Bush and Marriage

Hmm, well see, 12 states(at least as far as I know of) have already heled a referendum on the issue of gay marriage and each state voted to ban it.(even California) and to have the government legalize it without a vote would just probably anger a whole lot of the population.(you must remember, America is generally more conservative then Canada or western Europe)

 

Going back to the first post a minute, the anti gay marriage people I've talked to say that it would weaken the institution of marriage and mess up kid's heads, but none of them have been able to elaborate. I would love someone to elaborate so I can understand the viewpoint, but it seems they can't even explain it!

 

Hmmmmm, another old wives' tale w/no plausible explanation?

At least that the impression I get - an irrational prejudice.

 

Well, most likely so, considering I've enouraged them to elaborate every time. Of course they just act like I'm being sarcastic (even though I'm careful to be nonjudgemental for the sake of getting information)

 

But with the seperation of goverment and religous marriage the issue changes. Now you can throw out ALL religous arguments since the whole debate becomes only if 2 same sex partners can be classed as together under the law and only that the law.

 

They don't want to hold that argument.

They want to impose their Religious Beliefs on the entire Country...

 

Yet the US is not suppose to have a offical religion, meaning the goverment is not suppose to endorse one religion over another. Thus if they quote the bible someone has the right to counter with a quote from Buddha.

With so many different religious views the only way the US can uphold freedom of religion is to keep religion at arms lenght.

 

What do you do though when that religious group makes up the majority and the majority is what decides.

 

omg. i know. it's SUCH a tough world. imagine.

 

That's not directly applicable to US Federal/State Governments.

Here's one of the many explanations available online.
It's immaterial what political/religious bias the author presents as a definition is a definition.

 

The definition is kinda limmited, democracy can be setup differently for example under anarchy (that is a democratic system) individuals don't have duties and obligations to the government as anarchy is voluntary (under anarchy the goverment can only ask people not order) and the government is the citizens under anarchy.

Under anarchy even if the majority is aginst you have the RIGHT to ignore. For example if the majority doesn't want gay marriage, well find a pocket that does and under anarchy that pocket has a right to ingore the majority and marry themselves.

 

I love this! This is exactly what conservative government officials and the religious right want you to believe. It is true, but ONLY SINCE 1996!!!

Before the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 was passed, any legal definition of marriage was completely devoid of sex terms.

 

...This is true regardless of the marriage "type" you are referring to. Some states allow marriage between first cousins, other states classify that as incestuous...etc, etc, etc...

 

"Traditionally" women were property of their husbands, blacks and whites could not marry (though other races could), slave marriages were recognized only at the whim of the slave master - and had no legal standing, marriages were more commonly arranged for financial benefit of the family, and lacked love altogether (usually). All of these things have changed, and they have changed very recently, and infuriated many people. Modern marriage, the way we know it, has only existed about 150 years...

My point is, so what if we piss a few more people off!

History has proven that any definition of "traditional marriage" is not congruent with our modern social priorities. History has also shown that, while some people may have been angered, each change in marriage has not been an integral contributor to the "decay" of the "institution" of marriage, like a spoke of a wheel. Instead, many other social problems contribute to such "decay", such as quickie divorce, etc.

We should not stop the progress we have made over the past 150 years! A loving, commited relationship with mutual benefit and responsibility should be encouraged (or AT LEAST allowed) for all segments of the population.

 

""Traditionally" women were property of their husbands, blacks and whites could not marry (though other races could), slave marriages were recognized only at the whim of the slave master - and had no legal standing, marriages were more commonly arranged for financial benefit of the family, and lacked love altogether (usually). All of these things have changed, and they have changed very recently, and infuriated many people. Modern marriage, the way we know it, has only existed about 150 years...
My point is, so what if we piss a few more people off!"

Exactly, seems like the naysayers completly forgot about all that. My mom was saying guys used to be able to beat thier wives, or it was socielly acceptable and she was trying to explain that "even though gayness is acceptable now, it doesn't mean it's right" I swear to God for a second I thought she had come to her senses because it sounded like she was trying to say 'not allowing gay marriage is like letting guys beat their wives'...but oh well.

 

1 traditional thing that has always been around about marriage though is that it's been between a man and a woman, which is the whole point in this argument, not the wife being the property of the man or blacks not being allowed to marry whites.

 

DOMA is unconstitutional anyway, because it violates the full faith and credit clause. That's a technicality, though, and is not the primary reason I support same-sex marriage. The main reason I support it is that same-sex couples will continue to raise kids, and it is only fair to those kids to give their parents the legal benefits of marriage. BTW, I would argue that the word "marriage" in and of itself is a legal benefit of marriage. The other reason I support it is that under the law, marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, and there is absolutely no reason that two conseting adults should not be allowed to enter into a contract with each other.

Alex

 

yep. and they really hate it when you bring up the divorce rate in this country as a shining example of strengthening the institution of marriage and providing a sound environment for children. God, blah blah, god, yada yada

anyway, this wheel goes round and round, so my piece as a bona fide American citizen... I could care less who gets married to who or how many are involved. I don't give a hoot if someone wants to marry their pet parakeet. I simply just don't care and it's really none of my business to begin with.

 

"1 traditional thing that has always been around about marriage though is that it's been between a man and a woman, which is the whole point in this argument, not the wife being the property of the man or blacks not being allowed to marry whites."

That's not entirely honest. The idea of it being between a man and a woman is just the ONLY traditional thing left. The point of bringing up the old traditions is to prove that things aren't neccessarily better just because they're "traditional"

"anyway, this wheel goes round and round, so my piece as a bona fide American citizen... I could care less who gets married to who or how many are involved. I don't give a hoot if someone wants to marry their pet parakeet. I simply just don't care and it's really none of my business to begin with."

Exactly! Why the hell does anyone care about stuff that's not going to affect them? The only thing that would bother me is if grown people could marry kids, but that's already fucking legal! You just have to have the parent's permission, and maybe you have to be at least 14 or something