bigpoppanils Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 Why now? Saturday, August 02, 2003Is same-sex marriage the most pressing issue facing our nation by any stretch of the imagination? With terrorism still active, troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, nukes in North Korea, a stagnant economy and other serious concerns piled on our plates, we would think not. If you're one of those people who regularly gets caught up in the endless series of whirlwinds that blow through talk radio and cable TV talk shows, however, it suddenly is Topic A. But then, by that standard, Gary Condit, the Laci Peterson murder case, Hillary Clinton's book, the lawsuits against fast-food chains and other ephemeral topics have been issues of dire importance, if only for one or two days. So why then, is there this would-be great national debate about same-sex marriage all of a sudden? President George W. Bush, who it would seem, has more important things to worry about, brought it up the other day when he issued this statement: I am mindful that we're all sinners, Bush began. And I caution those who may try to take a speck out of their neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country....On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. While he could be -- and has been -- accused of speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, perhaps we should say in fairness that the president's statement fairly accurately reflects the ambiguous views of many straight people on the subject: They don't quite understand homosexuality and the concept may even make them uncomfortable, even to the point of scorn. At the same time, they don't necessarily condemn individual gays or lesbians and are content to let them live their lives the way they choose. But the president's mixed message also contained the statement, I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. At the same time, the Vatican issued a statement condemning same-sex marriages and, perhaps not coincidentally, there has been a full-bore offensive by conservative media to raise the issue. The New York Post on Thursday, for whatever reasons, ran a front-page full-color photo of happy, identically costumed gay men who had just been married in Canada. At the same time some Republicans were predicting same-sex marriage was going to be a major issue in the 2004 presidential and congressional campaign. Really? Everything else -- regarding terrorism, Iraq, the Middle East, the economy -- will be so hunky-dory by next year that we can spend an entire presidential campaign arguing about whether people of the same sex who love each other can be granted legal recognition as couples? Political strategy often mimics military strategy. The goal is to create a diversion in one place to make the enemy think that's where the main thrust is coming and thereby soak off his assets. Then, the primary attack comes in another area of the line, weakened because the enemy mistakenly sent his troops to the site of the diversion. Of course Republicans would love to make gay marriage the issue in the 2004 presidential campaign, just as they have tried to make flag-burning, abortion and other sideshow social issues the theme of previous campaigns. These subjects, on which people are able to take uncomplicated, emotional views, provide perfect fodder for bumper-sticker philosophers and talk-show hosts, and lather up the advocates on both sides, thereby attracting a large audience. In Patrick Buchanan's colorful phrase, they'll ride to the sound of the guns in the flare-up of another big battle in the cultural wars. Combatants will surely include radicals who might be provoked to go over the top in expressing their outrage to the president's resistance to gay marriage. All this will not only serve to shore up the Republicans' conservative religious base, but also to tip some ordinary Americans, who may have been on the fence, into the Republican camp as they react to the noisy theatrics. Of course, as this plays out, people will not be paying much attention to less lurid, far more complicated and far more important issues, such as security, tax and economic policy and foreign involvement --things over which government does have control. This sudden eruption of debate about same-sex marriage smacks of political opportunism. It remains to be seen if Democrats will rise to the GOP bait and squander their thin political resources sanctimoniously defending gay marriage, thereby extendint this diversionary debate into the 2004 campaign. Or with they keep the focus on the real-world issues that really matter to most Americans? The president's remarks hinted that a constitutional amendment codifying heterosexual marriage might be in the offing, although a White House spokesman denied that. The very idea certainly makes anti-gay people happy, however, and that may have been the intent. We happen to think that there is not a snowball's chance in Hawaii of such an amendment ever passing, regardless of how heated the debate gets. For one thing, marriage laws have traditionally been the province of the states, not the federal government. Vermont has sanctioned gay marriage since 1999 and Massachusetts and New Jersey are considering it now. Other states may follow and other states, of course, won't. Same-sex couples who crave the sanction of legal union can get married in these states and their marriages are valid when they travel or live in other states. A couple married under the laws of one state is considered legally married in all states, and the laws vary widely. Tennessee, for example, allows first cousins to marry. Given this conservative Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the Texas sodomy laws, we don't foresee any danger of a federal law or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As for upholding the sanctity of marriage, well, we always thought that it was the religious or personal commitment between marriage partners, not the marriage license itself that conferred that. And if the government allows gay marriage, how does that diminish, in any way, someone else's traditional, man-woman marriage? Besides, straight people and divorce courts have done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than any number of gay couples every could. This is an argument driven by activists whose aim is to make the political system and government jump as high as they can. Pandering to them is politically wise on the eve of a campaign, perhaps, but it ill serves a nation that is already too argumentative and too edgy. President Bush has his own beliefs on this difficult subject, just as we all do, but like most Americans do, he ought to have kept them to himself in the spirit of live and let live. Copyright 2003 The Staten Island Advance. http://www.silive.com/editorials/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1059830156176540.xml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 the only reason homosexuals want to get married is for tax breaks and other financial loopholes. It totally undermines why most decent human beings get married(love and procreation)btw that article is totally biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 It seems that the majority of the country is against same sex marriage but I personally havent heard reasoning why besides the obvious religious and moral dilemmas on the matter. I personally being a str8t male can personally care less who people want to marry. I'm just curious what other reasons besides the moral issues are people against same sex marriage??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted August 4 Author Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by acmatos It totally undermines why most decent human beings get married(love and procreation) what about couples that dont want kids or can't have kids? should the gov't prevent them from marrying as well?also, this article was an editorial.....of course it is going to be biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by bigpoppanils what about couples that dont want kids or can't have kids? should the gov't prevent them from marrying as well? There is absolutely no comparison between couples that don't want or can't have kids( because of sterility or other health issues) and couples that are physically incapable of procreating under any circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by seximofo2k It seems that the majority of the country is against same sex marriage but I personally havent heard reasoning why besides the obvious religious and moral dilemmas on the matter. I personally being a str8t male can personally care less who people want to marry. I'm just curious what other reasons besides the moral issues are people against same sex marriage??? If you want to totally stray from moral issues then think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe nature has figured out, over thousands of years of trial and error, that the best way for the human species to survive and reproduce is in a family structure. I know it sounds strange, but think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 in the beginning God created: Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skince55 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 in the beginning God created: Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve.... Maybe God is trying to control the population a little bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by skince55 Maybe God is trying to control the population a little bit yup...we arent doing a good job about it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by acmatos If you want to totally stray from moral issues then think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe nature has figured out, over thousands of years of trial and error, that the best way for the human species to survive and reproduce is in a family structure. I know it sounds strange, but think about it. How is this an argument for disallowing same sex marriage???? Should we outlaw divorce then because it goes against the evolutionary standpoint or the family structure????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 in the beginning God created: Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve.... :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by seximofo2k How is this an argument for disallowing same sex marriage???? Should we outlaw divorce then because it goes against the evolutionary standpoint or the family structure????? Well what is the point of same sex marriage??maybe we need to establish that first.Divorce is a totally separate and complicated issue if we start throwing every different issue together, then there will never be a clear or productive dialogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghhhhhost Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 yet the same people will allow retards to marry...but same sex marriage is off limits....i dont get it....whats the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by ghhhhhost yet the same people will allow retards to marry...but same sex marriage is off limits....i dont get it....whats the problem? what same people?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted August 4 Author Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by ghhhhhost yet the same people will allow retards to marry...but same sex marriage is off limits....i dont get it....whats the problem? as the editorial i posted points out....in tennesse first cousins are allowed to marry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by bigpoppanils as the editorial i posted points out....in tennesse first cousins are allowed to marry citing other terrible laws is a pretty shitty way to argue your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by acmatos Well what is the point of same sex marriage??maybe we need to establish that first.Divorce is a totally separate and complicated issue if we start throwing every different issue together, then there will never be a clear or productive dialogue. It seems by the way you are presenting your argument against same sex marriage, that you see the only purpose of marriage as simply a unification of two people in order to procreate and raise children. I totally disagree with this viewpoint. The point of same sex marriage is the same as the point of the traditional marriage arrangement, you love a person and you want to make the ultimate commitment and spend the rest of your life with that person. You still have yet to give me a solid answer, other than the obvious moral/religious reasoning, why same sex marriage should not be permitted. I do not see any negative impact on society from two people of the same gender being married please explain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djxeno Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by seximofo2k It seems by the way you are presenting your argument against same sex marriage, that you see the only purpose of marriage as simply a unification of two people in order to procreate and raise children. I totally disagree with this viewpoint. The point of same sex marriage is the same as the point of the traditional marriage arrangement, you love a person and you want to make the ultimate commitment and spend the rest of your life with that person. You still have yet to give me a solid answer, other than the obvious moral/religious reasoning, why same sex marriage should not be permitted. I do not see any negative impact on society from two people of the same gender being married please explain... I don' t see why it's such a big deal, I mean who cares about who marrys who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by seximofo2k It seems by the way you are presenting your argument against same sex marriage, that you see the only purpose of marriage as simply a unification of two people in order to procreate and raise children. I totally disagree with this viewpoint. The point of same sex marriage is the same as the point of the traditional marriage arrangement, you love a person and you want to make the ultimate commitment and spend the rest of your life with that person. You still have yet to give me a solid answer, other than the obvious moral/religious reasoning, why same sex marriage should not be permitted. I do not see any negative impact on society from two people of the same gender being married please explain... First of all, I haven't even mentioned religion in this whole mess. Secondly, is there any solid answer, in your opinion? Are you even willing to accept any answer I give? And finally, why is it that the "obvious moral/religious reasoning" is not acceptable other than the fact that you disagree with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 i think that a person's answer to this question would be based on how they feel about homosexuality as a whole. biologically speaking, it doesn't add up. you need two counter energies to create a new one. there is yin and yang, wrong and right, light and dark. religiously speaking, it's not right. homosexuality is even cited in all three major books (torah, new testament, and the Quran) as being wrong.socially speaking, it's never been accepted, until the 20th century, and even then a great majority of the world condones it. personally, and this is shocking even for me, i agree with bush when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i have nothing against someone if they choose to live that life, but in terms of making it legal, i am against it. there is such a thing as having too much freedom, and sadly, we have reached that point in society once again. i say once again because during previous fallen civilizations, such as rome, babylon, judea, etc, there were huge increases in homosexual and indecent behavior going on. strange how they all collapsed when it became a recognized thing. to each their own. civil unions, ok. but marriage, and legally? no. maybe some laws could be worked out in terms of benefits and leaving one's wealth to one's partner after their death. but otherwise, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by sassa i think that a person's answer to this question would be based on how they feel about homosexuality as a whole. biologically speaking, it doesn't add up. you need two counter energies to create a new one. there is yin and yang, wrong and right, light and dark. religiously speaking, it's not right. homosexuality is even cited in all three major books (torah, new testament, and the Quran) as being wrong.socially speaking, it's never been accepted, until the 20th century, and even then a great majority of the world condones it. personally, and this is shocking even for me, i agree with bush when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i have nothing against someone if they choose to live that life, but in terms of making it legal, i am against it. there is such a thing as having too much freedom, and sadly, we have reached that point in society once again. i say once again because during previous fallen civilizations, such as rome, babylon, judea, etc, there were huge increases in homosexual and indecent behavior going on. strange how they all collapsed when it became a recognized thing. to each their own. civil unions, ok. but marriage, and legally? no. maybe some laws could be worked out in terms of benefits and leaving one's wealth to one's partner after their death. but otherwise, no. you never cease to amaze me Just when I would expect you to say one thing, you say another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by acmatos you never cease to amaze me Just when I would expect you to say one thing, you say another what did you expect me to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by acmatos First of all, I haven't even mentioned religion in this whole mess. Secondly, is there any solid answer, in your opinion? Are you even willing to accept any answer I give? And finally, why is it that the "obvious moral/religious reasoning" is not acceptable other than the fact that you disagree with it? Yeah their is solid answer in my opinion : Telling people who they are allowed to marry is simply a form of discrimination. The government should not dictate what 2 peoples concensual behavior. Their is no proof that shows that gay marriage would be harmfull in any way to others that in which it should be outlawed.To answer the second part of your question the reason that the "obvious moral/religious reasongs" (which obviously is your sole argument against gay marriage because you have continually dodged any answering of my question). Still in effect in US law is the seperation of church and state the last time I checked. So hence because the bible says that this behavior is wrong does not constitute that hence the US government should deem homosexuality as illegal. Who is anyone to state that a certain behavior is "morally" wrong???? What might go against your morals could be morally acceptable behavior to me. Gay marriage is between to consenting adults and is not harmfull in anyway so hence their is no reason why it should not be legal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by sassa i think that a person's answer to this question would be based on how they feel about homosexuality as a whole. biologically speaking, it doesn't add up. you need two counter energies to create a new one. there is yin and yang, wrong and right, light and dark. religiously speaking, it's not right. homosexuality is even cited in all three major books (torah, new testament, and the Quran) as being wrong.socially speaking, it's never been accepted, until the 20th century, and even then a great majority of the world condones it. personally, and this is shocking even for me, i agree with bush when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i have nothing against someone if they choose to live that life, but in terms of making it legal, i am against it. there is such a thing as having too much freedom, and sadly, we have reached that point in society once again. i say once again because during previous fallen civilizations, such as rome, babylon, judea, etc, there were huge increases in homosexual and indecent behavior going on. strange how they all collapsed when it became a recognized thing. to each their own. civil unions, ok. but marriage, and legally? no. maybe some laws could be worked out in terms of benefits and leaving one's wealth to one's partner after their death. but otherwise, no. Of the 3 reasons u state i see only the biological viewpoint as holding some water. I dont go by religion, neither does the US government, social reasoning... well 50 years ago half the country was segregated. On the idea of biologically it doesnt match well yeah that is true but I really dont see how letting a minute minority of the population marry is going to destroy the human species????? And if you are going by these standards then why is a civil union ok but marriage no??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by sassa what did you expect me to say? I think I exepcted to get an answer more along the lines of seximofo2k's. But I was obviously wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.