Treejumps 0 #1 November 3, 2004 It seems that the majority of Americans have had their say, and there is still no such thing as gay marriage. This is a case where an extremely vocal, very small minority pushed so hard that eventually the masses pushed back, and the masses won. So sorry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #2 November 3, 2004 I can't say I'm surprised, based on all the press that was received for it... but I am sad that people voted to take away rights from fellow citizens, and even more sad that they are allowing government more leeway into a place they don't belong - the partnership between two people. JenArianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #3 November 3, 2004 A big win for the American family. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #4 November 3, 2004 I don't disagree with you completely - as I personally believe that its best to strive for a family made up of a man and a woman - but.... What are we teaching our children? That it's ok to deny a 'basic' right to certain individuals that is allowed to others? IMO, that is wrong. Governement has no business in the 'marriage' department and its a sad day because the american people have voted to give them power where they are not meant to have it. JenArianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #5 November 3, 2004 Why is it a win for the American family? Will this decrease the number of divorces? Will it encourage young people to seek birth control before having sex? Will it cut down on teen pregnancies? Will it provide counseling for people whose marriages are in trouble? As far as I can tell, this makes it so that some people don't have to be aware of feelings and behaviors that don't affect them. While that might be considered a freedom, it comes at the expense of the freedom of someone else. Problems in the American family are probably better solved by helping conditions that make actual, current families stronger, not by ensuring the definition is exactly what you want it to be. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #6 November 3, 2004 QuoteA big win for the American family. So banning gay marriage will change the 50% divorce rate in this country??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #7 November 3, 2004 mailin, WMW999, and Shotgun: Not going to argue this thing to death today because most already know my stance. Just giving my opinion. QuoteWhat are we teaching our children? That it's ok to deny a 'basic' right to certain individuals that is allowed to others? Nothing at all prevents a person from having whatever relationship they want with a person of the same sex. That is their basic right. Marriage, however, is reserved for one man and one woman and is defined as such. You must define an entity before it exists and can be recognized. QuoteWill this decrease the number of divorces? Will it encourage young people to seek birth control before having sex? Will it cut down on teen pregnancies? Will it provide counseling for people whose marriages are in trouble? Simply diversions from the topic at hand. QuoteProblems in the American family are probably better solved by helping conditions that make actual, current families stronger, not by ensuring the definition is exactly what you want it to be. The “conditions” conducive for a successful family are primarily and fundamentally ensured with a solid definition of marriage in the traditional sense which has proven successful for thousands of years. If the root of a plant is good, its growth can be healthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydave114 0 #8 November 3, 2004 There is no such thing as "gay rights". No one is being denied anything that others are granted. Gay people can get married, to someone of the opposite gennder, just like anyone else. The reason a male cannot marry another male, is the same reason that a pig cannot fly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #9 November 3, 2004 QuoteSimply diversions from the topic at hand... The “conditions” conducive for a successful family are primarily and fundamentally ensured with a solid definition of marriage in the traditional sense which has proven successful for thousands of years. If the root of a plant is good, its growth can be healthy Why? I really don't understand why a "correct definition" makes the family stronger, and why nurturing families is a diversion from making them stronger. A plant with good roots can still starve. A plant with weak roots will grow strong with good nutrition and plenty of water. It will develop the roots where the nutrition comes. Why does limiting the definition make them stronger? How does it impact the families that are out there? I really really don't understand this. I can understand that many people find it more comfortable; the dissonance of having a legal definition extended to people whom they disagree with can be a powerful force. But if removing that dissonance makes some families stronger, what about the families whom it harms? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #10 November 3, 2004 QuoteThe reason a male cannot marry another male, is the same reason that a pig cannot fly. Wow, screaming homophobia huh?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 November 3, 2004 QuoteWhy is it a win for the American family? Will this decrease the number of divorces? Will it encourage young people to seek birth control before having sex? Will it cut down on teen pregnancies? Will it provide counseling for people whose marriages are in trouble? As far as I can tell, this makes it so that some people don't have to be aware of feelings and behaviors that don't affect them. While that might be considered a freedom, it comes at the expense of the freedom of someone else. Problems in the American family are probably better solved by helping conditions that make actual, current families stronger, not by ensuring the definition is exactly what you want it to be. Wendy W. Do you support bigamy? How about a bi-sexual bigamy where people of all sexual persuations are allowed to marry multiple partners? If so, at what point do you stop calling it marriage and refer to it as hedonism? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #12 November 3, 2004 QuoteNothing at all prevents a person from having whatever relationship they want with a person of the same sex. That is their basic right. Marriage, however, is reserved for one man and one woman and is defined as such. Most of those states also banned same-sex civil unions, so obviously it was not about protecting "marriage"; it was about keeping gays from having the same rights as everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #13 November 3, 2004 Quote the same reason that a pig cannot fly. Shit, let's make sure that we put that on the next ballot! I feel my family is being threatened "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #14 November 3, 2004 I support the legal recognition of relationships among consenting adult partners. Why wouldn't I? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base428 1 #15 November 3, 2004 I agree with treejumps and pajarito. The people voted and the majority doesn't support gay marriage. Gay people have no more right to marry each other than I have a right to marry my dog, or my sister, or the oak tree in my front yard. Marriage was defined many years ago (one man, one woman)....stop trying to alter the system.(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #16 November 3, 2004 Wendy, There are plenty of threads on this already... However, i will give my brief opinion. It is a proven fact by psychologists that a family comprised of one man and one woman is the strogest and healthiest for child development. Divorce is a big concern because it breaks up the one man one woman relationship. There is no evidence gay marriages would end up in more or less of a divorce rate. Now, Gays make up roughly 1-2% of a natural population. Given that, a child raised in a gay household is (sad but true) a bad thing for the child to have to deal with. This child will be abused by his/her peers, and there is nothing you can do about it. Kids are kids, and they look for reasons to hurt eachother. It would not be an easy situation for any child, and it is nothing that will ever become "NORMAL" (having 2 gay parents that is). The children of Gay marriage parents will always be a very small minority of the public and will be teased bullied accused of being gay etc.... Not something easy for children to deal with. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 November 3, 2004 QuoteI support the legal recognition of relationships among consenting adult partners. Why wouldn't I? Wendy W. Just checking to see where your values are. You would really call bi-sexual bigamist hedonism a marriage? And you think this would instill proper values into children? Is this correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #18 November 3, 2004 QuoteHomophobia - Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality. Just want to be clear. My opinion isn't homophobic as I have no "fear" or "dislike" of homosexuals. I dislike their lifestyle. I don't dislike the person based on that. They have every bit as much a basic right to pursue their relationship as I do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #19 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteNothing at all prevents a person from having whatever relationship they want with a person of the same sex. That is their basic right. Marriage, however, is reserved for one man and one woman and is defined as such. Most of those states also banned same-sex civil unions, so obviously it was not about protecting "marriage"; it was about keeping gays from having the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #20 November 3, 2004 QuoteMarriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! Agreed, in a sense. We have the God given "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to pursue whatever relationship we want if it makes us happy and it doesn't harm anyone else. However, if I decide to have a relationship with "Bob", it is not my "right" to have it recognized by the state as "marriage." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #21 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteMost of those states also banned same-sex civil unions, so obviously it was not about protecting "marriage"; it was about keeping gays from having the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! But why deny them a civil union? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #22 November 3, 2004 But marriage means a lot more than just parenting children. If it was just about that then single parents would be ostracised, criminalised etc. etc. Surely marriage is about two people who love each other promising to be partners (and all that entails) and demonstrating that promise to the world and their god. So to argue that that right (and I believe it IS a right) should be denied purely because the children may suffer is flawed, imo. Another reason why the children argument is flawed, (again, imo) is the 'normality' aspect. If gay people were allowed to marry then it would become 'normal'. It wasn't 'normal' for disabled people or ethnic minorities to be treated as equals at one time, but is perfectly 'normal' nowadays. 'Normal' is just another word for 'usual'. If something becomes 'usual' it becomes acceptable and vice versa. So, having disposed of the children argument, what other issue could you argue would arise from the marriage of two people who happen to be the same sex? The more love (no matter how its shown) the better, I would have thought.Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #23 November 3, 2004 QuoteA big win for the American family. Just curious as to the defintion of an 'American Family'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #24 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteA big win for the "Traditional" American family. Just curious as to the defintion of an 'American Family'. Ok...fixed above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #25 November 3, 2004 Quote Another reason why the children argument is flawed, (again, imo) is the 'normality' aspect. If gay people were allowed to marry then it would become 'normal'. What I think you fail to realize is the difference in the population of gays vs other minority groups. It wouldn't be "Normal...." Anyway, do you think it is OK to marry your sister, or brother? Do you think it is OK to have 4 wives? 10 wives? or 10 Husbands? If so why? If not, Why not? All these things listed above are alternative lifestyles. If we allow one, a president will be set to allow others. No one says a gay couple can't live together and be happy. No one said John Doe can't have 10 girlfriends living with him and have big orgies everynight. No one said that. However, the Government doesn't have to recognize that as a legally binding "marriage". Marriage is a privledge give to you by the State Gov. Just like driving is. Your driving license application can be turned down as can your marriage license if you fail to follow the rules of the state gov. Marriage isn't a right.... So NO ONE RIGHTS are being taken away!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
storm1977 0 #19 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteNothing at all prevents a person from having whatever relationship they want with a person of the same sex. That is their basic right. Marriage, however, is reserved for one man and one woman and is defined as such. Most of those states also banned same-sex civil unions, so obviously it was not about protecting "marriage"; it was about keeping gays from having the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #20 November 3, 2004 QuoteMarriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! Agreed, in a sense. We have the God given "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to pursue whatever relationship we want if it makes us happy and it doesn't harm anyone else. However, if I decide to have a relationship with "Bob", it is not my "right" to have it recognized by the state as "marriage." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #21 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteMost of those states also banned same-sex civil unions, so obviously it was not about protecting "marriage"; it was about keeping gays from having the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a RIGHT!!!!! By no means is it a RIGHT! But why deny them a civil union? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripple 0 #22 November 3, 2004 But marriage means a lot more than just parenting children. If it was just about that then single parents would be ostracised, criminalised etc. etc. Surely marriage is about two people who love each other promising to be partners (and all that entails) and demonstrating that promise to the world and their god. So to argue that that right (and I believe it IS a right) should be denied purely because the children may suffer is flawed, imo. Another reason why the children argument is flawed, (again, imo) is the 'normality' aspect. If gay people were allowed to marry then it would become 'normal'. It wasn't 'normal' for disabled people or ethnic minorities to be treated as equals at one time, but is perfectly 'normal' nowadays. 'Normal' is just another word for 'usual'. If something becomes 'usual' it becomes acceptable and vice versa. So, having disposed of the children argument, what other issue could you argue would arise from the marriage of two people who happen to be the same sex? The more love (no matter how its shown) the better, I would have thought.Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #23 November 3, 2004 QuoteA big win for the American family. Just curious as to the defintion of an 'American Family'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #24 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteA big win for the "Traditional" American family. Just curious as to the defintion of an 'American Family'. Ok...fixed above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #25 November 3, 2004 Quote Another reason why the children argument is flawed, (again, imo) is the 'normality' aspect. If gay people were allowed to marry then it would become 'normal'. What I think you fail to realize is the difference in the population of gays vs other minority groups. It wouldn't be "Normal...." Anyway, do you think it is OK to marry your sister, or brother? Do you think it is OK to have 4 wives? 10 wives? or 10 Husbands? If so why? If not, Why not? All these things listed above are alternative lifestyles. If we allow one, a president will be set to allow others. No one says a gay couple can't live together and be happy. No one said John Doe can't have 10 girlfriends living with him and have big orgies everynight. No one said that. However, the Government doesn't have to recognize that as a legally binding "marriage". Marriage is a privledge give to you by the State Gov. Just like driving is. Your driving license application can be turned down as can your marriage license if you fail to follow the rules of the state gov. Marriage isn't a right.... So NO ONE RIGHTS are being taken away!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
