Poll: Would you support an amendment to ban gay marriages?

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The crux of the issue is that I don't belive creating a state stamp-of-approval for immoral behavior;

The crux of the matter is, their behavior is only immoral in your bigoted, narrow mind. If a gay couple is not invading your personal space or insisting that you live as they do, and they are not otherwise aggressing on others, who the fsck are you to judge them, let alone impose your values on them? You are entitled to your opinion, but under the U.S. Constitution, you are not entitled to deny others the rights you claim for yourself.

Even your own alleged deity preaches, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Seems like you have some explaining to do to yourself before you continue spewing your biases on the rest of us. :disgust:

i have to agree with harvey, i'm a devout christian and i can admit that throughout history, the GROSSEST abuses of mankind came as a direct result of a group of people trying to force their morality on another group of people, inquisition etc.

to NOT understand it that is to be ignorant of history.

the argument that it's 'bigoted' to say that something is immoral is an ignorant one; all of our laws are based on someone's morality, we don't all agree, this is why we vote.

I'm not judging any individual as a 'bad person' and certainly not as worse than me for this action, but that doesn't mean that i can't say it's immoral behavior.

as is extra-marital heterosexual sex.

when you start throwing about bigotry you start to lose credibility and you defame people who have lived under real oppression for things that they had no choice about.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The crux of the issue is that I don't belive creating a state stamp-of-approval for immoral behavior;

The crux of the matter is, their behavior is only immoral in your bigoted, narrow mind. If a gay couple is not invading your personal space or insisting that you live as they do, and they are not otherwise aggressing on others, who the fsck are you to judge them, let alone impose your values on them? You are entitled to your opinion, but under the U.S. Constitution, you are not entitled to deny others the rights you claim for yourself.

Even your own alleged deity preaches, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Seems like you have some explaining to do to yourself before you continue spewing your biases on the rest of us. :disgust:

i have to agree with harvey, i'm a devout christian and i can admit that throughout history, the GROSSEST abuses of mankind came as a direct result of a group of people trying to force their morality on another group of people, inquisition etc.

to NOT understand it that is to be ignorant of history.

the argument that it's 'bigoted' to say that something is immoral is an ignorant one; all of our laws are based on someone's morality, we don't all agree, this is why we vote.

I'm not judging any individual as a 'bad person' and certainly not as worse than me for this action, but that doesn't mean that i can't say it's immoral behavior.

as is extra-marital heterosexual sex.

when you start throwing about bigotry you start to lose credibility and you defame people who have lived under real oppression for things that they had no choice about.

you must feel pretty stupid basing your WHOLE post on bigotry when that word DOESN'T APPEAR AT ALL in my post.

we make judgements, yes. normally we try to outlaw actions that AFFECT OTHERS DIRECTLY, stealing, murder, etc. to put homosexuality in the same category is ignorance.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
the argument that it's 'bigoted' to say that something is immoral is an ignorant one; all of our laws are based on someone's morality, we don't all agree, this is why we vote.

One has nothing to do with the other. We vote to elect our leaders and choose among options and issues presented to the voters, NOT to legislate "morality" in terms of the personal actions of individuals whose behavior is not harming others.

I'm not judging any individual as a 'bad person' and certainly not as worse than me for this action, but that doesn't mean that i can't say it's immoral behavior.

Correct. You are free to express your opinion. You are NOT free to stop others from doing what they want to do, or to limit their civil rights to equal treatment under the law because you don't approve of the way they live their lives.

as is extra-marital heterosexual sex.

There are two distinct levels of extra-marital sex. A married person who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage is breaking the marital compact and betraying the faith of his/her partner. I'm not married, and I have no problem with having sexual relationships with the right woman. I'm an adult. I'm willing and able to take responsiblity for any possible consequenses of that relationship, and I'm smart enough not to get into it with a woman who isn't similarly responsible. You have no right to stick your nose in my private life, unless you want it whacked.

when you start throwing about bigotry you start to lose credibility and you defame people who have lived under real oppression for things that they had no choice about.

When you base your opion of other on your preconceived beliefs, without knowing anything about them, and when you broadcast such negativity about them when they have done nothing to harm you or anyone else, you are a presumptous bigot with no credibility to start with. When you start trying to legislate your personal morality on others, you are dangersously despotic.

You're also an embarrassment to whatever true values may exist in the religion you use as an excuse for your lame, dictatorial behavior.

THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS NEITHER! :disgust:

 

[Peng]

Pfff marriage is a religious thing - get the damm wannabe coupled gayboys out of my religion. Go find one of their own.
Define some anial rules like no squirrels when "partnered" or whatever they want to call it. The Government should pass laws to ensure they get the same benefits after a "common law" period. I support that.

Ill shove a 404 plunger up your ass?conjur It is the binford model, like your girl.

---

And I'll shove your 404 butt off the forums for a week for this abusive personal attack.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Peng
Pfff marriage is a religious thing - get the damm wannabe coupled gayboys out of my religion. Go find one of there own.
Define some anial rules like no squirrels when "partnerd" or whatever they wanna call it. The Government should pass laws to ensure they get the same benifits after a "common law" period. I support that.

Error 404 - intelligence not found.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Peng
Pfff marriage is a religious thing - get the damm wannabe coupled gayboys out of my religion. Go find one of their own.
Define some anial rules like no squirrels when "partnered" or whatever they want to call it. The Government should pass laws to ensure they get the same benefits after a "common law" period. I support that.

Ill shove a 404 plunger up your ass?conjur It is the binford model, like your girl.

I think illiteracy as the example above demostrates is far more offensive than a gay marriage to the educated person.

Two homosexuals can bring at least intelligence to the table....you my friend just bring idiocy.

Since marriage is a religious thing (according to you in your well thought out plan), which religion's laws does one abide by?

Are Atheists and non-believers of that religion now forbidden to marry?

Å

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Peng
Pfff marriage is a religious thing - get the damm wannabe coupled gayboys out of my religion. Go find one of their own.

Your ignorance is astounding. :Q Marriage is defined under the civil statutes, and married couples are granted very specific rights, duties, and status, including those relating to tax status, legal powers of attorney regarding property and in matters regarding medical treatement, and many other matters of extreme legal consequence.

Marriages having legal standing may also be recognized and performed religious organizations, but that does not change the fact that the actual legal issue is a civil matter. The idiots who say they approve "civil union," but not "marriage," are just arguing semantics.

If your post reflects the teachings of your faith, I think the "damn wannabe" is your religion. :disgust:

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: dullard
My question: why does the government need to make marriage a legal thing? Why cannot marriage be a religious thing and have a civil union for legal purposes? I'm talking about everyone here - including heterosexual couples.

Leave the government out of our religions.

Note: I realize this doesn't answer the question "should gay civil unions be allowed", but it certainly takes the emotions out of this debate.

so if marrage is solely a religious thing, atheists shouldnt be allowed to get "married" either?

i would never vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. why shouldnt gays be allowed to have the peace of mind and happiness found from being married?

 

[gopunk]

somebody should really just make a faq or something for all the arguments against gay marriage... i have a stinkin' suspicion that this thread would be less than a page if redundancies were eliminated

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: kitkit201

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I'd support an amendment that banned morons for running for office

I think I'd support this fine idea as well.

pwned commment Burnitdwn!

count me in for this also

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
I have no problem with it, so no. Gay marriage in no way cheapens marriage unless you're some sort of cosmic homophobe.

The big problem I have with preventing gay marriage is our country's history with "separate but equal". Hell, all of human nature. It's a form of segregation, of making artificial groups and separating people who don't need to be separated, but on top of that it tends to encourage inequality amongst the "separate yet equal" parts. It makes cliques out of a large group of people. It's stupid.

Now leprosy, that's a reason to separate people.


P.S. I'm encouraged that almost 2/3rds of the people here have voted no.

only if the ATOT collective represnted all of America...

 

[Modeps]

this may have been said before but i'm too lazy to look

"let them get married, why shouldnt they be miserable like the rest of us?"

(i'm not miserable, i just thought it was funny )

 

[Gunslinger08]

It's not within the power of the federal or state governments to take away a gay couple's right to be married. Read the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment which was created for blacks, but applies nonetheless.

 

[pdqcarrera]

I have no problem with same sex couples being allowed to form civil unions that open the door for certain related benefits. Just don't try to make it equal with the institution of marriage.

A society has not only the right, but the obligation and responsibility to define its moral foundation. A minimum standard is necessary for peace and order to exist. The feds defined marriage long ago and anyone who rants about this topic being none of our business is a hypocrite (IMHO :disgust: ) if they conversely say polygamy should be illegal.

I am against opening marriage to homosexual couples and if it takes a federal constitutional amendment to stop activist judges and public servants (elected or otherwise) from civil disobedience against the legislated will of the people within states (e.g. California) then so be it. I'm for states rights over federal mandates but activists are forcing our hand on this issue.

I want marriage to remain a blessed santification of a man and a woman. Just the way our Creator intended it. Yes, it's a 'religious thing' for me and it's a constitutionally protected right for me to put my faith, words and vote in my religious beliefs.

Now... let's get back to being tweakers and geeks... this socio-political culture stuff gives me a migraine!

 

[pdqcarrera]

President George W. Bush waded into a contentious U.S. election-year issue today, saying he'll back a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriages.

[/quote]

Waded? Hardly. He was forced to address the issue.

Surely you must realize the in-your-face civil disobedience activism in San Francisco was thrust on him. As soon as it started the media was all over the White House for a reaction. The couple of gays I know are pissed because they see the backlash hurting their cause, not helping. They're more than happy with civil union concept that would likely have little trouble passing, assuming the polls are correct. Marriage however is a no win shot. At least GWBush has the strength of conviction to step up to the plate and be honest with his feelings and thoughts on the subject. Unlike the likes of Kerry who actually is against it as well, but is too much of a political hack to stand for his beliefs. His waffling makes ol' BJClinton's pale in comparison.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: samgau
No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....

 

[pdqcarrera]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
It's not within the power of the federal or state governments to take away a gay couple's right to be married. Read the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment which was created for blacks, but applies nonetheless.

This is an all too popular, and frankly ignorant, view these days. Comparing sexual orientation with one's race is actually beyond ignorant. The Constitution does not protect one's sexual orientation or sexual preferences. It's just plain NOT THERE! All sorts of behavior is restricted. Morality is defined and legislated. Racism is not a behavior. There is no choice.

And before you argue that one is born homosexual, bi-sexual or into bestiality or pedophilia, let me say that it's no different than any other personality, talent or character trait being somehow tied to our genetic makeup. One always has the choice how one will act, or not act.

Where you choose to draw the line is your morality threshold. Where I draw mine is just as valid in the moral debate of our society.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera
I have no problem with same sex couples being allowed to form civil unions that open the door for certain related benefits. Just don't try to make it equal with the institution of marriage.

A society has not only the right, but the obligation and responsibility to define its moral foundation. A minimum standard is necessary for peace and order to exist. The feds defined marriage long ago and anyone who rants about this topic being none of our business is a hypocrite (IMHO :disgust: ) if they conversely say polygamy should be illegal.

I am against opening marriage to homosexual couples and if it takes a federal constitutional amendment to stop activist judges and public servants (elected or otherwise) from civil disobedience against the legislated will of the people within states (e.g. California) then so be it. I'm for states rights over federal mandates but activists are forcing our hand on this issue.

I want marriage to remain a blessed santification of a man and a woman. Just the way our Creator intended it. Yes, it's a 'religious thing' for me and it's a constitutionally protected right for me to put my faith, words and vote in my religious beliefs.

Now... let's get back to being tweakers and geeks... this socio-political culture stuff gives me a migraine!

oh ya right, allowing gays to "marry" will destroy the FOUNDATIONS of society.

btw, if your basis is REALLY religion, then how can you even IMPLY that ANYTHING the government does could place a civil union on equal footing with the "institution" of marriage.

either Marriage is a SACRAMENT / Institution of GOD and can ONLY be bestowed BY the church / religion OR it is nothing more than a civil union.

either way, the government can NEVER do more than license the civil union part, NOTHING the government does can make a civil union a MARRIAGE (in the religious sense).

so quit lying, the ONLY reason you are objecting is because you are a HOMOPHOBE. ANY christian no matter WHAT their persuasion will acknowledge that RELIGIOUS institutions can ONLY be instituted BY the church and NOT by the government.

face it people, you can't have your cake and eat it too, it's ONLY one or the other, ALL marriage is NOTHING more than a civil union (in which your argument is TOTALLY baseless) OR Marriage is a UNION bestowed BY GOD and ALL the government can do is licence a Civil Union (in which case your argument is TOTALLY baseless).

there is NO middle ground here where you can claim that WHAT the government does = marriage (the religious institution).

 

[Ranger X]

Originally posted by: gopunk
somebody should really just make a faq or something for all the arguments against gay marriage... i have a stinkin' suspicion that this thread would be less than a page if redundancies were eliminated

No kidding. Everyone is arguing the same point that the past 20+ others have before them.

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
It's not within the power of the federal or state governments to take away a gay couple's right to be married. Read the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment which was created for blacks, but applies nonetheless.

i don't see where the 14'th amendment says any thing about same sex marriages

Mayor faces charges for marrying gays

lets just say the tide is changing

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera
I have no problem with same sex couples being allowed to form civil unions that open the door for certain related benefits. Just don't try to make it equal with the institution of marriage.

Same thing I have said to the rest of those who espouse this notion - Are you honestly saying with a straight face that you want a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to regulate a MATTER OF SEMANTICS?!

What if *I* don't think gays should be able to sully the words "civil" and "union" After all, union can be a very sacred word....
I think we should have an amendment that gays should have to call their contracts "Tabloozies." That way they won't dirty "union" with their "dirty" lifestyles.

Give me a break!!!!

"Civilly Unified" gays are still going to call themselves "married." You aren't fooling anyone by doing this.

Again as I said to the other folks, are we to make it a federal crime for a pair of "civilly unified" gays to call themselves "married" or "husband and wife?" How would you propose we enforce this? "The war on gay marriage." It's sure to be as successful as a war on drugs. Maybe the president can start an internet petition and fwd it to all the legislators....yeah, that oughtta take care of it....it seems to work for everything else.

If you want marriage to remain a" blessed sanctification of a man and a woman" (your words!), maybe you should be lobbying for an amendment to ban divorce except in the direst of circumstances...

And even if you did? Well, many churches recognize marriages even though the government recognizes a couple as being divorced! Why don't they do the same with marriage?

What are we worried about?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera
I want marriage to remain a blessed santification of a man and a woman. Just the way our Creator intended it. Yes, it's a 'religious thing' for me and it's a constitutionally protected right for me to put my faith, words and vote in my religious beliefs.

Words like "blessed sanctification" are of religion. The legal benefits and obligations of marriage are defined in CIVIL law.

Do whatever you want in your church, but the words you use in your faith have nothing to do with it. You and your church have absolutely no business defining or limiting the legal civil rights of other peaceful citizens. That is in the Constitution.

 

[alkemyst]

Just so everyone knows....as I am sure half those here that make advocates of themselves for these types of issues, have yet to see a woman pantless.

When you get married *ANYWHERE* there is technically two marriages being done. You have one done at the government level and one done at the religious one. The religious one is the optional one. The country doesn't care if it's ever done, you get the same benefits.

Å

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera
I want marriage to remain a blessed santification of a man and a woman. Just the way our Creator intended it. Yes, it's a 'religious thing' for me and it's a constitutionally protected right for me to put my faith, words and vote in my religious beliefs.

Words like "blessed sanctification" are of religion. The legal benefits and obligations of marriage are defined in CIVIL law.

Do whatever you want in your church, but the words you use in your faith have nothing to do with it. You and your church have absolutely no business defining or limiting the legal civil rights of other peaceful citizens. That is in the Constitution.

that's what i don't get. i'm a christian and i believe all those things about marriage too, sanctification etc and i know that ONLY god can sanctifiy a marriage (a civil union + sanctification = marriage in eyes of god, civil union without sanctification = marriage in eyes of man).

hence, NOTHING the federal or state governments can say or do can change that state.

so, IF you really believe that it is GOD that sanctifies the marriage and not the state, then HOW can you object to the state allowing gay marriages.

 

[DainBramaged]

Yes