Originally posted by Draenor What did I miss that made Thomas Jefferson the topic of discussion??
It usually has to do with people misrepresenting what Jefferson stood for on these forums.
Somehow the "wisdom" of the talk radio hosts has overtaken people who actually study him and know what he stood for. But who would have thunk that talk radio hosts would mislead their listeners?
OK...this is my final view on this Gay marriage crap.
Medically, some same-sex acts cause damage to human tissue and are associated with a variety of infectious diseases. People who regularly practice such acts statistically have a shortened life span and a poorer quality of life.
Also, sexual relationships between people of the same sex--particularly men--have a much briefer duration than heterosexual marriage. As a result, both children and society in general suffer. Children need a stable home life with two parents present, each modeling a distinct gender.
If the purpose for marriage were simply to satisfy the desire of different individuals at a particular moment, there would be no reason to prevent all manner of groups from defining themselves as married. Why not allow three men to be married? What about two women and a child? What about two men and an animal? It is ludicrous to suggest that our laws should be changed to accommodate such bizarre arrangements.
It is foolish for us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the adoption of same-sex marriage won't affect us. It will.
Originally posted by outfctrl OK...this is my final view on this Gay marriage crap.
Medically, some same-sex acts cause damage to human tissue and are associated with a variety of infectious diseases. People who regularly practice such acts statistically have a shortened life span and a poorer quality of life. Also, sexual relationships between people of the same sex--particularly men--have a much briefer duration than heterosexual marriage. As a result, both children and society in general suffer. Children need a stable home life with two parents present, each modeling a distinct gender. If the purpose for marriage were simply to satisfy the desire of different individuals at a particular moment, there would be no reason to prevent all manner of groups from defining themselves as married. Why not allow three men to be married? What about two women and a child? What about two men and an animal? It is ludicrous to suggest that our laws should be changed to accommodate such bizarre arrangements. It is foolish for us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the adoption of same-sex marriage won't affect us. It will.
And how is that any different than a single mother raising 5 kids? Expecially when that mother is poor and her ex husband doesn't pay child support, children suffer either way. It doesn't matter who loves them, it is the fact that someone does.
In truth, the government, by it's own doctrine, doesn't have the right to control marriages of any kinds, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or polygimous. Would it affect society to your liking? No. But just because you dislike a group doesn't give you the right to take away their rights.
Originally posted by outfctrl OK...this is my final view on this Gay marriage crap.
Medically, some same-sex acts cause damage to human tissue and are associated with a variety of infectious diseases. People who regularly practice such acts statistically have a shortened life span and a poorer quality of life. Also, sexual relationships between people of the same sex--particularly men--have a much briefer duration than heterosexual marriage. As a result, both children and society in general suffer. Children need a stable home life with two parents present, each modeling a distinct gender. If the purpose for marriage were simply to satisfy the desire of different individuals at a particular moment, there would be no reason to prevent all manner of groups from defining themselves as married. Why not allow three men to be married? What about two women and a child? What about two men and an animal? It is ludicrous to suggest that our laws should be changed to accommodate such bizarre arrangements. It is foolish for us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the adoption of same-sex marriage won't affect us. It will.
Do you ever think that maybe the things you listed are caused by the isolation and grief that society causes for gay people through their homophobic attitudes?
I've known plenty of gay people that are comfortable with themselves and who take care of their health, are in long term relationships, and care deeply about their friends, neighbors, and families.
Then there are gay's who can't take the pressure of being ostracized for something they have no control over. How would that make you feel? Every relationship you're in is scrutinized. You're denied the same rights that heterosexuals are. You're stuck in a deep seated self loathing. And on top of that you are told that you are not welcome in certain religions because you're going to hell for being an abomination. Would you feel like a swell loving guy after that? Lot's of people would not.
Originally posted by outfctrl I could care less who is Gay and who is not. It doesnt bother me. I just dont feel marriage should enter the picture.
As a very conservative catholic, I agree. As I libertarian, I'd say government shouldn't enter the picture at all. It's just not the role of govenment. Repeal all marriage laws. Anything that even remotely brings it up.
This shouldn't even be in the political arena. I think my philosophy is practical. I do believe in moral absolutes handed down by a divine God. However, in the case of consenting adults, government force should be left aside. Only when one infringes upon the rights of another, the only legit role of government. As a free individual you'd still be able to refrain from personally recognizing forms of marriage you dissaprove of. It's important to remember the two-edged nature of government. Tomorrow government may officially recognize forms of marriage you find deviant. Again, it's best to just get government out of it.
If the there was no control by the Federal Government, things would get out of hand.
So any two people can get married, what is so magical about the number two. Why not have three or four or more in a marriage? Just think the whole football team could marry. Then what is so special about marrying people, why not allow marriage of people and dogs or cats?
It's a breakdown of humanity. What is wrong IS wrong, doesn't matter how many people say it should be okay. Good for America that we have a morally strong President who has the guts to stand against any law to sanction same-sex marriage.
If we are going to make marriage an equal opportunity institution that doesn't discriminate against people who have sexual appetites that are different from those of the majority of the population, shouldn't we consider group marriage in addition to same-sex marriage?
Let's say that five homosexual men want to marry each other because they enjoy having sex with each other. On what basis can the government justify discriminating against these five men? Sure, one could argue that since these five men aren't in monogomous sexual relationships they shouldn't have access to the institution of marriage. But what gives government the right to decide that monogomy is morally superior to other sexual lifestyles?
And what if an adult brother and sister want to get married? Let's say they don't plan to have sexual relations with each other but just want to make a statement about how much they love each other? What gives government the right to be bigoted and deny them marriage?
I am playing devil's advocate. I think that if government is going to have a civil institution called marriage, it is inevitable that government make value judgements as to which relationships qualify. Accordingly, I believe that civil marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
Comments
Somehow the "wisdom" of the talk radio hosts has overtaken people who actually study him and know what he stood for. But who would have thunk that talk radio hosts would mislead their listeners?
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
Medically, some same-sex acts cause damage to human tissue and are associated
with a variety of infectious diseases. People who regularly practice such acts
statistically have a shortened life span and a poorer quality of life.
Also, sexual relationships between people of the same sex--particularly
men--have a much briefer duration than heterosexual marriage. As a result, both
children and society in general suffer. Children need a stable home life with
two parents present, each modeling a distinct gender.
If the purpose for marriage were simply to satisfy the desire of different
individuals at a particular moment, there would be no reason to prevent all
manner of groups from defining themselves as married. Why not allow three men to
be married? What about two women and a child? What about two men and an animal?
It is ludicrous to suggest that our laws should be changed to accommodate such
bizarre arrangements.
It is foolish for us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the adoption
of same-sex marriage won't affect us. It will.
Gay people don't affect you in any way shape or form, to say that they do makes you somewhat of a retard.
me. I just dont feel marriage should enter the picture.
In truth, the government, by it's own doctrine, doesn't have the right to control marriages of any kinds, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or polygimous. Would it affect society to your liking? No. But just because you dislike a group doesn't give you the right to take away their rights.
I've known plenty of gay people that are comfortable with themselves and who take care of their health, are in long term relationships, and care deeply about their friends, neighbors, and families.
Then there are gay's who can't take the pressure of being ostracized for something they have no control over. How would that make you feel? Every relationship you're in is scrutinized. You're denied the same rights that heterosexuals are. You're stuck in a deep seated self loathing. And on top of that you are told that you are not welcome in certain religions because you're going to hell for being an abomination. Would you feel like a swell loving guy after that? Lot's of people would not.
As a very conservative catholic, I agree. As I libertarian, I'd say government shouldn't enter the picture at all. It's just not the role of govenment. Repeal all marriage laws. Anything that even remotely brings it up.
This shouldn't even be in the political arena. I think my philosophy is practical. I do believe in moral absolutes handed down by a divine God. However, in the case of consenting adults, government force should be left aside. Only when one infringes upon the rights of another, the only legit role of government. As a free individual you'd still be able to refrain from personally recognizing forms of marriage you dissaprove of. It's important to remember the two-edged nature of government. Tomorrow government may officially recognize forms of marriage you find deviant. Again, it's best to just get government out of it.
If the there was no control by the Federal Government, things would get out of hand.
So any two people can get married, what is so magical about the number two. Why not have three or four or more in a marriage? Just think the whole football team could marry. Then what is so special about marrying people, why not allow marriage of people and dogs or cats?
It's a breakdown of humanity.
What is wrong IS wrong, doesn't matter how many people say it should be okay.
Good for America that we have a morally strong President who has the guts to stand against any law to sanction same-sex marriage.
If we are going to make marriage an equal opportunity institution that doesn't discriminate against people who have sexual appetites that are different from those of the majority of the population, shouldn't we consider group marriage in addition to same-sex marriage?
Let's say that five homosexual men want to marry each other because they enjoy having sex with each other. On what basis can the government justify discriminating against these five men? Sure, one could argue that since these five men aren't in monogomous sexual relationships they shouldn't have access to the institution of marriage. But what gives government the right to decide that monogomy is morally superior to other sexual lifestyles?
And what if an adult brother and sister want to get married? Let's say they don't plan to have sexual relations with each other but just want to make a statement about how much they love each other? What gives government the right to be bigoted and deny them marriage?
I am playing devil's advocate. I think that if government is going to have a civil institution called marriage, it is inevitable that government make value judgements as to which relationships qualify. Accordingly, I believe that civil marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.