If I were judgmental or homophobic, I likely would not have gay friends or would support legislation banning homosexual activity. Instead, I have multiple homosexual friends of both sexes and I believe that the government should not be permitted legislate consensual adult sexual behavior, whether it disgusts me personally or not.
Calling all lawyers...Is this really a constitutional matter?? Isn't he suggesting an amendment to make something which is currently not allowed, REALLY REALLY not allowed. Should the constitution be used for this? A pre-emptive ammendment to prevent what some think the Supreme Court might do. And judging from the discussion here, it's not really clear people are against this.
Even when we agree, we don't agree! Which religion has marriage? It's a sacrament to Christians. But, wait, Jews also have marriage. Oh, and Muslims. And, wait, just about every religion and society on earth -- certainly every one I've heard of. Whatever marriage is, it is pre-religion. Many religions have incorporated the institution into their essential doctrines. That doesn't mean they hold the copyright on it. Even so, I do advocate dropping legal marriage. Not because it is a religious institution but because it has gotten to be very inconvenient and has outlived its usefulness. There isn't much left legally to make married people different from non-married people and what is left will probably disappear in the next couple generations. So, just drop it.
Well, to hell with them then. My point is this not about marriage at all, but a way for gays to make their lifestyle entirely equal to heterosexuality in every way under the law. It would totally legitimize what through history has been considered an aberrant lifestyle. By legitimizing this, we are turning our backs on centuries of normality and de-evolving into a state where pretty much anything, if driven by popular mandate, can be legitimized. This includes incest, pedophilia, bestiality and other fun sexual practices of a perverse nature.
I agree bama.... That said, where are the resident BBS homosexuals to stick up for these gay groups in defense of it not going far enough?
Don't get too worried. I'm not advocating an all-out abolition of marriage; only a government withdrawal from the institution. Bama, I think you are in some danger of over-romanticizing the past. If I had to guess, I'd say 20th and 21st century USA has seen lower levels of practice in incest, bestiality, and pedophilia than most other centuries in history. Our wondrous forefathers were marrying their cousins all the time, some at very young ages.
Juan, I think you have found an idea that I think actually makes some sense to me. There was a thread not too long ago where this subject was discussed, but none of the homosexual marriage supporters could give me a satisfactory answer. Part of me has thought that there should be homosexual marriages due to my desire to keep the governments' hands off of it, but the other part of me thinks that it would lead to attempts to legalize polygamy or incest. What would be the cons of taking government out of marriage altogether? I'll have to think this over a bit.
But nobody is talking about criminalizing gay marriage or gay couples or gay sex. We are talking about whether we want the state to recognize such unions as marriage. I guess an analagy would be the difference between legalizing drugs and recognizing drugs as an entitlement.
Government cannot be taken out of "marriage" when they use that legal term to define their benefits, citizenship issues, adoption issues, custody issues, etc. Juan is just talking hypothetically. From a practical (and legal) standpoint, marriage is significantly entrenched across a spectrum of rules and regulations that only the Government can enforce.
For goverment to be taken out of "marriage," they would have to replace that term with a more general 'Legal S.O." term. And that is what this whole legal issue thread boils down to, imo. This is about the term "marriage" being intrinsically tied to rights of citizens. imo, what JuanValdez is proposing that Government strike the word "marriage" from all rules and regulations, and replace it with "Legal S.O." (or equivalent). Then allow any two people to designate each other as their Legal S.O....but only one person, and it must be mutual. Marriage then becomes separate. imo, if this still remains an issue, then it is because it would allow homosexuals to adopt and get shared parental custody of guardianship of the sanctity of family responsibilities to education and raise children. Parental rights is a big issue....and the government cannot separate themselves from that...thus they can't really separate themselves from using "marriage" to define parental rights.
Hmm, well, no I wasn't. Maybe you're just trying to give me the benefit of the doubt, but I'm proposing a complete government pull-out. There are many legal issues tied to marriage and they'd all have to be reworked so they aren't dependent on marriage any longer. (Where bonds to children are an issue, I can see a "mother of my child" sort of relationship being recognized.) Of course, it would never happen and maybe it's a stupid idea after all; but I don't see any other way of making legal marriage consistent with modern social mores. As for your proposal (which you credit to me), I think it has as little chance for passage as my abolition of marriage. A good Christian couple would undergo a religious wedding ceremony and then register as S.O.s with the State, and then wonder, "How is this really any different from a marriage with an extra layer of bureaucracy?" They won't be happy with a simple name change.
There's never been any evidence to prove the existence of God so maybe we should disregard the definition of marriage per God. In fact, I can't believe our government condones the definitions of things according to a diety that can't be proven to exist. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
what heypartner seems to be suggesting is that there should be some superclass of 'legal SO', and then marriage could extend that superclass. civil union could extend the superclass too... and whatever benefits that are currently ascribed to marriage would just be inherited from the new legal so superclass. But since this is really about the homophobes more than it is whether or not 'civil union' is equivalent to marriage, I suggest the onus is on the homophobes to shore up the wagons re: moral superiority in some other fashion. Rather than rewrite all the tax laws, etc. just proclaim that any two persons can get married, and instead focus upon the number of neices you have in rehab, or how often your priest has molested your youngest son. ps, I personally love it when conservatives prove my point about "state rights" nonsense being "state rights nonsense", when they approve of the President of the United States preempting the states by passing a federal law. The state rights label was used to defend racism in the past, and now the power of the federal government will be used to defend homophobia. As long as the endpoint is conservatism, I guess there's no need to be introspective, eh? ****ing idiots.
I see Achebe has resorted to namecalling. Way to develop the discussion. Even if you have no idea who they are, nice to group everyone into your neat little 'f***in idiot' category. In my eyes, the onus is on homosexual marriage supporters to prove anything. They are they ones trying to change the law. My main problem with allowing homosexual marriages remains that changing the law will give legal precedent to polygamists or incestuous relationships. If you change the way marriage is defined to fit one group's desires, what is to prevent anyone from changing it to fit another group's desires?
Why in the world would they talk to you guys about this? You have made your stone age, religious right intolerance plain in this and other threads. Being gay doesn't make one an idiot or a glutton for idiotic, homophobic arguments.
This is, admittedly, a very tough issue for me. Very tough, indeed. Puts a lot of things I value in conflict.
How is not agreeing with homosexual marriage "homophobic?" I love how liberals love dropping label bombs on people to deflect substantive discussion of the issues. You're a racist unless you tow the leftist line on race relations. You're a warmonger if you want America to be able to proactively defend itself against the vast numbers of assholes who wish us destroyed. You're a homophobe if you don't agree with the gay rights agenda. Once you tar and feather someone with a label like that, the discussion is over. I don't have a problem with gays having "civil unions" with voluntary rights to employers to recognize them for benefits enjoyed by married couples. But I draw the line at the union between a gay couple being considered in the same breath as a normal marriage. And numbnuts.....Bush can not just summarily put that into law. Guess your civics class failed to put that into your mush-filled skull. Well, here's a little refresher: Lastly, Goophers put it as good as anyone has put it so far. Good job, buddy! Does that sound like something uttered from someone who hates and/or fears homosexuals? And Achebe, grow up. White-washing an entire ideology is no way to advance your side of an argument.
Juan, We are in complete agreement, that is what I was suggesting. Eliminate Marriage in our governments nominclature permanently. Since it is not a legal term, but a religious one. DD
