How Can George Bush Represent the People if.......

[budullewraagh]

What I don't understand is why this is the only form of marriage discrimination that is recieving attention. Why is polygamy illegal and no one claims discrimination?

there arent enough polygamists fighting for their rights.

 

Making the arguement "because they want to" isn't really logical reasoning behind why they should be allowed.

i explained more than that. it's their constitutional right. they want their constitutional right to marry.

 

If the purpose of marriage is reproduction

who defined it as that?

 

why should people who can't do so be allowed to married?

again, constitutional right. the aclu is crying

[drz]

If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, why should people who can't do so be allowed to married? Why should we encourage the this mindset just "because they want to"?

 

Since when is the purpose of marriage soley for reproduction? I've known several people, man and woman, whom never intend on reproducing, yet have been married, simply because they love one another. I also know people who reproduce, and have no intention of getting married.

 

Also, people who cannot have children get married. By your reasoning, anyone who intends on being married without the plan of having children should not be married. Well, you are wrong. Next

 

one more thing,

 

I really should have deleted that part, I’m sorry. But that quote is way out of context and does not imply that. But you are aware of that already.

 

As I mentioned, it may be out of context per its original intention, but it is not out of context in the way it is used in modern days. Ever meet a devout jew who was married to a devout catholic, whose both families were happy?

 

oh ya, and to comment on the original topic, how can bush represent the people. Bush represents the people who put/keep him in power. Obviously, he doesn't give a (are we allowed to cuss on this forum??) thought towards the people who disagree with him. Look at all the people in protest of the iraq invasion. Bush didn't so much as blink an eye at them, and they weren't violating his beliefs. You expect him to do better with the gay marriage issue?

[jordan]

Regardless, if you're going to counter with that, you need to start by explaining why anyone[/i'] should be allowed to marry.

I don't really see why, but alright. People are allowed to get married because marriage was set up so people can get married. New people propose we ammend it so that a wider range of people can get married. I say that's fine as long as they can show that they are the same as those who the sacrament of marriage was intended for.

 

Because it's the topic?

I meant in general.

 

What do you mean by "equal to" in this context?

When people get married there are a few things in mind: Do they love each other, Can they start a family, Will they foster a good family etc.? As of now, I haven't heard a fair explanation of how they fulfill all that. Yes, technicly they can have a good family but that means adoption and letting in adoption means that anyone can fulfill that requirement. By the obvious differences between male and female, I don't think the point was adoption. Rather, I think the current movement is based more on the attention it is currently recieving than on the actual marriage, for a part of it at least. And that isn't enough to radicaly change one of the oldest standing traditions. There is a difference between right and wrong and it's alright to say that once is a while. You don't have to accept everything.

 

Sorry I couldn't address everything but this post is getting too long.

[Sayonara]

I don't really see why, but alright. People are allowed to get married because marriage was set up so people can get married. New people propose we ammend it so that a wider range of people can get married. I say that's fine as long as they can show that they are the same as those who the sacrament of marriage was intended for.

You haven't answered anything there.

 

Who are these people the sacrament of marriage was intended for? How does that apply to the members of different religions? Where do state marriages (i.e. non-religious ones) stand with this?

 

And most importantly, why is anyone able to get married in the first place? "So they can get married" is not an answer.

 

 

When people get married there are a few things in mind: Do they love each other,

Well, I'm aware of many people who marry without love, but we can ignore that as it affects everyone equally. Are you saying that people object to gay marriage because they don't believe same-sex couples can involve love?

 

 

Can they start a family, Will they foster a good family etc.?

What has that got to do with marriage? Not all families result from marriages, and not all marriages result in a family.

 

 

As of now, I haven't heard a fair explanation of how they fulfill all that.

By "they" I assume you mean gay people. If so then I counter with the aforementioned points that most married people don't "fullfill all that" either.

 

 

Yes, technicly they can have a good family but that means adoption and letting in adoption means that anyone can fulfill that requirement.

You mean like the married heteros who adopt, and the adoptive parents who get married?

 

 

By the obvious differences between male and female, I don't think the point was adoption.

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

 

Rather, I think the current movement is based more on the attention it is currently recieving than on the actual marriage, for a part of it at least.

That doesn't change the fact that there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it does not change the fact that there are affected parties.

 

 

And that isn't enough to radicaly change one of the oldest standing traditions. There is a difference between right and wrong and it's alright to say that once is a while. You don't have to accept everything.

How is this "radically changing" an old tradition? It's simply an expansion to the customer base, as it were.

Calling this one of the oldest traditions implies it has remained unchanged for a long time, which is clearly not true. It also confines the argument to the one general religion, which - given that we are discussing this as it pertains to the USA, its constitution, and the separation of church and state - is invalid.

 

 

Sorry I couldn't address everything but this post is getting too long.

I wouldn't worry about that

[jordan]

I guess I can't properly artuculate what I want to say. Basicly, you've seen many married couples who all are properly married. You know that they should be married. Though I can't define exactly who should be allowed to marry (there are so many factors) you still know it when you see it. Homosexuals don't fit the "you know it when you see it" category. So I guess I don't understand why they should be allowed to tell everyone "we can get married because we want to and you can't stop us". What do they have that couldn't be found somewhere else with a little effort that entitles them to ammend the definition of marriage?

[Sayonara]

Homosexuals don't fit the "you know it when you see it" category.

Well, that's your opinion, but I'm sure they see it differently. As will people who spend a lot of time around those who are in (or even discuss) homosexual relationships.

 

 

So I guess I don't understand why they should be allowed to tell everyone "we can get married because we want to and you can't stop us". What do they have that couldn't be found somewhere else with a little effort that entitles them to ammend the definition of marriage?

To be fair, that's a gross generalisation of what 'they are telling everyone' and not representative of the issues.

 

Surely the question you should be asking is "why should anyone try to stop them?"

[jordan]

Surely the question you should be asking is "why should anyone try to stop them?"

Because it's not their place to barge in on and then claim discrimination when the don't get their way.

[budullewraagh]

"barge in on"? how are they "barging in on" anything by asking for their constitutional rights?

[Sayonara]

Because it's not their place to barge in on and then claim discrimination when the don't get their way.

There should not be any super happy secret "no homofags allowed" club to barge in on in the first place. That's the point.

[jordan]

I don't see why not since they set up the club in the first place.

[Sayonara]

I don't see why not since they set up the club in the first place.

Who did?

[drz]

You know, I think another important aspect of this gay marriage issue, is distraction.

 

Lets make abortion and gay marriage a big deal for the election year, so we can distract all the conservatives in the country so they do not realize how crappy of a president bush has been. He is against gay marriage and abortion, who cares, or in this case, thinks about the fact that he is ruining everyone's freedom?

 

I can see it is all together pointless to argue about the issue. The simple fact of the matter is that people have the right to be happy, so long as their happiness doesn't come at the expense of others discomfort, or take away from their happiness.

 

How is a married homosexual couple discomforting to you in anyway?

 

I'd really like an answer to this, because if you don't have one, well, you don't really have a good reason to be against the marriages.

[budullewraagh]

another excellent point

[DreamLord]

Yes, I agree with drz on this issue. Why should anyone deny them their rights just because they are different. Everyone has the right to be happy. The US constitution was made to help people be free, so we should not be changing it to oppress people.

 

I do not get the problem with gay marriage. It's not like they are hurting anyone. And many say that it is wrong because those couples "cannot produce children" and therefore, must be wrong. What about all the heterosexaul couples that do not want children though, are they wrong also according to the people who believe that way?

[jordan]

Who did?

Whoever controls the sacrament of marriage. I really don't know how it all works, but I know it predates our Constitution and therefore has little to do with "our freedoms".

 

How is a married homosexual couple discomforting to you in anyway?

 

I'd really like an answer to this' date=' because if you don't have one, well, you don't really have a good reason to be against the marriages.[/quote']

They haven't, you're right. But that's only because I'm young and not married. If I was married and had to watch all the homosexuals getting married, I'd wonder what my marriage means. Will they let just anyone get married? So if a guy wants to marry a goat, can he do so? I would have to really question just how special my marriage is.

 

Yes, I agree with drz on this issue. Why should anyone deny them their rights just because they are different. Everyone has the right to be happy. The US constitution was made to help people be free, so we should not be changing it to oppress people.

You do have to draw the line somewhere. I'm not saying that this is where everyone should draw their line, but let me ask you: when is it going too far? For me, it's here, where people are going around what is considered normal (male and female is obviously more right than anything else) and trying to break into rebelious territory for attention.

[budullewraagh]

Whoever controls the sacrament of marriage.

i take it you are mentioning a church-related matter. the definition of marriage in a church is possible to be different from the legal definition of marriage. we need equal rights and a state that does not make any of its decisions based on religious beliefs.

If I was married and had to watch all the homosexuals getting married, I'd wonder what my marriage means.

look at heterosexual couples. look at BRITNEY SPEARS. seriously. again, the legal definition of marraige is different from the religious definitions.

 

homosexual marraiges don't threaten the validity of your marraige. if you do not find your marraige to be significant enough to show your love, find another way. do not descriminate.

[drz]

They haven't, you're right.

 

Then you do not have a point in which to argue from. Sure, your beliefs may beg to differ, but beliefs are like opinions, and we know what opinions are like. In a government by the people for the people, in which freedom to pursue happiness is promised, nobody has any right to stop two individuals from doing what they want to do to make them happy. Unless it infringes on your rights.

 

If a man wants to marry a goat, I could careless, it doesn't affect me one bit. However, seeing as how the goat is not in a position to provide consent, or to agree to the marriage, this is not possible. Trying to sidestep by such means is illogical, and, well, just plain wrong.

 

So honestly, unless someone can demonstrate how a gay married couple is taking away from ones right to be happy, unless you can demonstrate how it is infringing on your rights to freedom, there is no arguement, and honestly, this discussion is finished.

 

I would have to really question just how special my marriage is.

Also, if something so trivial as what other people are doing makes you question your marriage to the person you love, you need to reevaluate yourself, not the people. Who cares what others do, worry about yourself.

[Sayonara]

Whoever controls the sacrament of marriage. I really don't know how it all works, but I know it predates our Constitution and therefore has little to do with "our freedoms".

Well, laying aside for the fact that that only covers one religious context, which is not applicable to everyone (and irrelevant by default in state weddings) I'm fairly certain that the issue of the separation of church and state, which you have twice now skipped over, comes into that somewhere.

 

 

They haven't, you're right. But that's only because I'm young and not married. If I was married and had to watch all the homosexuals getting married, I'd wonder what my marriage means. Will they let just anyone get married?

There's a name for that - it's called "Dog in the Manger". You have it, they don't, you don't want them to have it because you decided they aren't in your special club. (By "you" I of course mean people who think like that.)

 

Why should you wonder what your marriage "means" based on what somebody else does? The only people who have any input into the value of a marriage are the two most involved individuals, i.e. the married couple.

 

In the way you have applied this, it's no different to complaining because you think gay students devalue the degree you earned, or moving seats because you don't want to sit with the darkies. In civilised society that is called prejudice.

 

 

So if a guy wants to marry a goat, can he do so? I would have to really question just how special my marriage is.

Actually in some countries that does happen, but for consistency's sake let's stick with the USA.

 

Your point is precluded by the fact that a goat cannot consent to marriage, and is not capable of having a mutual loving relationship with a human. That is why one cannot marry a goat. It has nothing to do with some arbitrary notion of freakishness or one's ability to point out why people are different.

 

As for the question of polygamy you mentioned earlier, I believe there are several actually good reasons for keeping this illegal.

- The more wives someone has, the less likely they are to be taking their vows seriously. I believe you are the sort of person who views marriage as a sacred institution so I think you will understand what I mean by that.

- Polygamy works for you quite well if you happen to have a harem shut up in a palace away from the common peasants. In sleepy little mid-west towns it causes no end of envy and spite, which is not a desirable social element.

- Having several wives (or indeed husbands) would mean an utter quagmire of legal issues if one, some or all spouses decided to file for divorce, or suffered a bereavement. In fact things could get very hairy indeed.

 

 

You do have to draw the line somewhere. I'm not saying that this is where everyone should draw their line, but let me ask you: when is it going too far? For me, it's here, where people are going around what is considered normal (male and female is obviously more right than anything else) and trying to break into rebelious territory for attention.

I don't see how "let's draw the line at having people marry people" is as wacky as "lets draw the line at people marrying animals or other people five at a time", and I certainly don't see how it's wackier than "let's let some people marry, but not others. Yeah! That'll **** them off."

[drz]

Whoever controls the sacrament of marriage. I really don't know how it all works, but I know it predates our Constitution and therefore has little to do with "our freedoms".

 

As soon as the government started issuing marriage license, the sacrament of marriage or whatever became a government institution. As a government institution, which promises freedom to all individuals, religous beliefs have no bearing on it. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps was neglected, government is supposed to be neutral to religions.

 

So if arguing from religions is all you got to stand on, once again, you do not have an arguement.

[Sayonara]

But they are being denied the right to hold legal status as partners which brings with it several financial implications. Its clearly denying gay people rights to which the rest of the heterosexual married population take for granted.

Quoted because few people read the first page any more.

[john5746]

Whoever controls the sacrament of marriage. I really don't know how it all works' date=' but I know it predates our Constitution and therefore has little to do with "our freedoms".

[/quote']

 

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

 

Well, there are contradictions and interpretations, etc. but you get the idea.

 

Actually, Protestants shouldn't be allowed to marry. Henry VIII made divorce much easier, which followed into the Protestant faith. If anything will make marriages useless, it is making them easy to break!

 

Working women shouldn't be allowed to marry. Full of self-worth and financial independance, rather than put up with crap from some men, they get divorced. No, only women who want to depend on their man should get married. This is the way it was so long ago, before anyone can remember.

 

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[jordan]

But what I'm still not getting is this: what makes them special that they can do something obviously "wrong*" and get away with it? How are they justifying it besides "for the benifits and they 'love each other'"? I don't really see why they should have the same rights. Are you hurting the rights on an alien who crossed our borders by sending him back? That alien didn't do anything to you. But if you can't work within the bounds set up and withheld in this country, I don't see why you deserve the rights that this country offers.

 

*Wrong in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to have two people of the same sex when the whole purpose of male and female was to have two seperate sexes.

[drz]

what makes them special that they can do something obviously "wrong*" and get away with it?

 

First of all, and I read your bs disclaimer, this is irrellevant. Whether it is wrong or not, it is not hurting you or anyone else, therefore, should not be illegal.

 

Also, your definition of wrong is biased, as in, whatever the bible tells me. For that to be a defense, you must first explain to me why the bible is to be taken as a credible source of information. This cannot be done.

 

That alien didn't do anything to you.

 

Wrong. An alien would take away a potential job I, or another american citizen may posses. Seeing as how bush has made this legal, and how this is also unrelated, and yet another dodge at my and others questions, it doesn't merit much of a response.

 

*Wrong in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to have two people of the same sex when the whole purpose of male and female was to have two seperate sexes.

 

It may not make any sense to you, and, in the context of the bible, it doesn't make sense. However, not so many people hold to that decrepid document as the sole source of truth anymore. Others have found different truths for different problems. And while your final sentance is agreeable, it again has nothing to do with expressing emotion towards a person you love, regardless of sex.

[DreamLord]

But what I'm still not getting is this: what makes them special that they can do something obviously "wrong*" and get away with it? How are they justifying it besides "for the benifits and they 'love each other'"? I don't really see why they should have the same rights. Are you hurting the rights on an alien who crossed our borders by sending him back? That alien didn't do anything to you. But if you can't work within the bounds set up and withheld in this country' date=' I don't see why you deserve the rights that this country offers.

 

*Wrong in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to have two people of the same sex when the whole purpose of male and female was to have two seperate sexes.[/quote']

 

Why should it be wrong if they love eachother? They are still human beings after all. So they're not different sexes, does it matter? I can say that when I get married I do not want to have children. I want to get married to a man I love. Would that make my marriage unjustifiable?

 

If I was married and had to watch all the homosexuals getting married, I'd wonder what my marriage means. Will they let just anyone get married? So if a guy wants to marry a goat, can he do so? I would have to really question just how special my marriage is.

 

I'd just like to know if you're aware that many of the people trying to ban gay marriages in congress have been divorced and/or married multiple times. How does that make you feel about 'what marriage means'?

[AL]

But what I'm still not getting is this: what makes them special that they can do something obviously "wrong*" and get away with it?

*Wrong in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to have two people of the same sex when the whole purpose of male and female was to have two seperate sexes.

The whole purpose of male and female was to have two separate sexes? Isn't that begging the question? I think people need to stop reading too heavily into nature's "purpose" for things. You don't argue that it is unnatural to wear clothes when nature gave us body hair for that "purpose." You don't argue that it is unnatural to drive cars when nature gave us legs and feet for that "purpose." Why then would you argue it is wrong for gay people to have relations with one another simply because it defeats whatever natural "purpose" you had in mind?

 

I don't really see why they should have the same rights. Are you hurting the rights on an alien who crossed our borders by sending him back? That alien didn't do anything to you.

This is an entirely different issue. Without documentation on an illegal alien, we don't know if the alien might be a criminal, or we wouldn't know who to contact if the alien got injured or killed while in this country. Therefore, it is both in our interest as well as the alien's interest to send the alien back. As for gay people, they offer no such threat or dire circumstance, therefore there is no justification for discriminating against them save for "my religious text says so" or "tradition for the sake of tradition," both of which I'd hardly call justifications.