Defense of Marriage Act

[Moss Factor]

President Bush is proposing the Defense of Marriage Act which will ammend the constitution to define marriage as specifically between one man and one woman. I was just wondering what your opinions are of this, and we could get some friendly discussion going. Ideally people can speak in a rational manner about a loaded topic such as this, and we can have an excellent conversation. I'll let the talking begin before I state my own opinion on the matter.

[Marril]

I won't say a whole lot on this matter, except for this:

I'm thankful I'm Canadian and don't have to put up with Dubya's idiocy. Really, does the idea of two men or two women getting married offend people that much? "The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation", after all.

[UncleBob]

To simplify everything, there should be two kinds of "marriage".

Religious Marriage - This is to be defined by the church (likely to be a man and woman, of course.) Religious Marriage means *nothing* as far as the government needs be concerned.

Government Marriage - To be defined by the government for the purpose of tax cuts, estate ownership, custoty of children, etc... Religious context should *not* apply to a Government marriage.

That's my humble viewpoint.

[Sensei]

I will say one thing:This better stay civil(and someones sig and bio better stay clean) or I will ban and lock,no questions asked.

Glad to see you around Matt but ,as with everyone,stay within the rules,don`t push the envelope,and be merry.

`Sensei

[dkates]

I agree with Marril. I see no reason to make that kind of restriction. And we're talking about an amendment to the Constitution, here. If such an amendment is passed, it won't be as easy to go back and change it later as laws that are not part of the Constitution. Yes, it's been done before (in the case of making alcohol illegal), but amending the Consitution usually means making a major change in the nature of American society.

[PokePop]

Just a note: As soon as this starts heading off a cliff, it will be immediately locked.

Gee, thanks Moss, for starting as your first topic something that involves politics, religion, and sexuality.

[SD PokeMom]

Would someone mind telling me exactly what my going on nineteen-year marriage has to be "defended" against? Just wondering, since none of the arguments in favor of this make a damn bit of sense...

Religious argument? No one is saying that any church whose doctrine proscribes this would have to participate; churches already refuse to marry couples who do not follow that particular church's teaching. And there is the seperation of church and state issue, besides..

"for the sake of the children"? So does that mean that couples who cannot have children do not have a 'real' marriage? And what about all the single parents out there?

All the arguments against this are essentially the same as the arguments against interracial marriages, years ago. Remember, those were illegal not all that long ago; I believe it was in the 80's when the last such law was struck off a state's books.

This is not a 'special rights' issue, but equal rights; 'seperate but equal' has always turned out to be UNequal.

If you get right down to it, government should be ONLY issuing 'civil union' licenses, to EVERYONE...and those who want a religious 'marriage' can do so within the church they attend. But denying a segment of society equal legal rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES...of spousal benefits, of inheritance, of the ability to give consent for medical treatment should one's spouse be incapaciated, instead of having to hunt down a family member who one may not even be in contact with...is discrimination, pure and simple. And the idea that this administration thinks that putting discrimination INTO the Constitution of the United States can possibly be a 'good' thing ought to scare the hell out of you...

As for 'defending' marriage...well, all the 'damage' done to marriages: infidelity, divorce, abuse, etc. etc....have been done by those in the 'traditional' marriages Dubya and co. are trying to 'defend', haven't they?

JMHO,
'mom

[UncleBob]

Oh no... Satan must be pretty cold, because me and 'mom apparently agree and feel pretty strong about the same subject. ;)

[Monkey]

I really don't care. You only have 1 life to live, so eveyone should be able to live life to the fullest!

[Pokeplayer]

I will add my two cents worth on this issue..

I favor the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I am opposed to *** marriage. I oppose this stricly on my religious upbringing....I would be in favor of the constitutional amendment if one state was forced to recongnize/accept a *** marriage performed in another state.....

Thank heaven for freedom of speech...and all opinions...

[Joshman]

Hmm, I'll use Bush logic on this:

I'd say *** marriage is as much a threat to the "integrity" of america as Iraq was to the safety of the World, with their WMD and all.

If someone could tell me why two men or women should not be together, I'd very much like to hear it. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, but I have no intention of stopping someone else from achieving the happiness of marriage with bigotry (if someone has a better word, I'd like to hear it).

And please do not quote the Bible as a reason against this unless you are prepared to explain why some passages are to be taken to this extreme and others ignored.

[Mr. Grass]

I'm against this amendment. It's discrimination plain and simple. We don't like what you're doing, and even though it doesn't really affect me, we're going to outlaw it. It's not fair to restrict rights to people because they think the "right way". Making any sort of religious argument is preposterous. The government is not supposed to be run by religion, nor the reverse. Crimes like killing and theft are outlawed because they infringe on the rights of others. Same sex marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights.
This whole "protecting marriage" argument disgusts me. It's just a way of candy coating marital discrimination. Religious beliefs should not be forced on others through the law. Let everyone have the same rights.

[Daddiursa]

Bush desperately needs to take peoples eyes and ears off of issues like how the Government of USA failed to avoid 11. September. (Like the recent/ongoing hearing has disclosed). So an issure garanteed to cause controvercy is an easy way out.

That's my opinion on WHY this is brought forward. And as long as marriages of people of the same sex doesn't hurt anyone else, then I can't see why they shouldn't have equal rights. I mean if Bush really is interested in that Americas policy is founded on the words & intentions of the Bible, then I think he'd better start someplace else first, because there are other issues that much less unites with a christian morale than the practise of *** peoples marriage rights.

[Marril]

I have exactly one thing to say to all those who would use the bible to defend their attacks of *** marriages:

Don't be rash with your mouth, and don't let your heart be hasty to utter anything before the Lord: for God is in heaven, and you are on the Earth: therefore let your words be few.
-Eccs 5:2

In other words, stop making huge, rackety arguments that make 99% of all sane people stare blankly at you. Preach to the converted all you like, but don't try to convert people, especially when you're converting someone onto the side of prejudice. Denying *** marriages is like putting a "no black people allowed" sign in your shop window, except replacing "black people" with a certain word starting with N.

[Fawkes0126]

Marriage was made as soon as man was made, and it is to be ONLY between a man and a woman, as is the act of, well, you know, doing it. God created both of these, and they were holy back in the day. Now, marriages are still holy and sacred acts if done for the right reasons, but anyway, back on the subject. GOD MADE MARRIAGE FOR ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN, NOT FOR THE SAME GENDER. *** MARRIAGE IS AGAINST GOD'S LAW, SO IT'S AGAINST MINE. That's what I say to that. In other words, I'm all for an amendment saying, "You can't have same sex marriages.":)

[SD PokeMom]

Whose 'god'? This country is NOT a theocracy, and freedom to practice one's religion, whether it is 'christian' or not is one of the founding principles of the Constitution...so why should the 'law' of your 'god' be imposed onto those who don't believe in it?

I still haven't heard exactly WHAT my marriage is supposed to be being 'defended' from...

JMHO,
'mom

[Monkey]

Yeah, i'm catholic and I don't really care about *** marriages myself. As long as people won't force their own opinions on me, I will not force my own opinions on them.

I do believe church and the government should be seprated from one another. IMO religion should have no say in how this country is ran! I have/know many people who have a different religon than me (Ex. I know a few Mormon, Jewish, and Islamic people.) and they don't want to change how the country is ran on their own religious beliefs. Im not saying religion is bad! Its just that imo, it needs to be kept out of the government. The catholic church already has enough problems with those few selected priests so they should concentrate on that problem first.

Eh, I think that during the next Presidential election, they should make a poll to ask the American citizens whether or not they would approve of *** marriages. Then congress or who ever should make a decesion based on the results of that poll. We do live in a democracy right?

[Strike]

This idea will get your noodle cookin about this issue.

Criminals, Convicted Felons, Child Abusers, the infertile, just about anyone else can get legally married in the U.S. yet homosexuals cannot.

Something is definitely wrong with this picture. I hope this amentdment proposal get defeated, since our county's constitution and judicial system was created to protect the rights of minority groups from the differing opinions of the majority. *** marriages should be legal. THat's all I will say.

[Marril]

Originally Posted by Fawkes0126

GOD MADE MARRIAGE FOR ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN, NOT FOR THE SAME GENDER. *** MARRIAGE IS AGAINST GOD'S LAW, SO IT'S AGAINST MINE.

You seem tense. *hands Fawkes some yaoi and then runs like heck*

[Dunjohn]

Love. That's it, though. Marriage is based on love.

If two people love each other and want to live their lives in an "entwined" state, they get married and the law recognises their unique needs. Religion doesn't necessarily come into that. As SD_Pokemon said, the U.S.A. is not a theocracy; you can get a religious marriage if you like, but civil marriages are an alternative.

Religions can impose their own rules. That's fine. But for the civil government to try and do the same - along pretty much the same lines - is daft. Religions should cater to their flock - a large group of essentially like-minded people anyway. The government must cater to everyone living within specific geographic boundaries. It can't exclude certain members like this.

Two *** people who are in love are currently forced to live out their union in single-status limbo. I don't see the logic. How would them having a legal document damage my kids (assuming I had any) or my society? Biology aside, how is their love different from that of my own parents?

Bush should keep his personal opinions on morallity to himself. If only we were all Presidents. If this law is passed, I would hold it as an abuse of position; he's supposed to represent all Americans and not discriminate against a minority of them like this.

[yoshi1001]

Let me start off by saying I find homosexuality appalling, sick, and disgusting.

However, it should be legal.

I find a lot of things disgusting. For example, Tatoos (not to be confused with T.A.T.U. ;) ). However, properly done, they are completely safe despite my reservations.

As to why God created men and women, the concept to me is pretty simple. Humans are supposed to be able to solve their own problems, because if God solved all your problems there wouldn't be any point to your existience. Man and woman weren't created because homosexuality is a sin, but so we could, well, become fruitful and multiply so God didn't have to keep creating people, and if a small prercentige don't want to participate in that, but want to contribute in other ways to society, that's fine by me.

[UncleBob]

On another note, is there any particular reason that the word "***" is censored as if it's a filthy, naughty thing that shouldn't be mentioned on here?

Just wondering. :)

[Marril]

I know. G A Y means "happy" too, dangit. I don't mind it being used to mean homosexual (heck, they insist on the term), but the word is hardly offensive no matter the meaning.

[PokePop]

The reason it't blocked is that it is currently used by the pre-adult set as a derogative term.

"That's so ***".

This topic is ***"

and so on.

[UncleBob]

That's not really fair, now is it? Instead of punishing those with kitchen knives who do harm, you're just taking the kitchen knives away from *everyone*....