US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[richtig_faust]

What this basically boils down to is the separation of church and state


So then if you believe that you would have no problem with me marrying a cow or a dog ?

[MEGoody]

"You are the rudest poster I have met on FR"

richtig_faust may be rude in your view, but he has a point. Every law on the books is based on someone's morality. Therefore, it IS a strawman to bring up the 'legislating morality' thing.

[newcats]

OK, i'll try to get down to your level. You freaks claim you were "born that way" strictly based upon a 1973 poll that was taken. That makes your CURRENT opinion 2003 - 1973 = 30 years old. Hence, my data is newer, back in the closet you freak. Plus the burden of proof is on you perverts, not us -- but monozygotic studies etc. have already proven you wrong.

I do honestly think you either...are completely lsing it, or it is way past your bedtime. Your posts are making less and less sense.

First of all, I am not gay. Ask my wife of 23 years or my 2 kids.

Where did the 1973 poll come from? I never said anything about a poll or study. You need to FOCUS here. Stop confusing posts or making absurd assumptions.
Do you have this thing for monozygotic studies? Is it some kinda twin fetish you have?
Freak, pervert ...Gee reminds me of a grade school playground. BTW, shouldn't you be in school right now? Playing hookey?

[richtig_faust]

Look you *^$%$^'ing retard, i'm getting tired of you playing stupid -- or maybe you're not playing? You responded first in regards to my post about practicing male queers dying at the age of 41 (typically) - I then posted the proof. You then responded by saying my data was "old" by citing an even earlier post about the 1973 APA poll taken, now you sit there after blatent obfuscation and claim that i'm the one that is confused. Get you damn posts straight.

[Fee]

Supporting gay marriange and encouraging this lifestyle is like encouraging and glorifying smoking. Both will cause health problems. Liberals will outlaw smoking for health reasons, but not sodomy despite the health problems caused by its practice (HIV, STD, higher suicide rate, etc).

[newcats]

Get YOUR posts straight.....
You responded first in regards to my post about practicing male queers dying at the age of 41 (typically) - I then posted the proof.
Go back and read..I never commented on that post. Please be so kind as to copy and paste any comments I made on that subject.

You then responded by saying my data was "old" by citing an even earlier post about the 1973 APA poll taken,

Again, please copy and paste my citing of that 1973 poll.

As for your first line....seems like you are the one getting upset and frustrated, resorting to personal attacks and cursing. I definatly think you need a nap.

[longtermmemmory]

liberals, as demonstrated, would never outlaw anything other than conservative speech. The rest they would tax and then spend the money on pork. (for the childrens)

Next issue is age of consent.

[Zack Nguyen]

Yes, it is a separate problem. They both effect marriage and must be attacked separately. Divorce is a terrible problem, and I have yet to hear even one person who stands against homosexual marriage say otherwise. I have never implied that homosexual mariage is the only thing bringing marriage under fire.

There are a lot of things we can do to fix divorce in this country, and only a few of those things are political in nature.

Instead of talking about how much you want to fix heterosexual divorce, why not lay your cards on the table and simply say that you have no problem with homosexuals marrying?

[richtig_faust]

Here is your exact post turd boy:


Post # 298 read some Plato last year, does that mean he wrote it last year? I got the idea from your own post...."In 1977, Time Magazine polled 10,000 members of the APA at random. In the article "Sick Again", Time showed these results". 2003-1977= 26. It's called simple arithmatic.

[newcats]

nd that is citing that 1973 pol...how?

[newcats]

turd boy....
You have got to be a grade schooler playing hookey if that is the best retort you can come up with.
Go play your Playstation and leave the serious, sane discussions to the adults.

[Sam Cree]

Thanks.

My thinking is probably not so far from yours on this, anyway. A marriage, to me, by definition, is between a man and a woman. If the court says otherwise, then the court is changing the entire meaning, handed down for the history of mankind, of the word marriage.

If the court can go around changing the meaning of our language, they might seem to have more awesome powers than most of us would like for them.

[Typesbad]

I'll be married 20 years this May. My sister just celebrated her 31st anniversary yesterday, and my parents will celebrate their 60th next month. In fact, as I look back through my family tree, I haven't found so much as one instance of divorce. This isn’t to brag (not too much anyway). My point is to simply establish some raw credentials that I come from a family that takes marriage pretty seriously.

Yet, no matter how I look at it, I can't see how gay marriage threatens or affects my marriage, those of my family or anyone else's for that matter. I don't see it. Defend marriage? From what?

A gay man or woman' is able to make medical decisions for their partner as a spouse would. Who does this hurt? A gay man or woman inherits their partner's estate. This does not effect me, or anyone outside of some rather selfish relatives.

Health insurance, credit ratings, powers of attorney – Whether you are comfortable with them or not, does the fact that committed homosexual couples could go about these things with the ease of married couples really have any significant negative effect on us heterosexuals?

Certainly a gay person referring to themselves as "married" doesn't have any direct effect on us whether we approve or not.

As near as I can tell, the great adverse reaction to the idea of gay marriage is reactionism in it's purest form: "Gays want it, they think it will make them happy therefore we must be against it."

Now what really bothers me is at a time when we have serious problems to consider: the Iraq occupation, terrorism, a huge deficit, the decline of our manufacturing base, corruption in the securities industry, health care, and on and on. These things really impact our daily lives and these are the type of things this coming presidential election should be about.

Now I'm afraid this election year is going to get all wrapped up in something as comparatively trivial as gay marriage, just as the pledge of allegiance and flag burning got all blown out of proportion as issues in previous elections. Emotional issues, sure; but not sustentative ones. Trust me, we have far more important things with which to be concerned.

[atlaw]

"OK, i'll try to get down to your level. You freaks claim you were "born that way" strictly based upon a 1973 poll that was taken. That makes your CURRENT opinion 2003 - 1973 = 30 years old. Hence, my data is newer, back in the closet you freak. Plus the burden of proof is on you perverts, not us -- but monozygotic studies etc. have already proven you wrong."

Yikes. And this from the guy whose job at the gay bar didn't work out.

[newcats]

Plus he called me...turd boy!!!!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Sodomites knew their place back then. -biblewonk
Your phraseology was awkward for me. -NutCrackerBoy
I understand, most people hate the word sodomite. -biblewonk

Heh. It was also the phrase "know their place," which hit me the wrong way, but in the end, I must admit my views amount to a sense in which homosexuals should stay "in the closet."

I categorically reject the notion that it is good for gay marriages and gay adoptions and gay politicians and gay teachers to be openly acknowledged to children and all. I reject the notion that unions between gays are to be held up publicly as equally valuable as marriage. -NutCrackerBoy
But if there is no sin in what they do in private, to which I don't agree, then why do you take issue with the things listed. Otherwise there must be something wrong with two men sleeping together. -biblewonk

I believe my positions are entirely reasonable for a Burkean conservative who is essentially a skeptic with respect to God.

Tradition and religion are the very wellspring of the fiery spirit of a nation. The tradition and religion of this nation are Christian and so great deference should be paid to Christian values. Why? In order to preserve the nation's instituions, which include organized churches, marriage, Aristotelian virtue, and so on. People raising their children within their traditions are what secure our liberties beyond just one generation.

Moreover, so-called prejudices are often distinctions that help preserve a way of life. It is not possible or desirable to remove all prejudice.

With that backdrop, how did our founders go about creating a government of men? And how do we carry on to sustain our liberties? I don't believe they would think it feasible to accomplish much without the American people's good traditions. And neither should we.

The legal institution of marriage helps to preserve traditional and religiously based marriage. Not all married couples will have children. But a stable institution of marriage is invaluable to sustaining stable family structures through the generations.

The word marriage is defined to be about what I have just said. Men and women are not equal, they have different roles biologically and traditionally. Homosexual couples are not equal to married couples. Their coupling plays almost no role traditionally or biologically.

The public roles of men and women and marriage are important. The role models need to be pretty clear-cut. It is not a pretense! Little girls aspire to be like the pretty brides. Little boys aspire to be like the brave soldiers and skillful athletes.

Young adults who are different (e.g. homosexuals or brainy nerds like I was) have ample access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Legal recognition and benefits for gay unions is not needed and is not desirable.

[Typesbad]

For a "brainy nerd", your post includes an amazing array of absurd assertions. Feeling a little lazy, I'll simply the easiest:

"Moreover, so-called prejudices are often distinctions that help preserve a way of life. It is not possible or desirable to remove all prejudice."

according to Websters:

prejudice - \Prej"u*dice\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Prejudiced; p. pr. & vb. n. Prejudicing.] [Cf. F. pr['e]judicier. See Prejudice, n.] 1. To cause to have prejudice; to prepossess with ; to bias the mind of, by hasty and incorrect notions; to give an unreasonable bent to, as to one side or the other of a cause; as, to prejudice a critic or a juryman.

Suffer not any beloved study to prejudice your mind so far as to despise all other learning. --I. Watts

2. To obstruct or injure by prejudices, or by previous bias of the mind; hence, generally, to hurt; to damage; to injure; to impair; as, to prejudice a good cause.

So NutCrackerboy: Do you see anything worthy here? By definition: "opinions formed without due knowledge or examination" ...prejudice is an act born of ignorance. You are saying that such ignorance is essential in "preserving a way of life".

The obvious question is: What or whose way of life should be preserved in this manner? Certainly not the one of those who are the targets of such prejudice.

Not your problem, I guess.

[WOSG]

I'll be married 20 years this May. My sister just celebrated her 31st anniversary yesterday, and my parents will celebrate their 60th next month. In fact, as I look back through my family tree, I haven't found so much as one instance of divorce. This isn’t to brag (not too much anyway). My point is to simply establish some raw credentials that I come from a family that takes marriage pretty seriously. "

Maybe those who have had such problems in the family may have a better perspective. There is certainly alot of smugness coming from the "I'm too good to have marital problems, so why be worried about its redefinition" camp. But as I explained to another poster - as long as you went to the COURTHOUSE to get your marriage contract affirmed in LAW, you too think marriage needs GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.


" Certainly a gay person referring to themselves as "married" doesn't have any direct effect on us whether we approve or not. "

Calling themselves married is something they can do today without Govt recognition per se. The Govt and societal recognition is about demanding an 'equality' of two separate things that should not be considered equal. The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family. This trend has large negative social consequences. To wit, children in single-parent / broken homes do worse in life (highercrime rates, worse school performance, lower future income) than children in 2 parent homes.

The life choices people make - good or bad, right or wrong - are their choices, but they affect others - families, children, communities, the whole society. When choices are made that dont accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.

This error of granting a privilige as if it were a "right" is compounded by it being done at variance with the rule of law. An elitist Judicial imperium ditated their cultural view and abused the rule of law and our democracy by over-ruling the will of the people and pretending this non-existent equality must be made law.There is nothing in the Massachusetts constitution nor in any state or Federal constitution or law justifying this extreme view. This is yet another example of judicial tyranny.

Lastly, I agree that our political system has better things to do. That is however the fault of the gay activists pushing it and the liberal judicial activists putting their agenda above the rule of law. One thing we definitely need to do is clean out the judicial tyrants (through impeachment) and get believers in judicial restraint on the court bench!

[NutCrackerBoy]

I wonder why you listed the definitions of prejudice as a verb when I was using it as a noun.

Merriam Webster Online lists the following: prejudice 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion.

It is not possible to function as a human being without having some preconceived judgments or opinions. Or do you think every single belief and action of yours has been thought through beforehand?

When you meet people you pre-judge them in a number of ways.

[Sam Cree]

"richtig_faust may be rude in your view, but he has a point. Every law on the books is based on someone's morality. Therefore, it IS a strawman to bring up the 'legislating morality' thing."

I do agree that every law on the books is based on morality of one kind or another. Even libertarian philosophy is based on libertarian morals.

So yeah, I think I needed to have been more specific about what I thought was being legislated, if I wanted my comment to really have weight. So, yes, I concede that richtig has a point.