-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Bush To Push For Constitutional Ban On Gay Marriage
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
You say this notwithstanding 'till death we do part' ? Well.. let's put it this a way.. the Catholic Church, as I understand it, does not deem marriage outside the church as having received the sacrament of marriage. So in the eyes of the church one is not 'married' unless they are married in the church and receive the sacrament of marriage by an ordained priest. If that is true, then once the sacrament is administered it cannot be undone save annulment or death. Therefore, a Catholic married in the Catholic Church would be - religiously speaking - a bigamist if they married again after a legal divorce. But, it is OK since we speak of legality here and not religion.. or do we?
I wonder if that comports to the Federal Code or State Code regarding marriage? If it don't why not? I guess the answer is that religion is not a factor in enacted laws or at least shouldn't be. So why is the Federal Government and the various State Governments ruling on the religions that permit gay marriage, if any?
I don't think I disagree with anything Lawrence Tribe opines aside... The issue here is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and the right of Due Process (perhaps) of the 14th. I see it from a sorta twist. If it is not illegal to be homosexual - not the acts of the homosexual that may be illegal someplace - how can it be for the courts or legislature to determine who the homosexual has as the next of kin and all the other rights that pertain to married couples as being different or moot - equal protection. I opine that the Federal Law is not constitutional for at least two reasons.
Now bozak, you're not around here that much I fear and perhaps don't know Dari. Trust me, he's a bit aftaid that men are after his, well you know, the thing with the protector. He's focused there so intently some of us have suspected he may be a closet case, you know, one of those hates who he is so profoundly as to compensate in the other direction. It's not exactly like I can't read the words of his position. He just doesn't have a history or regard for the effeminate male. Maybe his Mommy wanted a girl. But he's welcome to refine his position. And don't be taken in my that coy little, "what have I ever done to you" He's never done anything, true, but not from a lack of trying. As I remember the last one was something about stains in his pants. 😀 And besides, Dari is an ubermench and can fight his own battles. He shouldn't be hiding behind a hunk like you. Kisses and flowers to all.
Umm, your comment brings up a good point. When ever the gay debate starts up, it seems people always use men as their example, but seem to forget it also includes women. Another interesting point is how popular the whole lesbian thing is with a lot of straight men, but I guess if the women are hot and it's in a porno flick or something, that's ok.
😉
Edit:
And to those defending Dari, you do realize this is the same guy who went on a rant about the rampant homosexuality in Europe spoiling his trip and making the streets "smell of open ass"?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
Hehehehe you got my left handed drift.. It is always about men being gay and from a man's perspective there is something sexual about a couple of gals whereas a couple of guys is disgusting.. double standard or at least close..
Anyway, flowers and kisses to all you hard core hetro spacialists.. hehehe
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Originally posted by: Gaard
Amending the constitution for the purpose of discriminating.
Bush needs to go.
Isn't this pushing one's ideals on others? Seperation and all that...
There is no Constitution any longer.
It has been replaced with the Patriot Act and now coming the Bush Doctrine.
Heil Bush & A$$croft!
BugsBunny1078
Banned
I think most guys who say they like lesbians exclusively mean porno and if they actually started to run into lesbians all over town wouldn't feel the same way. Most lesbians aren't very attractive.
I do however believe that sexuality including heterosexuality, homosexuality and pedophilia are majorly caused by hormones. What a persons hormone levels and how sensitive they are to them determine what and if they become sexual. I don't think The power of hormones should be overlooked with other things as well including violence. Look at transexxuals although most of them start off gay, they give them hormones and pretty soon these men have real breasts and feminine skin even.I believe you could absolutely change a persons sexual preference with the right combination of hormones.Once this is achievable then the debate pops up is this something we think we should designate as a disease and be curing people of. In the future I think it may be a personal decision where some people who feel like they are struggling with being gay will opt to get the treatment and others who enjoy being gay will opt out.
I do however believe that sexuality including heterosexuality, homosexuality and pedophilia are majorly caused by hormones. What a persons hormone levels and how sensitive they are to them determine what and if they become sexual. I don't think The power of hormones should be overlooked with other things as well including violence. Look at transexxuals although most of them start off gay, they give them hormones and pretty soon these men have real breasts and feminine skin even.I believe you could absolutely change a persons sexual preference with the right combination of hormones.Once this is achievable then the debate pops up is this something we think we should designate as a disease and be curing people of. In the future I think it may be a personal decision where some people who feel like they are struggling with being gay will opt to get the treatment and others who enjoy being gay will opt out.
CAD:
The provision of the Defense of Marriage Act to which you refer flies in the face of the Eqaul Protection and Full Faith and Credit cases. That's why Bush is proposing a constitutional amendment. <duh>
Go read Loving v. Virginia.
Anyway, if you look at the poll numbers, America has moved way to the left on this issue. I do not believe such an Amendment would pass 2/3rds of the States.
But, passing this election year gimmick, why should we be concerned about this issue? A very small percentage of our population is gay and a smaller yet percentage will marry. So, when 99% of marriages are between straights and 1% are between gays should we ratchet up the awful engine of the constitutional amendment process to address the issue? I think not. The cost alone militates against it.
Furthermore, I think there are quite a few very good reasons why gays should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as straights. They should be able to have a spouse for will and estate purposes, social security, health insurance, etc.
Finally, should government be erecting impediments to love? That doesn't strike me as a legitimate function of government. (Where's Vic when I need him?)
This may be a controversial topic, but it should be a ho-hummer, but for the ghost of Cotton Mather.
-Robert
The provision of the Defense of Marriage Act to which you refer flies in the face of the Eqaul Protection and Full Faith and Credit cases. That's why Bush is proposing a constitutional amendment. <duh>
Go read Loving v. Virginia.
Anyway, if you look at the poll numbers, America has moved way to the left on this issue. I do not believe such an Amendment would pass 2/3rds of the States.
But, passing this election year gimmick, why should we be concerned about this issue? A very small percentage of our population is gay and a smaller yet percentage will marry. So, when 99% of marriages are between straights and 1% are between gays should we ratchet up the awful engine of the constitutional amendment process to address the issue? I think not. The cost alone militates against it.
Furthermore, I think there are quite a few very good reasons why gays should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as straights. They should be able to have a spouse for will and estate purposes, social security, health insurance, etc.
Finally, should government be erecting impediments to love? That doesn't strike me as a legitimate function of government. (Where's Vic when I need him?)
This may be a controversial topic, but it should be a ho-hummer, but for the ghost of Cotton Mather.
-Robert
One thing I have noticed in this debate is that generally the people who oppose gay marriage seem to feel that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice. While I would agree there are gays who act extremely irresponsible, you can say the same about heterosexuals. I personally feel being gay is a strictly biological thing, in most cases, and not something that people choose to do.
Just for a second, think about this. Let's say you are a "normal" heterosexual male, and obviosly, are attracted to women. Do you think you could suddenly change the sex you are attracted to? Do you actually think you could decide one day that you prefer men sexually? IMO, something like attraction and sexual preference are purely biological. When you are attracted to someone, it is something that happens totally naturally without thinking. You have a physical reaction like raised heart rate among other things. These involuntary responses are not something that can just be switched to the opposite sex by choice...it just makes no sense.
Now, that being said, if you are currently against gay marriage/civil unions, and you feel being gay is a choice, not a biological "condition", and it was proven to be something that a person is born with, would you still object? If so, why?
Also, one more point. If being gay was indeed a choice, why would anyone choose it? What is there to look forward to? Being shunned by society? Having to hide your sexual orientation for fear of backlash or violence from homophobes? Not having several basic rights that "normal" couples have? Where is the upside that is making these people "choose" to be gay?
Just for a second, think about this. Let's say you are a "normal" heterosexual male, and obviosly, are attracted to women. Do you think you could suddenly change the sex you are attracted to? Do you actually think you could decide one day that you prefer men sexually? IMO, something like attraction and sexual preference are purely biological. When you are attracted to someone, it is something that happens totally naturally without thinking. You have a physical reaction like raised heart rate among other things. These involuntary responses are not something that can just be switched to the opposite sex by choice...it just makes no sense.
Now, that being said, if you are currently against gay marriage/civil unions, and you feel being gay is a choice, not a biological "condition", and it was proven to be something that a person is born with, would you still object? If so, why?
Also, one more point. If being gay was indeed a choice, why would anyone choose it? What is there to look forward to? Being shunned by society? Having to hide your sexual orientation for fear of backlash or violence from homophobes? Not having several basic rights that "normal" couples have? Where is the upside that is making these people "choose" to be gay?
/peeks in
Jesus Christ. Constitutional amendment?! :|
Anybody that says gay marriage should be against the law is a moron. Plain and simple.
It's simply an on-paper contract between two people. Nothing more. Since the government is the one that took religion out of [themselves] in the first place, how can it be anything more? Who are they to discriminate and say that two women or two men cannot enjoy the same social benefits that a conventional union brings?
All it is saying is that these two people are together and operating as one entity. It's not the fscking end of the world, get a clue people.
Jesus Christ. Constitutional amendment?! :|
Anybody that says gay marriage should be against the law is a moron. Plain and simple.
It's simply an on-paper contract between two people. Nothing more. Since the government is the one that took religion out of [themselves] in the first place, how can it be anything more? Who are they to discriminate and say that two women or two men cannot enjoy the same social benefits that a conventional union brings?
All it is saying is that these two people are together and operating as one entity. It's not the fscking end of the world, get a clue people.
Honestly what is with the hangup on the CC, sure their rules are wacky, but like I said they are their rules and last time I checked the CC was not a government agency even though at times they would like to think they are...last I checked the CC regulations with re. divorce and such had no bearing on Federal or State code re. marriage, and it doesn't because that is the one area that church and state truly are seperate....the problem is that the term marriage applies to both the legal and the religious which is why they have to do away with that term in the legal system, or in religion but I think it would be far easier to do on a legal level than to rewrite scripture...
Your right with your latter portion of your statement, that the govt really has no place in dictating who someone can love and who they are with, the problem is the terminology, that is what gets many in a huff....if we always called the legal aspect for everyone unions and left marriage for the church I don't think this would be as much of an issue
By the facts of how our government works, it would be legal (not fair...fair and legal do not often co-exist. Justice != law). YOu can't seem to separate legal from fair. It isn't "my logic", it is how the government works, set forth in the constitution.
Certainly we recognize that the amendment process is well established. As the orginal constitution was framed when blacks did not have citizenship, and women could not vote.
Now, if you find a single post where I'm adamant about the defense of marriage, feel free to reference it. All I have discussed is the constitution and it's amendments.
While I have no affinity for homosexuals, I do believe that they are natural, not artificial. Who knows, perhaps they are here to keep the population in check. Whatever. The point is that 10% of all animals are gay and I believe this to be a natural abberation. To create an amendment soley for the purpose of excluding a minority of the populace of whatever social pact they might want to endeavour in is in itself artificial and smacks of bias. It's unacceptable in an age of liberation.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
ah gotta love religion that gives an air of respectablility to sadism, hatred and fear. gotta punish that sinner! the fact is gays are having children, and keeping them from marrying only causes harm to the stability of these families. what happens when one parent dies? the other one has no rights and the child goes to foster homes. what happens if one parent has insurance and the other doesnt? can't extend coverage to child or ailing spouse. it goes on and on. religious people find a way to increase or simply be indifferent to the suffering of others they consider sinners... the more religious, the more sadistic. its a twisted view of the world.
SherEPunjab
Diamond Member
what an ass
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
