the current Freep survey

[MacDorcha]

just wondering about the survey to the right of the screen today. its asking about supporting the gay marriages by Constitution. i think that it shouldnt be a "marriage" as that is a religiously supported institution.

however, having the government treat the gay couples the same as they do the married straight couples is fine by me.

so, on the survey, i wouldnt be able to answer any of them, but i do have an opinion.

anyone else agree with me?

[grellis]

I hope your wearing asbestos!

[dufekin]

Marriage is not a religious institution per se, although all religions do embrace it. It is a basic hallmark of human civilization found throughout the world. It is the bond between a man and a woman formed so that they can procreate (have children). Because children are our posterity, it is necessary for the survival of the whole human race. A man and a man--or a woman and a woman--cannot procreate based upon the basic tenets of mammalian reproductive biology, so such a union between lovers is NOT a marriage by definition.

Personally, I believe that any crackpot judge so removed from the real world, so illiterate, and so ignorant of reproductive biology, as to consider marriage an "evolving paradigm" should be impeached. Amending the Constitution will do no good because some idiot judge will decree by fiat that the concept of a "man" is an "evolving paradigm" so "vague" as to include a woman. These moron judges must be impeached, convicted, and removed from office for gross incompetence, illiteracy (maybe they should look up "marriage" in a dictionary), and ignorance of human civilization.

[MacDorcha]

i agree with you on all of that, (here it comes) but marriage is religious in all societies. and no RELIGION recognizes the union of members of the same sex. i have no problem with a government treating them both the same on taxes and wills and such, but i still think it should at least not be called marriage or be performed by any member of the Cloth (or clergy)

[MacDorcha]

and what is wrong with my opinon?

[grellis]

and what is wrong with my opinon?

Well, everyone is entitled to one...

however, having the government treat the gay couples the same as they do the married straight couples is fine by me.

...but I suspect many FReepers will disagree with you here. Where does it begin? Give gays the right to federally approved marriages. How long after that do you think people will be up in arms because they can't marry 16 year olds? Fifteen year olds? First cousins? Siblings? Do you want these to be considered acceptable? This is the summit of a very steep and slippery slope we're standing on.

[gcruse]

Having the same rights as heteros includes marrying siblings? What part of Kentucky do you live in? Do you know Sam over in Idiot Holler?

[MacDorcha]

if you read the rest of it, you would note that i only call marriage religious. a union that is taxable and the government can use to track relatives is what im ok with.

my point is, marriage is and should be only recognized by God and those who uphold that marriage is a sacred thing. the federal government has as much say over what it is as they do over the temperature of the Sun. i DO however, feel that if two people want to live together (however sickening that is to alot of us) they should be taxed, protected, and expected to perform (job-wise) as well as the rest of us.

my thinking may be akin to the origins of social security. i can see how going over-board would mess us up, but if the intintion is kept and its purpose is sustained and not over-stepped, then it could be the right thing to do.

in other words, the government can do what it wishes to KEEP US EVEN (i know i wouldnt want to be taxed just because im straight) but they shouldn't change the rules either, and call a union between a man and a man "marriage". it simply isnt.

[MacDorcha]

as for the marriage of siblings and cousins and stuff... what's wrong with you? all i said was that deviance isnt right. my opinion is, it's between them and God, but dont allow my government to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

my post was intended to let you know that i dont think the government has the ability to tell us what marriage is. they can tax everyone the same way. thats a good thing to me. i wish they would do the same for affirmative action. treat everyone the same way and let us all get on with our lives without the fed stuffing it's nose up our rears.

[Eastbound]

I don't think the list of questions on the poll is not complete either. I think the only way to preserve the institution and definition of 'marriage' is to invent another word for same-sexual contracts. Something like the word, 'SMERGED' would be sufficient. Then write the amendment after the manner of the 14th Amendment to establish and recognize all rights, privileges, immunities, etc., for 'smerged' couples that legally apply to married couples.

That would preserve the meaning and definition of the word, 'marriage,' and allow a fuller and more fair vote on the issue. To define the word, 'marriage,' by amendment is redundant, as it is already legally defined, notwithstanding the Mass. supremos stoooopid move to attempt to include same-sex unions under the definition. Not in their job description to rip words out of the dictionary and arbitrarily re-define them. If allowed to do that, what's to prevent the court from re-defining the clear expressions contained in the first ten amendments?

Congress used the concept of designating a different word to identify freed slaves after the Civil War as it knew it could not use the word, 'Citizen,' (capital 'C'), as it already had a specific definition.

If there is going to be an amendment offered, let it be offered in conformity with the 14th Amendment. Same-sex couples should have no argument with that as it would give them a stronger voice and afford them greater protection under the Civil Rights Act if the amendment was ratified.

I submit: Those who want to be 'smerged' under the law, let them get a legitimate law passed first. (If possible.)

[grellis]

Having the same rights as heteros includes marrying siblings? What part of Kentucky do you live in? Do you know Sam over in Idiot Holler?

Read post #6 again, real slow like. I think you missed my point entirely.

[gcruse]

He said -- treat the gay couples the same as they do the married straight couples is fine by me.

You said -- Where does it begin? Give gays the right to federally approved marriages.

At this point, everything is fine.  The postulate is that gays are given the same treatment as straight couples.

Then you said -- How long after that do you think people will be up in arms because they can't marry 16 year olds? Fifteen year olds? First cousins? Siblings?

What does that have to do with anything?  People being up in arms about something all the time is called democracy.

Are straight couples clamoring for the right to marry fifteen year-olds and siblings?  BTW, many states allow first cousins to marry.  It turns out the chances of having birth defects is no greater than marrying someone more distant.  So, yes, marrying first cousins is already acceptable.

And life, my friend, is an infinity of slippery slopes.  That's why we have judgement.

[Eastbound]

is not = is

[MacDorcha]

well said!

[grellis]

What does that have to do with anything? People being up in arms about something all the time is called democracy.

If I wanted to live in a democracy I would find one and go live there. I prefer to live in the federal republic we call the United States.

As for life being a series of slippery slopes, there are instances in which we MUST dig our heels in and not start the slide. I don't want gay marriages afforded the same protections as real marriages for many, many reasons, and one of those reasons is that IT WON'T end with gay marriages. I don't want to take the chance that marriage is going to become another freak fest. I do believe in worst-case scenarios.

I've said it on another thread, I'll say it again: Do you think anyone imagined that Roe V. Wade would result in an average of one million abortions every year? Start down the slippery slope, my friend, and before you know it you're in a race to the bottom.

[gcruse]

Do you think anyone imagined that Roe V. Wade would result in an average of one million abortions every year?

So what?  That's why it was legalized.  It did the crime rate a world of good, too.
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
As for slippery slopes, I've answered that one already.
You're going like leaving other people alone to live their lives, once you get used to it.

[grellis]

You're going like leaving other people alone to live their lives, once you get used to it.

If this made any sense I am sure I would disagree with it.

I am not going to "get used to" anything which adversely affects me or my family. That's why I am pro-life, that's why I am pro-real marriage. Its bad enough that I am forced to raise my children in a culture where society cannot protect life in its most innocent and defenseless stages. I am not looking forward to raising my kids in a society which condones and celebrates immoral behavior.

Obviously, we are not going to find any common ground here.

[gcruse]

I am not going to "get used to" anything which adversely affects me or my family.

Here's the Cliff notes.

Leave people alone.  People can live their own lives.  This is a novel concept, I know, but once you get used to it, you'll like it.
If you are dead set against gay marriage, please do not marry a gay.   Thank you.

[grellis]

Leave people alone. People can live their own lives. This is a novel concept, I know, but once you get used to it, you'll like it.

Here's a reiteration of my cliff notes: I am not going to get used to anything which adversely affects me or my family. I won't get used to it, I won't like it and I'll fight it in any way I can. I am NOT going to sit idly by while my country is turned into a teeming cesspool of immorality. You're obviously not bothered by the prospect. Well, bully for you. You do what you gotta, I'll do what I gotta. So thank you, sir.

[gcruse]

Here's a reiteration of my cliff notes: I am not going to get
used to anything which adversely affects me or my family.

If someone does something that adversely affects you,
then take them to court or call the police.  Beyond that,
how other people choose to live their lives should really
be of no concern to you.