Social Problems & Mental Anguish. Thats not the child's fault nor is it the parents fault. It's society's problem that some children are raised thinking that gays and lesbians are evil, abnormal people... It's becuase people are raised thinking this that they go on to make gay jokes, and to pick on and torment children in this type of family.

- People are raised to think homosexual behavior is abnormal and wrong. If we weren't taught this, we wouldn't be faced with these problems IMO.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

The following are my oppinions:

- If a child grows up (ie. adopted by) in a same-sex couple family, and learn to understand that while different then the so-called norm... is perfectly natural. Overtime the fact that the child has same-sex parents won't be a foreign idea... it would become as normal as being raised by a male and female. I may have a different perspective on this because I know a couple of people who have grown up primarily in a same-sex environment... and having grown up around them I see it as a relativly normal situation.

Of course, children can be very resilient. But some may not be relatively normal and may never understand a same-sex parental enviroment. What about them? Should we just tell them they are confused and forget about them? Maybe we should use this philosophy for inner city kids that don't get a good deal on the mother/father family structure as well.

- Social Problems & Mental Anguish. Thats not the child's fault nor is it the parents fault. It's society's problem that some children are raised thinking that gays and lesbians are evil, abnormal people... It's becuase people are raised thinking this that they go on to make gay jokes, and to pick on and torment children in this type of family.

The parents could be considered at fault. They willingly have adopted a child into a society that is not willing to cope with this enviroment. As a counter example, nor does society embrase that many more lives would be saved by a hard-line stance in favor of capital punishment. If free people can fall through the cracks in that government run situation, why are we not concerned about children who fall through the cracks on this potential government sanctioned situation where a child could end up with a multitude of social problems and mental anquish?

- People are raised to think homosexual behavior is abnormal and wrong. If we weren't taught this, we wouldn't be faced with these problems IMO.

We have no idea what even causes homosexuality. So far as we know, in 2078, it is discoverd that abnormal hormonal activity creates a crossed signal in the mind that makes the body think it's the opposite sex. And a pill is created that cures it and wipes it from the Earth. People could look back at the 21st century and say, "Damn, they were so funny back then." We can point back to so many instances of that throughout time. So why not in this case. Seems possible to me.

So before we go changes the rules, why don't we have a better understanding of what it is we are dealing with. That's all I'm suggesting.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course, children can be very resilient. But some may not be relatively normal and may never understand a same-sex parental enviroment. What about them? Should we just tell them they are confused and forget about them? Maybe we should use this philosophy for inner city kids that don't get a good deal on the mother/father family structure as well.



The parents could be considered at fault. They willingly have adopted a child into a society that is not willing to cope with this enviroment. As a counter example, nor does society embrase that many more lives would be saved by a hard-line stance in favor of capital punishment. If free people can fall through the cracks in that government run situation, why are we not concerned about children who fall through the cracks on this potential government sanctioned situation where a child could end up with a multitude of social problems and mental anquish?



We have no idea what even causes homosexuality. So far as we know, in 2078, it is discoverd that abnormal hormonal activity creates a crossed signal in the mind that makes the body think it's the opposite sex. And a pill is created that cures it and wipes it from the Earth. People could look back at the 21st century and say, "Damn, they were so funny back then." We can point back to so many instances of that throughout time. So why not in this case. Seems possible to me.

So before we go changes the rules, why don't we have a better understanding of what it is we are dealing with. That's all I'm suggesting.

and some children don't do well in "tradtional" home environments either now do they?

you forgot to rank the groups in order or greatest number to smallest, or do you just want to ignore that since it won't support your argument of "well there's a chance that I'll get in a car accident tomorrow if I drive my car so i MUST NOT drive in my car ever again"

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

and some children don't do well in "tradtional" home environments either now do they?

This is why the controversy over this should be examined. In the haste to make a decision now, the argument is that a family that includes a mother, father, 2.3 kids and a dog is doomed to the same kind of failures as a family that is missing either a mother or a father figure.

That has been proven false by pure cold hard facts.

[Glengoyne]

I'm in a pissy mood, and just want to say that I think the gays, lesbians, and other deviants ought to accept the "civil union" compromise, and let normal people go back to arguing over more meaningful things. In fifty years it won't matter, it will be called by marriage then.

You know I have thought about qualifying what I just typed, but it's that damn pissy mood that won't let me.

[sabotai]

A lot of gay people I know don't have a problem with the civil unions because what they care most about is just having the same rights and benefits that go with being married. Why not focus your "pissy mood" at the ones who are actually dragging this bs out (the republicans) by trying to push constitutional admendments through..

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is why the controversy over this should be examined. In the haste to make a decision now, the argument is that a family that includes a mother, father, 2.3 kids and a dog is doomed to the same kind of failures as a family that is missing either a mother or a father figure.

That has been proven false by pure cold hard facts.

And those facts would be where exactly???

You still haven't ranked the groups you know, still trying to dodge that one?

[Chubby]

dola, and besides Dutch if your argument is "If just one child can be harmed by it then we shouldn't do it" (which it was) then by the same token shouldn't we do away with marriage itself entirely since it's been proven that marriage has cause AT LEAST 1 child in the history of mankind to ne harmed...

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is why the controversy over this should be examined. In the haste to make a decision now, the argument is that a family that includes a mother, father, 2.3 kids and a dog is doomed to the same kind of failures as a family that is missing either a mother or a father figure.

That has been proven false by pure cold hard facts.

1) Does that mean since racism still exists, we shouldn't let blacks and whites marry because the kinds MIGHT grow up not perfectly? What about letting people be single parents? Should women be allowed to have kids and raise them without a father?

2) I'd like to see sources of you "cold, hard facts"

3) What the fuck does this have to do with giving gays the right to marry and receiving the same legal rights and beneifts that go with being married? (Taxes, inheritence, etc.)

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Dutch

1) Of course, children can be very resilient. But some may not be relatively normal and may never understand a same-sex parental enviroment. What about them? Should we just tell them they are confused and forget about them? Maybe we should use this philosophy for inner city kids that don't get a good deal on the mother/father family structure as well.



2) The parents could be considered at fault. They willingly have adopted a child into a society that is not willing to cope with this enviroment. As a counter example, nor does society embrase that many more lives would be saved by a hard-line stance in favor of capital punishment. If free people can fall through the cracks in that government run situation, why are we not concerned about children who fall through the cracks on this potential government sanctioned situation where a child could end up with a multitude of social problems and mental anquish?



3) We have no idea what even causes homosexuality. So far as we know, in 2078, it is discoverd that abnormal hormonal activity creates a crossed signal in the mind that makes the body think it's the opposite sex. And a pill is created that cures it and wipes it from the Earth. People could look back at the 21st century and say, "Damn, they were so funny back then." We can point back to so many instances of that throughout time. So why not in this case. Seems possible to me.

So before we go changes the rules, why don't we have a better understanding of what it is we are dealing with. That's all I'm suggesting.

1) True, but emotional problems in children do not only occur in children with same-sex parents. Some children may have emotional problems based on many things... their physical appearance, their economic stature in society, etc. Some kids may not adjust to the fact that they were raised in a single parent family either... Bottom line, emotional problems don't just occur in children raised in same-sex parent families...

2) Ok, so because soceity is ignorant and hurtfull, gay couples should then be prevented from adopting or raising their own children? To me thats putting the blame in the wrong place. Not really understanding your capital punnishment example or it's relevance to the topic at hand. And to clearify my position and, from what it seems, the position of the courts... right now gay marriages should be allowed, in order for them not to be acceptable the government would have to make a law to ban them...

3) Anti-gay medication... I'm not gonna touch that comment.

However, I will touch the last paragraph you wrote. The thing is we aren't changing any rules, according to the courts gays should be allowed to wed right now. If any rule changes were to occur it would be to ban gay marriages, as is shown in Mass. where they are trying to ammend the constitution to prevent them.

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Dutch
What about children who have difficult times dealing with parents that are same sex having sex?

I have a difficult time dealing with the fact that my parents have sex, and they are male and female.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sabotai

A lot of gay people I know don't have a problem with the civil unions because what they care most about is just having the same rights and benefits that go with being married. Why not focus your "pissy mood" at the ones who are actually dragging this bs out (the republicans) by trying to push constitutional admendments through..

You're right of course. The damn hard liners, the Whackos, in the normals camp ought to back off on this one too. There is really no good argument why a "civil union" isn't be acceptable. With regard to constitutional amendments, I'm not of the opinion we need one to define marriage. If they don't run one through now though, there won't be any resistance to the gay marriage thing in fifty years.

I guess I haven't been following this too closely, because I was under the impression that only a small percentage of the anti gay marriage camp opposed the "civil union" compromise. I thought it was the gay and lesbian community saying that it didn't go far enough. I guess I was referring to them above.

Damn it you made me actually think a little, and took the edge off of my mood. Now I am actually starting to regret that post...and parts of this one. DAMNIT!!!

[sabotai]

I made Glen think...I'm sorry everyone.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

dola, and besides Dutch if your argument is "If just one child can be harmed by it then we shouldn't do it" (which it was) then by the same token shouldn't we do away with marriage itself entirely since it's been proven that marriage has cause AT LEAST 1 child in the history of mankind to ne harmed...

Chubbs,

Read the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. Even those justices placed caveats on what they thought was inappropriate marriage because of the harm it could do to children, society, and the country as a whole. The question isn't whether that's a valid argument... the question is whether or not gay marriage contributes or is responsible for harming children or the institution as a whole (since I would think even most proponents of gay marriage would concede that two parents are better than one).

To that end, I'd suggest reading Stanley Kurtz's piece called Slipping Towards Scandanavia. you can find it here: hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp

I do take issue with those conservatives who feel that simply banning gay marriage will make marriage more special. In my mind, preserving traditional marriage is just one of many steps that need to be taken in order to strengthen marriage and family. It's just that this seems to be the issue du jour thanks to those four folks in Massachusetts and now the mayor of San Francisco.

[Chubby]

If we're bringing up what could contribute to harming a child, there are a great many things already mentioned above that should be done away with then... I'll add to that list...

cigarettes - make em all illegal, can't have 2nd hand smoke "possibly" around a cute little newborn can we?
fat people having sex - illegal! talk about scarring a kid for life...
alcohol - that's gone too, how many kids get beated by a drunken parent or relative?

And you say that same-sex marriage is a greater risk than these? Riiiiiiight, EVERYTHING has the possibility of hurting EVERYONE. Being a single parent I'm sure can be proven to be more "harmful" to a child than 2 adults who love him/her.

[wig]

I better refocus my opinion.

I don't give a crap if gay people get married, as long as they don't ask for the same rights and benefits that man/woman couples get.

There, now you can do whatever you want with the term "marriage". I don't give a crap who owns it, as long as you don't use it to start asking for special priviliges.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

If we're bringing up what could contribute to harming a child, there are a great many things already mentioned above that should be done away with then... I'll add to that list...

cigarettes - make em all illegal, can't have 2nd hand smoke "possibly" around a cute little newborn can we?
fat people having sex - illegal! talk about scarring a kid for life...
alcohol - that's gone too, how many kids get beated by a drunken parent or relative?

And you say that same-sex marriage is a greater risk than these? Riiiiiiight, EVERYTHING has the possibility of hurting EVERYONE. Being a single parent I'm sure can be proven to be more "harmful" to a child than 2 adults who love him/her.

And apparently you'd have NO problem with a mayor declaring all cigarettes illegal, or four judges deciding that fat people shouldn't have sex?

I'll ask again, Chubby... why not support a Constitutional amendment process defining marriage as two people of either gender? Let the people decide.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And apparently you'd have NO problem with a mayor declaring all cigarettes illegal, or four judges deciding that fat people shouldn't have sex?

I'll ask again, Chubby... why not support a Constitutional amendment process defining marriage as two people of either gender? Let the people decide.

Because no amendment is needed. The courts have already said that it is legal to have same-sex marriages.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Because no amendment is needed. The courts have already said that it is legal to have same-sex marriages.

Are you just making stuff up now?

[wig]

I should try that strategy

[wig]

It's already been proven that same-sex couples have an 87% better chance of getting gout.

(This is way better than using real facts)

[Chubby]

And no I wouldn't have any problem with a mayor declaring all cigs illegal (I don't smoke) or 4 judges deciding that fat people shouldn't have sex (ewww)

Funny, you didn't have any problem with "4 judges" saying we didn't need a recount in Florida did you? Or do you only think it's ok to go with judges decisions when you agree with their decisions?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Because no amendment is needed. The courts have already said that it is legal to have same-sex marriages.

I haven't seen logic like this since my three year old tried to convince me that babies were burped out of women's mouths since they obviously grow in their mommy's tummy.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm curious. Are you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. I'm really not trying to be condescending either. I have found that most people are not aware of that fact.

No, that exact phrase does not appear in the Constitution. The close to exact words, IIRC, state Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of religion. Of course, in nearly 2-1/4 centuries, the Supreme Court, lower courts, and numerous legal precedents have greatly expanded the meaning of these words, to encompass clearly separating public vs. religious matters...hence the concept of separation.

[wig]

I read that a male child born in North Dakota has a 5 times higher chance of owning a stained white tank-top than anyone else.

ok, that one might be true.

[Chubby]

wig - you DID read all of this thread and the other thread right? It was already stated by someone with more legal knowledge than I that this was the case.

[wig]

Originally posted by sabotai:

I am a ardent Christian, and I will not have my faith questioned!
Burn in hell, sir. BURN IN HELL!!!!

Damn, sabotai. I didn't know you had it in you.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Chubby

wig - you DID read all of this thread and the other thread right? It was already stated by someone with more legal knowledge than I that this was the case.

Yeah, but I understand them.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

And no I wouldn't have any problem with a mayor declaring all cigs illegal (I don't smoke) or 4 judges deciding that fat people shouldn't have sex (ewww)

Funny, you didn't have any problem with "4 judges" saying we didn't need a recount in Florida did you? Or do you only think it's ok to go with judges decisions when you agree with their decisions?

so it comes down to judicial activism is all right as long as it doesn't hurt you. That's a wonderful way to preserve democracy.

By the way, you won't bait me into changing topics. It's not relevant to this issue and you're wrong about the facts in that case as well, but you can do the research on this one yourself. Try a google search that doesn't involve the phrase "bush stole the election". You'll be amazed at what you might find.

[wig]

ok, that wasn't called for. Sorry Chubby.

[wig]

I know we've had some problems in the past, but can't we still make out once in a while?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am all for exploring the issues here. But why must this highly debated, highly controversial issue be "steamrolled" through courts now? Why can't this be debated at length, studied thoroughly, and allow Americans as a whole to understand the issues at hand?

So far I've been told I'm ignorant of the issue. Fair enough, perhaps a lot of people are ignorant of the issue. Shouldn't this ignorance be solved before we assault the law books with new laws that are over the heads of most Americans? Seems fair to me.

Hmm. The trouble is, there isn't a whole lot of intelligent discussion going on. It's polarized. A large segment of the religious right (I'm guessing), would, if given the opportunity push gays and lesbians back in the closets, and certainly wouldn't want anything approaching equal rights for gay/lesbian couples.

On the other side, the gay/lesbian community (understandably so, IMO) isn't willing to be patient. Blacks and other minorities were patient for the protections of the 13th & 14th Amendments to actually be enforced and expanded for a hundred years...where did that patience get them, exactly? Abigail Adams was nagging her husband John (2nd President of the US) for women's voting rights *during* the American Revolution...her sex had to be patient to have such a right for almost 150 years.

[Chubby]

This will be easy...

The proposed constitutional ammendment is for __________________.

Fill in the blank.

[wig]

The gay community isn't asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights.

No gay person has less rights than a straight person. They just want something more.

That's a problem.

[wig]

Now I will lock this topic so I have the last word

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by wig

The gay community isn't asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights.

No gay person has less rights than a straight person. They just want something more.

That's a problem.

Really? What do they want that a straight person doesn't have?

[wig]

DAMN!

[Chubby]

Sorry, wig good job on trying to up your post count tho.

[sabotai]

Who let wig out of his cage?

[tucker342]

Originally Posted by wig

I better refocus my opinion.

I don't give a crap if gay people get married, as long as they don't ask for the same rights and benefits that man/woman couples get.

There, now you can do whatever you want with the term "marriage". I don't give a crap who owns it, as long as you don't use it to start asking for special priviliges.

wig,

the thing is, they aren't asking for special privileges, they're just asking for equal privileges... If the whole religion thing isn't important to you, than why do you care if two guys get married? It has no effect on you at all.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Chubby

This will be easy...

The proposed constitutional ammendment is for __________________.

Fill in the blank.

I don't hear any answers! Come on, it's an easy one!

[wig]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Really? What do they want that a straight person doesn't have?

I hope this isn't a serious question.

What the hell have we been discussing? The gay community wants benefits for same sex couples.

If you can't keep up, you better bow out.

[wig]

Now I will lock the topic to have the last word