NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen some of you ask this question.. and i suppose its a good one, and gives the governmental persepective on a hot issue.

Some of you wonder why the government has any interest in the addition of gays to the instittuion of marriage.

Marriage is the social base in our social structure.. the family unit is built around the idea of a man and a woman as parental units.

As the institution of marriage is degraded which we see today with people not thinking about the consequences, devorce becomes more common. Devorce casues extreme psychological distress on the immediate faimly structure, especially the children, and sometimes can have lasting effects. Such lasting effects can have direct impact on the future of the society, higher psychological problems, higher health insurance costs.. etc.

Its in the governments best interest to protect the social structure we have, because without it our society can quickly degrade. This is why so many benifits are given to couples who marry, as opposed to staying single.. because married people contribute more to the advancement of our society by bareing our future.. being children.

while i dont belive gay couples (who seek to be parents) should be denyed the rights that married couples get, i don't belive gays have a place in the instituion of marriage.. if its just an issue of equal rights civil unions should be made equal..

but more imporantantly.. form the perspective of the government.. why should they award rights to a couple who wont nessesarly inherently contribute to the advancement of the society through child bareing as opposed to married heterosexuals.

For the government its not a matter of love between two people.. but the product of that love.. for hertero sexuals its the future of this nation.. children.. this isnt nessesarly the case with gay couples.

Yes marraige is a social institution. However if it is only to provide a home for children, then wouldnt people who know they are infertile be banned from getting married?

Marraiges provide emotional and financial stability, and thus benefit society by increasing the health and economic well-being of it's constituents. Such benefits also occur in the context of homosexual marraiges.

Couples are considered better able to raise children than one person alone (for obvious reasons of being twice as productive and also being able to 'relieve' each other of 'hands on' care when situtations become stressful, as well as the economic advantages that occur when the couple is 'double waged'), and such benefits also occur for homosexual couples who may have children from former heterosexual relationships, through a surrogate third party parent, adoption, or god children who they are guardians for, foster children, extended care of relatives childen, etc. So all the benfits for children are still valid in a wide spectrum of cases so far as homosexual couples of concerned.

One of the most important benefits of marraige is that it 'doubles' a person's pool of 'kin'. This has many benefits for individulas (and thus for society since societie's well-being is determined by the well being of it's consituents) and also has the potential to offer productivity benefits, as well as 'social safety nets' independent of Government funded/intiated provisions.

In essence you have overlooked many of the benefits that marraige brings to society, that are applicable to homosexual marraiges. I see no benefit whatsoever in denying such marraiges.

w00t GO Invidenti!

Everyone else, remember to vote to ban gay marriage!

Personally, I think gay people marrying has a much better effect on that "moral fabric" of society that keeps coming up, as opposed to gay people just shacking up under the current arrangements.

I have seen some of you ask this question.. and i suppose its a good one, and gives the governmental persepective on a hot issue.

Some of you wonder why the government has any interest in the addition of gays to the instittuion of marriage.

Marriage is the social base in our social structure.. the family unit is built around the idea of a man and a woman as parental units.

As the institution of marriage is degraded which we see today with people not thinking about the consequences, devorce becomes more common. Devorce casues extreme psychological distress on the immediate faimly structure, especially the children, and sometimes can have lasting effects. Such lasting effects can have direct impact on the future of the society, higher psychological problems, higher health insurance costs.. etc.

Its in the governments best interest to protect the social structure we have, because without it our society can quickly degrade. This is why so many benifits are given to couples who marry, as opposed to staying single.. because married people contribute more to the advancement of our society by bareing our future.. being children.

while i dont belive gay couples (who seek to be parents) should be denyed the rights that married couples get, i don't belive gays have a place in the instituion of marriage.. if its just an issue of equal rights civil unions should be made equal..

but more imporantantly.. form the perspective of the government.. why should they award rights to a couple who wont nessesarly inherently contribute to the advancement of the society through child bareing as opposed to married heterosexuals.

For the government its not a matter of love between two people.. but the product of that love.. for hertero sexuals its the future of this nation.. children.. this isnt nessesarly the case with gay couples.

US Government was never intended to maintain any form of socio-culture. It was designed as arbitrator between each state, the states and foreign states, and between the states and her peoples. It has no delineated authoritative power beyond that.

State governments are made to arbitrary between their citizens, to represent their citizens to other states, and to provide protection to their citizens against outside forces... Once again; beyond that, they have no other declarative authoritative power.

This is the declarative form and function of how the United States of America was designed to work by the Founding Fathers.... Stepping beyond that, is mere revisionism.

Why don't you keep these thoughts to just one thread? I'm not going to rip down this argument in two places...

Marriage isn't based on children, otherwise unwed couples would be disallowed from having children, and married couples would have to have children.

Also, did I miss the thread where we concluded that gays hated children and would make horrible parents? Or did some new evidence come out that homosexuality is contagious in children?

WAsn't it though.. why impose a bill of rights if it was not meant to address the issues of socio culture ? The government since its inception has made a stance on social issues, because it is in the intrest of the stability of the nation for it to do so. Laws dictate what is acceptable within society and place constrats so we have limits. This by function structures our society, so why should the issue of marriage be different. Governments purpose is to preserve the society it presides over, as it is the society which forms the government, so basic issues as the structure of society are vital to the governments agenda.

To Peopleandstuff:
AS for Infertile couples.. who make up a SMALL minority of the population one must take into account the purpose of child bareing.. being the spread of our own genetic material.. which can be argued to be an underlying push factor toward family structure (as it is based around blood lines). Even Infertile couples have the means to overcome their own infertility and partake in the spread of their genetic information. Homosexual couples do not enjoy this same abilty, as both genetic information of the pair can not be captured in a single child without (extreme measures) of which i BELIVE (not POSITIVE) are illegal.

As to your other points i cannot dispute them, and infact belive they are what make this issue of marriage so important to the governments interest.. it is my belive however (whatever importance that may hold) that the issue of child care and child bareing still remains the core of marriage.. as they represent the future of our society.. and thus these issues take some level of priority over the ladder issues.

i think government precives gays in the instution of marriage as a threat because, of the vast population of religious individuals (accounting for the majority of americans). IF marriage in their minds is further degraded .. the "term" marriage loses its meaning and becomes less important in the minds of average americans (being those religious americans).. and as this social building block loses more importance .. more dire consequences may result.

well i only made this tread to focus on the governments interest in gay marriage.. not really to further argue it... its good to see however how people think the government precives the issue.

and as to Vittos Ordination: im not saying gays would make terrible parents or that they hate children.. but that it is in the governmetns interest to favor people whose relationships inherently produce children over those who do not.. which is why families with more children get greater tax exemptions.

um also to the question of unwed couples with children.. my argument would be.. the government would have every reason to encourage these people to enter marriage not restrict them..s ince they belong to a group (heterosexuals) who will inherently produce children.. and it is understood that a majority of married couples will generally embark on having children.. there is little need to require it since the relationship inherently leads to the question of having them.. while this is not the case for homosexuals (since they can't nessesarly produce children at will)

WAsn't it though.. why impose a bill of rights if it was not meant to address the issues of socio culture ? The government since its inception has made a stance on social issues, because it is in the intrest of the stability of the nation for it to do so. Laws dictate what is acceptable within society and place constrats so we have limits. This by function structures our society, so why should the issue of marriage be different. Governments purpose is to preserve the society it presides over, as it is the society which forms the government, so basic issues as the structure of society are vital to the governments agenda.

Now that is a misunderstanding. The Bill of Rights is meant to keep the government OUT of the "issues of socio culture." It ensures that the government must stay out of our homes, it ensures that the government must stay out of our church, it ensures that you can say whatever and think whatever you want without government interference, and it ensures that no group, no matter what their beliefs or lifestyles will recieve no special treatment nor will be denied the rights granted to others at the hands of the government.

To Peopleandstuff:
AS for Infertile couples.. who make up a SMALL minority of the population one must take into account the purpose of child bareing.. being the spread of our own genetic material.. which can be argued to be an underlying push factor toward family structure (as it is based around blood lines). Even Infertile couples have the means to overcome their own infertility and partake in the spread of their genetic information. Homosexual couples do not enjoy this same abilty, as both genetic information of the pair can not be captured in a single child without (extreme measures) of which i BELIVE (not POSITIVE) are illegal.

An infertile woman CANNOT have a child. She can only adopt. But that isn't "the spread of our own genetic material" either, so it should be banned, too, right?

As to your other points i cannot dispute them, and infact belive they are what make this issue of marriage so important to the governments interest.. it is my belive however (whatever importance that may hold) that the issue of child care and child bareing still remains the core of marriage.. as they represent the future of our society.. and thus these issues take some level of priority over the ladder issues.

I, at one point, thought that government should not recognize marriage at all. It did not take much though, however, to realize that the establishment of a healthy household is a very important benefit of marriage. But I fail to see why a homosexual couple cannot create a healthy household, and even if they can't you cannot punish them for the lack of ability.


i think government precives gays in the instution of marriage as a threat because, of the vast population of religious individuals (accounting for the majority of americans). IF marriage in their minds is further degraded .. the "term" marriage loses its meaning and becomes less important in the minds of average americans (being those religious americans).. and as this social building block loses more importance .. more dire consequences may result.

It has no meaning, anyways. People go into marriage knowing full well that if it doesn't work out, there is no harm, no foul.

Also, I didn't realize that marriage is not about love, because I don't believe that homosexuals would degrade that aspect.

Take it from the son of a single mother, children aren't raised by traditionally structured families, they are raised by loving parents, no matter what gender or lifestyle. When you find a test that distinguishes loving parents from unloving ones then we can talk about banning people from starting families.

well i only made this tread to focus on the governments interest in gay marriage.. not really to further argue it... its good to see however how people think the government precives the issue.

and as to Vittos Ordination: im not saying gays would make terrible parents or that they hate children.. but that it is in the governmetns interest to favor people whose relationships inherently produce children over those who do not.. which is why families with more children get greater tax exemptions.

um also to the question of unwed couples with children.. my argument would be.. the government would have every reason to encourage these people to enter marriage not restrict them..s ince they belong to a group (heterosexuals) who will inherently produce children.. and it is understood that a majority of married couples will generally embark on having children.. there is little need to require it since the relationship inherently leads to the question of having them.. while this is not the case for homosexuals (since they can't nessesarly produce children at will)

Good thing marriage came along or the human race would have died off. :rolleyes:

Without question, the institution of marriage evolved to support the idea of a family unit. As gays cannot reproduce - by thier own admission - the question is surely moot. They do not need marriage, because they can never have a family that requires the protection of marriage. Hence they should shut up about it.

WAsn't it though.. why impose a bill of rights if it was not meant to address the issues of socio culture ? The government since its inception has made a stance on social issues, because it is in the intrest of the stability of the nation for it to do so. Laws dictate what is acceptable within society and place constrats so we have limits. This by function structures our society, so why should the issue of marriage be different. Governments purpose is to preserve the society it presides over, as it is the society which forms the government, so basic issues as the structure of society are vital to the governments agenda.

You appearantly mis-read the Bill of Rights.... it was made to address governments forcing and closing ideas of the public in general and individualy, in regards to personal privacy, ideas and beliefs. It was made so individuals could determine their own socio-culture, and not the government. The only social issue which has been on the government agenda since inception is "personal freedom and liberty"... the rest are inventions by totalitarians which hijacked the original work of the Founding Fathers.... Rightists invented the concept of an overlording regime-style government; and both Leftists and Rightist of present day seek to perpetuate this fallacy, which our Founding Fathers had fought against....

Without question, the institution of marriage evolved to support the idea of a family unit. As gays cannot reproduce - by thier own admission - the question is surely moot. They do not need marriage, because they can never have a family that requires the protection of marriage. Hence they should shut up about it.

What are they, chopped liver? They don't deserve eachother's protection?

What if one of them already has a child from a previous heterosexual relationship? Doesn't that child deserve the legal protection of both his parents?

What are they, chopped liver? They don't deserve eachother's protection?

What if one of them already has a child from a previous heterosexual relationship? Doesn't that child deserve the legal protection of both his parents?


Any child from a "previous" relantionship is already protected by law. And indeed already has the protection of both parents.

And yes, they are less than chopped liver. Kids with a gay coupling? Who ever heard such nonsense.

For the government its not a matter of love between two people.. but the product of that love.. for hertero sexuals its the future of this nation.. children.. this isnt nessesarly the case with gay couples.


Listen to this guy, he really knows what he's talking about. We need to deny all rights to people who will not help to overpopulate this country. The govorment will never be stong enough! OBEY!

(I'm sure theres some of you who voted for Bush, so if you're not bright enough to figure it out, this is purely sarcastic)

well on the issue of infertility.. there are many reasons why a woman maybe deemed infertile.. such as if there is somethign wrong with her uterus.. this is not to say her eggs are unusable... there exists methods to help so call infertile couples.

Vittos Ordination: Good thing marriage came along or the human race would have died off.

perhaps the human race would not.. but surely nation states would (and society as we know it today).. i cannot think of one which does not maintain a social structure based around some form of marriage

as to the bill of rights.. perhaps words the rights given were aginst the government from infringing on us.. however.. by declaring these rights, the government set boundries to what we can and cannot do (as well as what they can and cannot do).. speak our minds, hold arms, get a fair trial.. etc. So in away, by providing us with civil rights the government takes an active part in our social culture.. Same can be said of laws... laws are passed by the government and have direct impact on our social culture

also in one part of ur comment "and it ensures that no group, no matter what their beliefs or lifestyles will recieve no special treatment nor will be denied the rights granted to others at the hands of the government." brings up another issue i never really thought of till now..

is marriage a right ? or a privlilage ? <--- this question could have great baring on the entire issue

The purpose of marriage benefits are to create a social interest in stable relationships between people, this is the "glue" which holds a lot of society together. Committed gay couples have every right to the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Having a child has never been a qualification for marriage.

Listen to this guy, he really knows what he's talking about. We need to deny all rights to people who will not help to overpopulate this country. The govorment will never be stong enough! OBEY!

what rights are being denyied ? and isn't it in the best interest of hte government to assure that we have a future.. last i checked that future was children. Im not just trying to push what i belive but what seems logical in the eyes of the government... if u want to argue about how im seeing it thats one thing.. but keep ur partisan dribble to yourself ..

Child bareing has never had to be a qualification because it was always understood as a given outcome in the vast majority of cases

Is marriage a right or privilidge?

Well, let's see, from inception it was a private institution.

It took millenia for government to begin rulling on it.

For more than 4 centuries it existed outside of direct government control in western culture, from the inception of the Magna Carta...

So... is it a right or a privilidge? I'd say it is a right.

If we would stop fucking with, and tearing apart the Common Law (whose absense completely destroys our own foundation)... this whole thing would be a non-issue.

is marriage a right ? or a privlilage ? <--- this question could have great baring on the entire issue

Marriage has been defined as a right many times. First in Loving v Virginia (1967). Then in another case that allowed people currently in prison to marry. It has been held up in the Supreme Court literally dozens of times.

as to the bill of rights.. perhaps words the rights given were aginst the government from infringing on us.. however.. by declaring these rights, the government set boundries to what we can and cannot do

No it doesn't. It is a Bill of RIGHTS, not abilities and limitations.

also in one part of ur comment "and it ensures that no group, no matter what their beliefs or lifestyles will recieve no special treatment nor will be denied the rights granted to others at the hands of the government." brings up another issue i never really thought of till now..

is marriage a right ? or a privlilage ? <--- this question could have great baring on the entire issue

That is a good question. I believe the act of marriage is a right. The benefits of marriage are a privelege. As a right it can't be taken away, as a privelege it can't be denied.

what rights are being denyied ? and isn't it in the best interest of hte government to assure that we have a future.. last i checked that future was children. Im not just trying to push what i belive but what seems logical in the eyes of the government... if u want to argue about how im seeing it thats one thing.. but keep ur partisan dribble to yourself ..

Child bareing has never had to be a qualification because it was always understood as a given outcome in the vast majority of cases


What rights are being denied? How about marriage. Its illogical to me to give rights to one group of people and not the other.

I really dont see as how being in love with someone has to depend on you and that person having to bear children.

But in Loving v Virginia (1967) the decision was based on due process of law.. As states now pass laws based on referendums of the people that due process is established isn't it ? So then is it a right .. or a privliage..

and the argument that marriage was outside the hands of government for centuries in western cutlures is a little obtuse.. can u make that argument.. back then government was more subversivly controlled by the Church.. and of course the Church controlled marriage. I would then argue the Church and government in tandum controled marriage.

That depends on how you see rights Vittos ... are rights inherent.. or are they given to us by governments. I seem to belive the ladder.. I belive there are cases in which governments have suspended civil rights in place of martial law.
If rights themselves are given to us by governments then they can be defined as ablities and limitiations.

And here is a question maybe u can help me answer.. cause i dont understand it.. if marriage is about love.. why is the leading cause of divorce economic ? how do economics interfer with love ? tahts just something i dont understand and i would apreciate your input


How bout this.. if marriage is a right.. and not a privliage.. why then do people have to apply for a marriage lisence ? If it is a right of all people.. the idea of a lisence should be null and void

That depends on how you see rights Vittos ... are rights inherent.. or are they given to us by governments. I seem to belive the ladder.. I belive there are cases in which governments have suspended civil rights in place of martial law.
If rights themselves are given to us by governments then they can be defined as ablities and limitiations.

Rights cannot be bestowed by the government, only taken away.

Look at it this way, if you did not live under a government, would you have no rights, or unlimited rights?

Does no one pay attention around here.

Gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else. They should just stop complaining.

are rights inherent.. or are they given to us by governments.

I disagree with both statements/questions(not sure which, considering punctuation). I think it is not so much as government giving us rights as it is taking them away. If governments existed at no level, think of all the rights we'd have then, but think how easily our rights could be taken away by a person or group stronger than us.

Does no one pay attention around here.

Gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else. They should just stop complaining.

It is views like this that would destroy marriage. This assumes that marriage has nothing to do with love, and is simply based on mindless procreation.

I disagree with both statements/questions(not sure which, considering punctuation). I think it is not so much as government giving us rights as it is taking them away. If governments existed at no level, think of all the rights we'd have then, but think how easily our rights could be taken away by a person or group stronger than us.


ECHO....ECHO....ECHO....ECHO

Does no one pay attention around here.

Gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else. They should just stop complaining.


If by the same you actually mean almost none, then yes, you are correct. Considering gay marriage is being banned in so many states and Bush will probably take it upon himself to prevent such hethans from getting the same rights all other human beings in the United States have.

ECHO....ECHO....ECHO....ECHO
I'm on slow dialup, so I'm about a minute behind here. I started typing that a while ago.

Interseting...

perhaps many rights except that right to live without fear ?
because in a state of no government.. u have no security..

so i would say this is the single right a government can give you.

but in submitting to a government it has been historical fact that you forefit certain rights.. like freedom of action.. you can't very well do whatever you will...

so then the question just comes back to weather or not the government has the right to withhold this right.. if it belives it is in the interest of the social structure..

I will submit then that the bill of rights was meant to keep the govenrment out.. and i was wrong to bring it up.. but in the case of laws... i think my argument still stands.. the government passes laws.. and these laws have great impact on social culture.. so if u belive the government to be a tool in which to bring about order and law which i belive the founding fathers did... then the government was infact ment to shape social culture

oh and im not saying marriage is not about love.. and all about mindless procreation.. im just stating procreation is the reason in which government takes so much interst.. and perhaps for good reason.. i just questioned how much our society belives love plays apart in marriage these days when the primiary reason for divorce is economic disparity

It is views like this that would destroy marriage. This assumes that marriage has nothing to do with love, and is simply based on mindless procreation.

Yes, that's actually how it works.

Thank you.

Yes, that's actually how it works.

Thank you.

So what you think is that couples should not be allowed to get married unless they do it only for the sake of manufacturing children? If two people fall in love and want to spend the rest of their horribly-oppressed life together, they shouldn't have that right? Am I understanding this correctly?

wow this thread led to places i never thought possible :P

but from what i understand from teh constititution.. a right may only be witheld through due process.. as states ban gay marriage.. through popular vote.. isn't then this due process being acheived ? on that note i would express my explict opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriages..

wow this thread led to places i never thought possible :P

but from what i understand from teh constititution.. a right may only be witheld through due process.. as states ban gay marriage.. through popular vote.. isn't then this due process being acheived ? on that note i would express my explict opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriages..

But do the states have the right to ban marriages?

lol.. Tokataur ... no i dont belive couples should only get married to produce children.. but i do belive the government should be sponsoring and encoraging a system which favors couples which do get married for that reason. The government cannot see marriage simply as a product of love.. because then why would restrictions be placed on it at all.. if it was simply about 2 people being in love.. why coudlln't faimly members get married, or children or what have you.. it has to be more about love.. and i have identified child baring as an underlyin issue to each of these cases.

As declared by the constitution.. yes.. they do.. because it is the will of the people. that is due process isnt it ?

But in Loving v Virginia (1967) the decision was based on due process of law.. As states now pass laws based on referendums of the people that due process is established isn't it ? So then is it a right .. or a privliage..

and the argument that marriage was outside the hands of government for centuries in western cutlures is a little obtuse.. can u make that argument.. back then government was more subversivly controlled by the Church.. and of course the Church controlled marriage. I would then argue the Church and government in tandum controled marriage.

The Church lost all power through the 1300's and 1600's culminating in the Common Law, which handed marriage back to the people. Under the Common Law, marriage is nothing more than a profession of union before at least two other witnesses.


That depends on how you see rights Vittos ... are rights inherent.. or are they given to us by governments. I seem to belive the ladder.. I belive there are cases in which governments have suspended civil rights in place of martial law.
If rights themselves are given to us by governments then they can be defined as ablities and limitiations.

Then you don't accept the principle of Common Law, or the foundational documents of the United States, which declare them as inherant.


How bout this.. if marriage is a right.. and not a privliage.. why then do people have to apply for a marriage lisence ? If it is a right of all people.. the idea of a lisence should be null and void

Licenses for marriage are historically recent. And they should be null and void (especially if you are christian)... since the entire concept is nothing more than polygamy anyway (since you are married to the state). It is also because of the system that the state can tell you what you can and cannot teach your kids, they can remove your kids from you; they can disolve your marriage against your will if they want (because they are a party to the contract, they have "rights" in that contract)... and inherantly your children, and you yourself, are property of the state... The system is screwed up, and it's time for the Rightists and Leftists, who continue and perpetuate this travesty of American principles, to be educated.

The government cannot see marriage simply as a product of love.. because then why would restrictions be placed on it at all.. if it was simply about 2 people being in love..


I think you've got it right there, it shouldn't have restrictions on it at all. Although I think family members should not reproduce, its not fair for the children they will produce due to genetic defects.

Then you don't accept the principle of Common Law, or the foundational documents of the United States, which declare them as inherant.

um.. just in reference to this.. can i point out.. only 14 states recognize the common law of marriage .

Then you don't accept the principle of Common Law, or the foundational documents of the United States, which declare them as inherant.

um.. just in reference to this.. can i point out.. only 14 states recognize the common law of marriage .

Can you please rephrase this, I'm having difficulty understanding your statements.

um.. just in reference to this.. can i point out.. only 14 states recognize the common law of marriage .

The United States and before that the Colonies were based upon the Common Law..... all but 14 have totally overturned it... and the remainder have overturned sections of it already...

Our independence was based upon the Common Law as well; without it, US government, state and federal, lacks any legitimacy to exist as independent.

If two people who love each other want a piece of paper from the government declaring it, why cant they. Would this even affect all the people that say they shouldn't have the right to do so? Would you die if two guys could say they were married? Would you even get a rash or a headache? The answer is no.

The government cannot see marriage simply as a product of love.. because then why would restrictions be placed on it at all.. if it was simply about 2 people being in love.. why coudlln't faimly members get married, or children or what have you.. it has to be more about love.. and i have identified child baring as an underlyin issue to each of these cases.


I actually believe that relatives should be allowed to be married for the very same reasons that I believe gays should be allowed to be married. I thought I would say that so my views on this are concurrent. Children aren't legally adults so they can't make the decision of marriage.

As important as that all is.. i belive one clear thing which hobbes found in his own studies..

the single freedom which can be given by government is that to live without fear..

I belive to live within the confinds of government we forfeit some rights.. so that we may enjoy that single right.. which is vastly more valuable (to me.. i speak for not other). the Right to due process is the only way in which such a right maybe recinded so descrbed by the constitution. If the sole question then is do they(the states) have the right to ban gay marriage.. doesn't the answer have to be yes ? or what legitimacy does due process then maintain

If the answer is no.. then can any right ever be taken away.. ?
What of my rigth to ultimate freedom.. to pull out an assult rifle and gun down everyone in sight ? (while this is an extreme case.. i think it still holds in the argument)

I belive to live within the confinds of government we forfeit some rights.. so that we may enjoy that single right.. which is vastly more valuable (to me.. i speak for not other). the Right to due process is the only way in which such a right maybe recinded so descrbed by the constitution. If the sole question then is do they(the states) have the right to ban gay marriage.. doesn't the answer have to be yes ? or what legitimacy does due process then maintain

If the answer is no.. then can any right ever be taken away.. ?
What of my rigth to ultimate freedom.. to pull out an assult rifle and gun down everyone in sight ? (while this is an extreme case.. i think it still holds in the argument)

Pulling out an assault rifle and killing people would kinda impede on their right to life, liberty and happiness, unless you use a pretend assault rifle and just make some gun noises, in which case I think everybody could get a good laugh. If you look at gay people, what rights does them being gay take away from all the non-gay people?

Tokataur If two people who love each other want a piece of paper from the government declaring it, why cant they. Would this even affect all the people that say they shouldn't have the right to do so? Would you die if two guys could say they were married? Would you even get a rash or a headache? The answer is no.

true.. but if ur looking for my personal opnion.. the term marriage carries only a religious significance.. and should not be transposed on a relationship outside religious confinds.. so for me... marriage has no place in gay relationships.. which is why i support civil unions.. will full rights under the law..

I think most people who belive in religion belive the same way.. and see this transpoisition of marriage in a palce where it has no significance demeans what is a sacrid institituion. <----- AND THIS line of thinking can infact have a dramatic impact on marriage itself in the long run as its importance is demiend which will ultimatly lead to a greater divorce rate.

Frankly I have nothing against gay marriage, anyone who does is a arrogant pin head who's only against it because their a homophode or they're local church said the gays will drag them into hell.

As important as that all is.. i belive one clear thing which hobbes found in his own studies..

the single freedom which can be given by government is that to live without fear..

I belive to live within the confinds of government we forfeit some rights.. so that we may enjoy that single right.. which is vastly more valuable (to me.. i speak for not other). the Right to due process is the only way in which such a right maybe recinded so descrbed by the constitution. If the sole question then is do they(the states) have the right to ban gay marriage.. doesn't the answer have to be yes ? or what legitimacy does due process then maintain

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
Thomas Jefferson

Appearantly quite a few people more knowledgable of the issue than yourself, disagree....

Tokataur If two people who love each other want a piece of paper from the government declaring it, why cant they. Would this even affect all the people that say they shouldn't have the right to do so? Would you die if two guys could say they were married? Would you even get a rash or a headache? The answer is no.

true.. but if ur looking for my personal opnion.. the term marriage carries only a religious significance.. and should not be transposed on a relationship outside religious confinds.. so for me... marriage has no place in gay relationships.. which is why i support civil unions.. will full rights under the law..

I think most people who belive in religion belive the same way.. and see this transpoisition of marriage in a palce where it has no significance demeans what is a sacrid institituion. <----- AND THIS line of thinking can infact have a dramatic impact on marriage itself in the long run as its importance is demiend which will ultimatly lead to a greater divorce rate.

What I want to know is how can a church declare marriage sacred when their priests molest children and over 50% of all marriages result in divorce?
And civil unions DO NOT carry the same rights.

Invidentia, tell me how it feels to be an anti-american treacherous torrie...

but my question still holds.. does the government ever have the right to recind a so called right.. if the governmetn can only take away rights .. when then is it ok to act in this manner? what if my actions didn't impact on others rights.. what if i went out and cut down half the worlds trees or something.. everyone still has their right to live how they want blah blah blah.. and i have my right to do what i want when i want.. is the government ever justified in takeing away a right is my question..

seeing how only 14 states left atually recognize common law marriages.. even them having some legislation on them.. am i really the anti-american one.. i belive i share the views of most americans

Besides.. trechory is but a product of timing and preception .. what u may see as trechory today.. may well be seen as heroism tomorrow ~_^ and as your belifs seen as american today may well be anti-american tomorrow

damn i keep making edits :P i REALIZE civil unions dont carry the same rights.. however i support civil unions with the same rights.. i belive this is wher ethe focus should be.. not trying to impose the term marriage on relationships outside religious boundries..

and the product of 50% divorce rates is a clear telling of the desperate postion the insittuion of marriage is in today.. people respect it far less then they once did.. and has been greatly degredated.. the addition of gay marriage into the scene could not have come at a worse time and would only compound the effect.. can u make the argument that the 50% divorce rate has no effect on our society... ?

but my question still holds.. does the government ever have the right to recind a so called right.. if the governmetn can only take away rights .. when then is it ok to act in this manner? what if my actions didn't impact on others rights.. what if i went out and cut down half the worlds trees or something.. everyone still has their right to live how they want blah blah blah.. and i have my right to do what i want when i want.. is the government ever justified in takeing away a right is my question..

No, it is not... That is the essential principle of personal liberty... The only true crime, is a crime perpetuated against someone else...

but my question still holds.. does the government ever have the right to recind a so called right.. if the governmetn can only take away rights .. when then is it ok to act in this manner? what if my actions didn't impact on others rights.. what if i went out and cut down half the worlds trees or something.. everyone still has their right to live how they want blah blah blah.. and i have my right to do what i want when i want.. is the government ever justified in takeing away a right is my question..

You can cut down as many trees as you want, so long as they're your trees. You'll be expected to plant some more if you cut down too many, however, because this could negatively impact the environment.

Can you please use proper english and punctuation, it makes you easier to understand and makes you sound even a little educated.

seeing how only 14 states left atually recognize common law marriages.. even them having some legislation on them.. am i really the anti-american one.. i belive i share the views of most americans

Besides.. trechory is but a product of timing and preception .. what u may see as trechory today.. may well be seen as heroism tomorrow ~_^ and as your belifs seen as american today may well be anti-american tomorrow

"America" is an ideal, a set of principles.... not a majority vote... or a concensus opinion... The government, by an ignorant, petty, and stupid populace, which refuses to assert its rights, is destroying "America"...

I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the foundational principles of this nation.... they are my nation, my principles... Without those principles, you have no right to anything, because your government does not even have a right to exist... Your president has no legitamacy, your life is that of a meaningless servant to tyranical uncheckable power, to be overlorded like the slave you are... Because you are a coward, you cannot stand up for liberty because it is not "in"...

Quite frankly, I've little interest in the preception you hold on my educational level. Im only interseted in putting forth my ideas, which I belive is being done satisfactorally, even if I disreguard a capital letter here or there, or perhaps misuse a comma or period. :rolleyes:

As well, if there is no government restricting my rights, then you maintain I have total rights, so who is to say I cannot cut down your trees. It is my right, since I'm not restricted. What if i decide i wish to damage the enviornment, this is also my right. Born in a world without government we have ultimate and unlimited rights. As you all have established, governments can only take away rights, not give them. So I ask again, at what point can a government actually take away a right ?

You wrong in this. America is about majority rule. America and all its principles are based upon the Constituion you belive in. And this constitution maybe changed at any time amended and ratified by the majority. America is about the voice of the people, ignorant or not. With such spite against ignorance, perhaps only the truely educated people and the elite should rule our country, our ideals, since they know best. I belive America was built stricktly against this point

it ensures that no group, no matter what their beliefs or lifestyles will recieve no special treatment nor will be denied the rights granted to others at the hands of the government.

I find that slightly ironic considering certain racist policies, (or at least tolerance), between its formation and the mid-1900s...

Quite frankly, I've little interest in the preception you hold on my educational level. Im only interseted in putting forth my ideas, which I belive is being done satisfactorally, even if I disreguard a capital letter here or there, or perhaps misuse a comma or period. :rolleyes:

As well, if there is no government restricting my rights, then you maintain I have total rights, so who is to say I cannot cut down your trees. It is my right, since I'm not restricted. What if i decide i wish to damage the enviornment, this is also my right. Born in a world without government we have ultimate and unlimited rights. As you all have established, governments can only take away rights, not give them. So I ask again, at what point can a government actually take away a right ?

Your rights extend to the limits of the rights of another... You come onto my land, and cut down my trees, I exercize my right to stop you... by force if necessary... Because, I have MY rights as well.....

But this concept does not extend to "victimless" situations... Two men getting married do not do harm to your rights... Two men getting married does not effect me or my wife's rights or our marriage... The fact that it is resisted is indicative of a people more concerned with control and living as slaves, than being free and libertine people.... A total afront to all the blood spilt by my ancestors to make bring us "America" the principles.

Perhaps you would like to rethink your usage of the term legitmate for our president. From what I understand legitimacy is acheived by the general acceptance of the populous. Perhaps in your mind he is not legitimate. But that is only your mind. In fact he has acheived legitmacy for what its worth in this country.

Quite frankly, I've little interest in the preception you hold on my educational level. Im only interseted in putting forth my ideas, which I belive is being done satisfactorally, even if I disreguard a capital letter here or there, or perhaps misuse a comma or period. :rolleyes:

As well, if there is no government restricting my rights, then you maintain I have total rights, so who is to say I cannot cut down your trees. It is my right, since I'm not restricted. What if i decide i wish to damage the enviornment, this is also my right. Born in a world without government we have ultimate and unlimited rights. As you all have established, governments can only take away rights, not give them. So I ask again, at what point can a government actually take away a right ?

The government can take away your right to freedom of religion, as it has in many other countries. They can take away your economic choices, which are granted as a right in the US. They can take away your right to bear arms. Heck, if a government was oppressive enough, they could take away your right to breathe at your own pace.

As the institution of marriage is degraded which we see today with people not thinking about the consequences, devorce becomes more common. Devorce casues extreme psychological distress on the immediate faimly structure, especially the children, and sometimes can have lasting effects. Such lasting effects can have direct impact on the future of the society, higher psychological problems, higher health insurance costs.. etc.

i don't agree with your assumption. the increase in divorce rates might be due in part to people not thinking about consequences, but it might also be due to the fact that divorce is now a viable option for marriages that NEED to end. in the past, a woman who was being beaten by her husband had either no legal option for divorce or had to face being destitute after leaving her husband...now she can leave him legally and fairly. couples that were miserable together used to be forced to stay married no matter what, but now they can agree to part ways for the best of all involved. just because people weren't getting divorced doesn't mean their marriages were happier or that marriage was in a better place, it just means that there weren't as many options for people who's marriages are in serious trouble.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

as i recall.. the referendum on banning gay marriage was that due process of law

True.. in the past this was one reason why divorce was need.. but in this day and age statistics now show that the leading case of divorce is economic disparity, not infidelity not physical abuse... When economics become the reason why love dies.. perhaps it is because people are not infact taking into account the consequences of their actions

There is a simple answer to this question. People's rights should not be HAMPERED, as a result of their sexual orientation. By best friend is Gay, and he is the nicest person in the World. If my friend finds his soul mate, I want him to have the chance to marry this man, so that they can be happy. How would you feel if our society was the complete opposite, and Heterosexuals were banned from marrying a person from the opposite sex. Government should not intervene on the issue of MARRIAGE.
P.S.- Also, most homosexuals do not choose to be Gay. When I asked my best friend why he chose to be Gay, he said this (and of course Im paraphrasing)! "Why would I choose this kind of life for myself. If I could have been Straight, I would have. Why would I choose a life filled with persecution! I just do not know why I am attracted to men, I was born this way!"

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

as i recall.. the referendum on banning gay marriage was that due process of law

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I do not belive being gay is a choice... and i think your firend should have the right to be with his partner.. and i wish that instead of pushing for the term marriage placed upon their relationship.. they should be pushing to have civil unions be made equal.. as well i think those individtuals heterosexual or not who join under the confidnds of the state should be put under the umbrella of civil union.. not marriage.. because as i said before.. marriage is a religious instititution.. and should not be used for those being joined out side of a religious confinds

also this is deviating from the original purpose of this posting.. it was suppose to be on the persepective of the government on the issues of gay marriage and why it might be important to them ^_^

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

this is all about interpretation.. religion has been within the structure of our government since its inception.. the judiciary, the executive and legislative branches.. our currency... to say religion has NO place in government.. is to deny clear fact of the founding fathers

Government has interviened in marriage all this while.. family members can't be wed, children can't be wed, poligamists can't be wed... what makes this situation different ?

Government has interviened in marriage all this while.. family members can't be wed, children can't be wed, poligamists can't be wed... what makes this situation different ?


Family members cant be wed because of genetic flaws occuring. Children cant be wed because they are unable to consent to marriage. Poligamists cant be wed because it would destroy the tax dependancy system, and I have nothing against poligamy, I don't know why they dont just find a way around it. Now, what non-religious reason can you give that gays cant marry?

You wrong in this. America is about majority rule. America and all its principles are based upon the Constituion you belive in. And this constitution maybe changed at any time amended and ratified by the majority. America is about the voice of the people, ignorant or not. With such spite against ignorance, perhaps only the truely educated people and the elite should rule our country, our ideals, since they know best. I belive America was built stricktly against this point

I'm here to educate... If people, like yourself, however, when presented with the knowledge of the foundational principles of this nation, and still choose to live as slaves, and be cowards, and refuse to stand up for what America really is, and why it is.... that is your own doing... However, I will warn you... I will not go down without a fight... I'd rather die free, than live as a slave.

Not to mention, The Bill of Rights cannot be ammended without nullifying the Constitution as a whole, since the initial ratification was made on the agreement of their absolute inclusivity... Without any of them the contract is nulified, and the Constitution becomes completely and LEGALLY annuled, and with it the entire government of the United States and all of its officers.

Government is not as all powerful as you wish to make them, ya torry... Nor will I ever let them usurp all power...

Amendment I is being violated consistently by both leftists and rightists... neither side can lay claim to it with how they are presently pandering about...

This is why so many benifits are given to couples who marry???


What are these benefits then????

This is why so many benifits are given to couples who marry???


What are these benefits then????

Marriage counseling. You have to be married to get that. *nod*

Marriage counseling. You have to be married to get that. *nod*

This is not a benefit me thinks
More of a hinderence really.

I dont need some beardy tree hugging hippy telling me im not in touch with my wife.

Show me the money on this benefits thing

lol

This is why so many benifits are given to couples who marry???


What are these benefits then????


You cant have family insurance, can't get a family credit card, can't see your significant other in the hospital unless you're a married couple.

You cant have family insurance, can't get a family credit card, can't see your significant other in the hospital unless you're a married couple.

still waiting for the benefits here

still waiting for the benefits here

Getting insurance for two individuals is a lot more expensive than it is to get insurance for a husband and wife. You cannot count unrelated people as dependants on your taxes, theres a lot.

Getting insurance for two individuals is a lot more expensive than it is to get insurance for a husband and wife. You cannot count unrelated people as dependants on your taxes, theres a lot.


I take it this is US based??

I have seen some of you ask this question.. and i suppose its a good one, and gives the governmental persepective on a hot issue.

Some of you wonder why the government has any interest in the addition of gays to the instittuion of marriage.

Marriage is the social base in our social structure.. the family unit is built around the idea of a man and a woman as parental units.

As the institution of marriage is degraded which we see today with people not thinking about the consequences, devorce becomes more common. Devorce casues extreme psychological distress on the immediate faimly structure, especially the children, and sometimes can have lasting effects. Such lasting effects can have direct impact on the future of the society, higher psychological problems, higher health insurance costs.. etc.

Its in the governments best interest to protect the social structure we have, because without it our society can quickly degrade. This is why so many benifits are given to couples who marry, as opposed to staying single.. because married people contribute more to the advancement of our society by bareing our future.. being children.

while i dont belive gay couples (who seek to be parents) should be denyed the rights that married couples get, i don't belive gays have a place in the instituion of marriage.. if its just an issue of equal rights civil unions should be made equal..

but more imporantantly.. form the perspective of the government.. why should they award rights to a couple who wont nessesarly inherently contribute to the advancement of the society through child bareing as opposed to married heterosexuals.

For the government its not a matter of love between two people.. but the product of that love.. for hertero sexuals its the future of this nation.. children.. this isnt nessesarly the case with gay couples.

IF marriage is indeed to protect child bearing as you say, then I DEMAND that marriage rights be withheld from those who might marry just to receive the benefits without adding to our great nations next generation. ALL WHO WANT MARRIAGES LICENSES MUST TAKE AND RECEIVE A POSITIVE RESULT ON PREGNANCY TESTS.

And considering how DIVORCE destroys the delicate psychological fabric of a child, these people, should be possibly be imprisoned, but must definitely not be allowed to remarry again lest they damage more of our future!!!111!!!!

While we're at it, why not just disolve all marriages after the wife has passed menopause, since she will not be able to bear children anymore. Or better yet, all couples past childbearing age of the wife, shall be carted off to the Soylent Green plant, so they can be made into food to support the growing population...

seeing how only 14 states left atually recognize common law marriages.. even them having some legislation on them.. am i really the anti-american one.. i belive i share the views of most americans

Besides.. trechory is but a product of timing and preception .. what u may see as trechory today.. may well be seen as heroism tomorrow ~_^ and as your belifs seen as american today may well be anti-american tomorrow

damn i keep making edits :P i REALIZE civil unions dont carry the same rights.. however i support civil unions with the same rights.. i belive this is wher ethe focus should be.. not trying to impose the term marriage on relationships outside religious boundries..

and the product of 50% divorce rates is a clear telling of the desperate postion the insittuion of marriage is in today.. people respect it far less then they once did.. and has been greatly degredated.. the addition of gay marriage into the scene could not have come at a worse time and would only compound the effect.. can u make the argument that the 50% divorce rate has no effect on our society... ?

So why the initial rant against *gay* marriages? Why did you not rant about any *non-religious* ceremony being called a marriage?

Why did you not begin by saying that *marriage* is, in your mind, a *religious term*, and that the *government*, being a secular institution, should bow out of the marriage busienss all togther. If and only if the government wishes to hand out rights based on union, then it should be handed out to all people equally regardless of sexual preference, and should be called civil union? In which case, *legal protections* would be granted *solely* through civil unions.

Of course, you would also have to accept that *marriage* as a *religious institution* is not limited to Christianity, and homosexuals belonging to religious traditions that allow and celebrate homosexual marriage, would be allowed to call their religious union a marriage.

Perhaps you would like to rethink your usage of the term legitmate for our president. From what I understand legitimacy is acheived by the general acceptance of the populous. Perhaps in your mind he is not legitimate. But that is only your mind. In fact he has acheived legitmacy for what its worth in this country.

So you are saying that Bush's first term was wholly illegitimate then.....

Whoever it was said that gay people have the same right to marriage as straights (I forget who) is a fool.

Listen carefully. Heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they love. Homosexuals do not have that right.

As usual no one has given a half-decent argument against gay marriage. This is because there isn't one.

Gay marriage would not harm anyone, and would make a lot of people happy, and give them more rights. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Or rather, it shouldn't be.

I'm all for gay marriage.

My divorce attorney friends need the money...

well i will end my posting on this thread now since people are no long reading the beginning of it and it has left the scope of where i wanted it to stay (being the perception of hte government not my personal feelings)
however one last reply to tekania

I'm here to educate... If people, like yourself, however, when presented with the knowledge of the foundational principles of this nation, and still choose to live as slaves, and be cowards, and refuse to stand up for what America really is, and why it is.... that is your own doing... However, I will warn you... I will not go down without a fight... I'd rather die free, than live as a slave.

Not to mention, The Bill of Rights cannot be ammended without nullifying the Constitution as a whole, since the initial ratification was made on the agreement of their absolute inclusivity... Without any of them the contract is nulified, and the Constitution becomes completely and LEGALLY annuled, and with it the entire government of the United States and all of its officers.

Government is not as all powerful as you wish to make them, ya torry... Nor will I ever let them usurp all power...

If you are here to educate as you say, then educate correctly. When you say the bill of Rights cannot be ammended Im sure u mean It could be ammended as the consitituion provides as many times as the states will have the support to ammend it; since of course it has in the past, first to introduce prohibtion then to repeal it, then to give women the right to vote, along with a miriad of other amendments... and im sure u didn't mean to say that this has happend already along ur guidle lines since the amdendment giving the women the right of vote bearly passed... Im glad your speaking of founational principels, when this nation was founded on Puritian principles.. perhaps in your own mind you belive this government was meant to be purly secular, however, the fact that religion has remained in government confindes since the dawn of its inception clearly disputes this misconception.

and to voilets and kitties, i donot belive, and see no eveidence to suggest thie fact that this government is 100% secular.. nor was ever meant to be.. one must only look as far as our judicial system and the supreme court to see this reality, every time they take the bench. As such MARRIAGES should be given the rights they have, as should civil unions.. and my rant was against gay MARRIAGES because i wished to make the point of non-religious marriages as a clear seporation.. also this thread was suppose to stay focused on government perception, i was trying to help those who coudln't understand why the government would take such an interest on this realize thee reasons.

and to the person who dosn't see the benifits of marriage there are many, like the insurance, also property inheritance, gays can't leave property to their partners, and when hospitalized dont have the rights of family members to see them when they wish, and actually pay more taxes annually, because married couples get a tax exemption, even more so with each child they have. So the rights in question are very substantial, which is why this is so important..

and do not accept the idea that bush's first term lacked legitmacy, since we do not run on a popular vote system (for good reason) otherwise it would be NEw York California and TExas which decide the vote for the nation every 4 years, and the concerns of smaller states would never be addressed. the electoral vote system clearly legitimized bush's first term.. and his overhwelming victory in the second round of elections only fortifies this idea

Are you guys fucking idiots or what?

It's hilarious that you bring divorce into this.

Check up on what states have what divorce rates. Here's a hint: BIg Gay Mass. has the lowest. Bible belt states have the highest.

Oh, and the US is (supposed to be) purely secular. Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli.



Pfh, anything else? Stop wasting my time, go out and do your homework.

Without question, the institution of marriage evolved to support the idea of a family unit. As gays cannot reproduce - by thier own admission - the question is surely moot. They do not need marriage, because they can never have a family that requires the protection of marriage. Hence they should shut up about it.
If that's true then surely nobdoy "needs" marriage. It's not like you can't reproduce without being married.

while i dont belive gay couples (who seek to be parents) should be denyed the rights that married couples get, i don't belive gays have a place in the instituion of marriage.. if its just an issue of equal rights civil unions should be made equal...No offense, but this sounds like more of the same old "separate but equal" argument that kept blacks from using the same water fountains, eating at the same restaurants, sitting in the same seats at the front of the bus, or going to the same schools as the whites. Separate but equal has been proven throughout history to be anything BUT equal. It was used to exclude blacks from goods and services and it created usually INFERIOR services for blacks.

The only way that I would accept civil unions as an alternative to marriage is if civil unions applied to opposite-sex couples and conferred all the benefits of marriage. In fact, I would say that the benefits incumbent upon marriage should be transferred to civil unions for civil unions to be a viable option instead of full marriage for same-sex couples.

just give them there rights and let them have marrage and stop being so damn homophobic!!!!

Sarzonia ... i hold the same stance u do.. i think civil unions should be transferable to the opposite sexual preference and should be given equal rights.. i dont deny gays deserve the rights marriage recieves under the eyes of the government.. but the use of the term marriage is wrong for them.

and for me this is not an issue of homophobia.. because im not.. rather it is an issue of the degredation of the insitition of marriage itself.. and ive already explained how gays further degrade the fragile institition in my other postings
just the same way allowing children to marry would degrade it, and family members, and poligamists..

Here we go with the "degrade the institution of marriage" and then the "list of bullshit, I know nothing of history, reasons for it"

#1) How does polygamy "degrade the institution of marriage" ?
#2) How does homosexual unions "degrade the institution of marriage" ?
#3) How do underage marriages "degrade the institution of marriage" ?

*Note, and watch out for bibilical/historical refferences.... because if you pull them out; you're going to get a 10ton weight of refutation from history dropped on your head...

Why does anyone care?

We're certainly not talking about a significant portion of the population. So, who cares?

I don't. Live and let live. And if gay and lesbian people want to experience the misery of marriage, who are we to stop them?

I am a bit confused how exactly two people who love each other, to the exclusion of all others, getting married can degrade marriage, no matter what the sexual preferences of the partners.Gays marrying would'nt degrade or change my marriage, in any way, one bit.

If you want a defintition of degrading marriage, how about these celebrity marriages of convienience, that crappy reality TV show where 100 gold-diggers were gradually whittled down to one, who married a man she did'nt know for money, quickie Vegas marriages and divorces or Brittany Spires getting married for a "joke". They are all man and woman marriages, but degrade the very idea of marriage a hell of a lot more than gay marriage could ever hope too.

Are you guys fucking idiots or what?

It's hilarious that you bring divorce into this.

Check up on what states have what divorce rates. Here's a hint: BIg Gay Mass. has the lowest. Bible belt states have the highest.

Oh, and the US is (supposed to be) purely secular. Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli.

Pfh, anything else? Stop wasting my time, go out and do your homework.

Goed Twee im sorry you feel like im wasting your time.. but perhaps u should do YOUR homework. You pull that statement out of context and smear it accros a vast and broad issue

First of all.. there is a generally accepted interpreation of that treaty which distincly seporates the christian religion (European Christianity and American Christianity) which is why following the line "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"
is "as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation"

The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "enlightened," 19 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20 and by John Adams as "rational." 21 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries.

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.22

Washingtons effort was to make clear that America was not founded on the principles of EUROPEAN christianity, but that infact America was a christian Nation.

How can y ou say this nation was not built on the foundations of religion when adams,a founding father himself stated:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 25

AS i have argued.. While the founding fathers sought to prevent the government from forcing any single particular religion.. they never meant the government to be void from all aspects of religion, as elements of religion and christianity in their minds were equivalent to those of human nature.

WAsn't it though.. why impose a bill of rights if it was not meant to address the issues of socio culture ? The government since its inception has made a stance on social issues, because it is in the intrest of the stability of the nation for it to do so.
The Bill of Rights was meant to LIMIT government powers over the people, and here you are trying to use it as an arguement for expanded government powers to regulate culture and social progress!?
This prompts me to wonder if you have any understanding at all of American Government and the Constitution. The Bill of Rights functions to expand individual freedoms, not to increase the powers of any central authority.

Sarzonia ... i hold the same stance u do.. i think civil unions should be transferable to the opposite sexual preference and should be given equal rights.. i dont deny gays deserve the rights marriage recieves under the eyes of the government.. but the use of the term marriage is wrong for them.

Why don't you decide what's right for you, and let us decide what's "right" or "wrong" for us?

and for me this is not an issue of homophobia.. because im not.. rather it is an issue of the degredation of the insitition of marriage itself.. and ive already explained how gays further degrade the fragile institition in my other postings
just the same way allowing children to marry would degrade it, and family members, and poligamists..
Marraige is not an entity. It cannot be degraded. No individual marriage affects the well-being of any other marraige. Your precious heterosexual marriage is only as "degraded" as you percieve it to be. In other words, it's all in your head.

Goed Twee im sorry you feel like im wasting your time.. but perhaps u should do YOUR homework. You pull that statement out of context and smear it accros a vast and broad issue

First of all.. there is a generally accepted interpreation of that treaty which distincly seporates the christian religion (European Christianity and American Christianity) which is why following the line "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"
is "as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation"

The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "enlightened," 19 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20 and by John Adams as "rational." 21 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries.

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.22

Washingtons effort was to make clear that America was not founded on the principles of EUROPEAN christianity, but that infact America was a christian Nation.

How can y ou say this nation was not built on the foundations of religion when adams,a founding father himself stated:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 25

AS i have argued.. While the founding fathers sought to prevent the government from forcing any single particular religion.. they never meant the government to be void from all aspects of religion, as elements of religion and christianity in their minds were equivalent to those of human nature.

Most of the foundational work was deism, not christianity... Deism was an enlightenment religion, Washington, Franklin, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison were all Deists...

You are right however, that there intentions were never to make it devoid... but in no way was it either to be made part of our law.

Why don't you decide what's right for you, and let us decide what's "right" or "wrong" for us?


Marraige is not an entity. It cannot be degraded. No individual marriage affects the well-being of any other marraige. Your precious heterosexual marriage is only as "degraded" as you percieve it to be. In other words, it's all in your head.

Because Marriage is an instititution.. vital to our society [definition: A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society]

and it can be degraded.. 50% divorce rate degrades the insitition of marriage, because now it is seen lightly, you can enter and leave marriage at will, meanwhile more broken homes are made. and the societal impacts are grave, on individuals, and more importantly on children.. This isn't an issue just effecting individuals, it effects society, and the family unit.

Acceptance of gay marriage further degrades it, because marriage then becomes less mutually exclusive.. we have always placed exclusions on marriage, and child marriage, on poligiamist marriages, on interblood marriages, and yes on gay marriage. By making it less mutually exclusive, you degrade marriage in the minds of the masses, making it less important. People see marriage as a formality, and you easily have occurances which greatly impact society.

And in our society, we do not just decide our own ehtical/moral stances for ourselves, we decide them for our society, through debate and democracy, which is what is happening now.

as simple as thoughs who are in favor of gay marriage would liek to make this issue seem, marriage is vastly complex and effects many areas of our society. You cannot change it so lightly without considering the repocussions. It is not simply a matter of what is right and wrong for u or me.. but for the whole of society. Perhaps in ur mind by allowing gays it makes no difference.. but this is not so in the minds of million of otehrs, wheater they be right or wrong.. and making such a dramatic change and ignoring this fact will have devestating consequeces.. it is so clear now that gay marriage (atleast for now) has no place in our society.. and by trying to push it through the courts.. side stepping hte voice of the people.. supporters of gay marraige do themselves no favors..
as we now have consititional amendments banning it in atleast 11 states, more to come for sure

For the sake of fucking sanity.

As a gay man, I feel I speak for everyone here when I say:

Drop the fucking subject already!

It's been done to death before and no matter what people say on here it isn't going to make any bloody difference. If anyone on here really had an opinion on it, they'd actually get off their arses and do something about it instead of bitching constantly on a bloody forum.

Yeesh, this is getting as bad as the damn Wicca vs wicca war...