Defining marriage: Who decides? Rebecca Hagelin warns battle at critical junction

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, July 13, 2004 | Rebecca Hagelin

[Adrastus]

I taught school in Marble Falls and took a group of kids to Austin on an outing to see the new Bullock Museum. Afterwards I took them to a park (about noon) to eat lunch and there were a couple of the non-problematic gays not having a problem right out under the trees. I really appreciated their discression.

Are you one of those with the bumper sticker "Help Keep Austin Weird"? If so, come over to Marble Falls some time and I'll let you get acquainted with my 'lil puppy.

[k2blader]

Did you honestly think that I would be "for" homosexual marriage?

Actually, no, I didn't think that. I'm glad my "suspicions" were correct. ;-)

[EGPWS]

This week, the United States Senate will take the first step in deciding who gets to define marriage for the entire nation: activist judges – or the American people.

Gee, now THAT statement is encouraging for the promotion of our government by and for the people! /s

[goldstategop]

Robert Bork, whose conservative credentials are unimpeacheable, has said a national rule is necessary. If we want to protect marriage, there's no other way than through a uniform rule to that effect. Either traditional marriage is secured in our Constitution and laws or gay marriage will be. In any event, the gay lobby is not interested in a live and let live approach - they want to force every state to fall in line no matter how much the people and their elected representatives might be opposed.

[nopardons]

"Oppress the minority"?

Kiddo,the more you type,the clearer it is that you are NOT a Conservative at all.

Look,once homosexual marriage is sanctioned,nobody, NOT A SINGLE PERSON will be allowed to discriminate, by word or deed,against them.You are out of your depth here.

If you really are a Conservative,the shut up,stop posting for three months,avidly read everything posted to this site and learn something.If you just want to spout off,go to a teen chat room.

There are young adults here and most of them actually know what they're talking about;unlike you.They are most welcome here.People,no matter WHAT their physical ages are,who don't know what they're talking about,but keep claiming that they do,aren't welcome here.And BWT,putting on an accent,in prose,is silly,uncalled for,and an ill educated thing to do.

[nopardons]

I bet that I'm for and against a whole bunch of things that you would concur with as well. LOL

[nopardons]

Don't address other posters as "dude" and stay away from the sluts,since they worry you so much.:-)

[k2blader]

That's a bet I wouldn't mind losing, if I were the betting type. ;-)

Godspeed, nopardons.

[nopardons]

It's against my religion to bet,so let's just say that you would probably be flummoxed and amazed at my positions,on things you really don't know my opinions on. :-)

GODspeed to you too.

[Steel Wolf]

Let's talk survival.

Every human culture, EVERY human culture, on every continent, that has ever made it past hunter / gatherer stage has adopted a policy of male and female marriage.

This social construct did not start because of people expressing their love for each other. It came about out of pure necessity.

Simply put, a male / female / children family unit is the building block of any society. This building block is composed of two adults that can make the commitment to put aside their more selfish desires, procreate, and pass the values of their society on to their children. The instituion of marriage is a social contract that was created for the man, the woman, their children, and their society.

Two gay men, no matter how much they love each other, will never benefit society, and will never bear progeny. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, they are like an abstinant male and female couple who are 'going steady'. That is great for them, and certainly they want everyone to know about it, but it's not marriage. No orphans will be produced if they die. No value will be added to society if they don't. They have no potential to be anything more than they already are.

So, when millions of couples get married, and live to certain standards, they ensure that the next generation of couples will do the same, and the fabric of society renews itself. The vows are overseen by a representative of your culture (priest, judge, etc), and bind you into the system.

Gay people, no matter how deeply in love, will never play a part in the cycle of life that marriage does. Society at large simply does not need them, and thus should not pretend that they hold the same value as a male and female couple.

[George W. Bush]

...its sluts that concern me in this town!

A sentiment than many a Freeper might well echo...

[EGPWS]

they want to force every state to fall in line no matter how much the people and their elected representatives might be opposed.

Thus my sarcasm with my statement.

Until black and white common sense is returned to government, direction for our country will be lost.

Anyone can make an issue out of anything,(as it has been shown in the recent past) twist it to their agenda, create a slippery slope, and be content with what they have achieved, however without a central focus, say a national doctrine and firm basis of it, a nation wide conviction toward it, then we have no national reason.

Isn't this the purpose of the constitution of our country in the first place?

Sorry for my babble, however I see a focus by some to try and remove cornerstone elements which has been the reason for all to want to strive to be a part of our system.

[John Valentine]

Your predisposition would be satisfied by a "live and let live" philosophy, which is largely where we were as a country just a few years ago. Gays were and are perfectly free to associate and to participate in intimacies to their hearts content.

All we asked is that the shades be pulled down, out of common decency.

Now, marriage that is something else entirely. It is what it is.

You say "let gays get married". Gays are free to marry and have been since time immemorial. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us do.

I'm not being facetious here. I'm perfectly serious, becausue once you destroy the definition of marriage, who is going to craft a new one?

And if it is based on a katy-bar-the-door principle of individual freedom, what's to limit a marraige to two? Why not three? If two men can marry, why not two brothers? Why not two non-homosexual men who simply don't want to be married to women?

Most importantly, who will decide these questions? Unelected judges? Or the people?

Who is blaming gays? And for what?

These were not GAY judges that did this, they were jackass liberal elitist judges with their heads in the place gay men reserve for another part of their anatomy.

[EGPWS]

Gays were and are perfectly free to associate and to participate in intimacies to their hearts content.

Obviously to at least the outspoken Gay's, that isn't enough....

Thus, agenda comes to one's mind.

[EGPWS]

yes but the spread of STD's is up, conspicuous sex ( i go to school in Austin i know!) is up and 2/3 of man to women marriages end in divorce. gay people are not the problem in America.

Yea, if everyone was gay, looked at life from a sexual standpoint, as agenda filled Gay's do, we would live in a virtual Utopia wouldn't we.

Until humankind died off anyway...

[jonrick46]

What is the central problem with the legal acceptance of gay marriage is that is devalues the institutional commitment that occurs with that legal union we call a marriage between one man and one woman. The cultural significance that is given to the commitment required for a man and woman to stay married long enough to provide children with that protection through their progress to adulthood is something very high. Because we cannot measure a cultural importance is the problem here. This is where the gay marriage advocates are wrong. Even if the level of cultural significance given to the notion of commitment were real, for them, marital commitment as a real priority, is significantly low. Rather, for them, the priority is for such things as property allocation when the relationship dissolves or a partner dies, and spousal rights during medical situations.

What the gay marriage advocates don't tell you is the results of their acceptance in such countries as Sweden and Holland. With the cultural devaluation for that thing called commitment, we see a rise in that thing called cohabitation. And, with cohabitation, children lose that security and protection that a long term, stable marriage relationship affords. In fact, children find out the impoverishment caused by serial cohabitation, which is that thing that gay advocates don't tell you.

Another thing that is not said is the social impact upon the state for a growing number of unwanted children and single parents needing state assistance. This would increase the demand for more taxation to manage a growing demand on state resources.

Gay relationships are marked by serial cohabitation and promiscuity. This is just the thing that we do NOT want to encourage with the parents of our next generation of children. NOW DO YOU GET THE PICTURE?

[Steel Wolf]

i do not like gay people but outlawing the right for a church to wed gays is not going to stop anything.

Sure it is. What if I want to wed my horse? Who are you to say that's wrong? Also, I expect my horse to be taken care of under my company's health care system. My horse also has several foals from a previous relationship, which will all be counted as 'dependents'. EIC, here I come!

we have to teach people why something is bad and what its side affects are.

You'd have to know what is really at stake before trying to teach others.

i'm for gay marriage, but im also for the discrimination of gays through proper teaching.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Consider this:

Real discrimination, the kind that you are implying, is wrong. What is equally wrong, is being unable to tell apples from oranges. Yes, people should be treated fairly, but humans are not all the same. Two men in love, and a man and a woman with children, are two totally different concepts. Treating them differently is not 'discrimination'.

Also, any 'proper teaching' you care to quote will be against gay marriage. I haven't checked with the Reverend Moon, but I'm pretty sure he'd be on board too.

but, half the people in this country don't agree with me so ill never impose my religious and moral rights on them

Making people follow laws they may not agree with, even ones with 'moral or religious' relevence, is part of living in an orderly society. Our Constitution is a social contract, and one that exists to preserve as much freedom as possible while still maintaining order. If you believe in the Constitution, you are contributing to the enforcement of some uniquely Western / Judeo-Christian ideals onto the body of society.

by opinion. you say im slinging the false opinions around. yall are slingin the heart breaking opinions around that oppress a minority.

Gay people are not a minority. They're not an ethnic group. They're not a nationality. They're hobbyists. They have a sexual practice they enjoy, and due to the nature of it, they often run into social discomfort.

That is not the same as being lynched because you're black. Being gay is an act, not a physical attribute.

[antceecee]

bump!!!!

[GailA]

Heard last night on FNC that hanoi john will be hot footing it to DC to cast a NO vote on DOMA. Did any one else hear it?

aclu.org

Senate Vote on Same Sex Marriage H.R 3396

Same-Sex Marriage - In what the ACLU termed a "deplorable act of hostility," both the House and the Senate adopted a measure that would deny federal recognition of marriages between lesbian and gay couples. In addition to redefining the Federal definition of marriage, the bill would create a "gay exception" to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to ignore same-sex marriages performed in any other state. The House vote in favor of the bill was 342 to 67; the Senate approved it by a vote of 84 to 15. President Clinton signed the legislation.

Voting NO

issues2000.0rg

Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one wo Bill HR 3396 ; vote number 1996-280 on Sep 10, 1996

Supports federal DOMA, but not Massachusetts DOMA Q: You say you oppose gay marriage. You also oppose the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Do you think other states should have to recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts? KERRY: I said very clearly that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But notwithstanding that belief, there was no issue in front of the country when that was put before the US Senate. Q: You also said that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional. KERRY: I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. For 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states. Q: So would you support the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act? KERRY: No, because the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land today. Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004