ScottyRo

Honestly, I don\'t have a real strong opinion on this matter. However, I believe the first argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is wrong. The simple fact that lots of people do it and don\'t feel that it is wrong doesn\'t change that. There are plenty of people molesting children everyday that don\'t appear to have a problem with that either.

Otherwise, I feel that a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle has chosen to do so outside of the normal and natural conventions of our society. Now, they are outside of what is and has always been legal marriage and want to change it to fit the world they want to live in so that they can receive validation of their lifestyle\'s propriety.

The problem with allowing this sort of thing is that it may further shift our society away from the traditional nuclear family which has been shown to be the most healthy environment in which to raise children.

Now, as for your separation of church and state argument. It is a common misconception to say that a person should not bring up the Bible or religious philosophy when discussing politics in this country. However, \"church and state\" does not mean that religous views and philosophies should not be included in our laws or politics. It simply means that the government should not tell its population how to worship their God, if any. To go further than that is to ignore that the United States was founded on moral and religious principles. These principles are embodied in our laws and declarations.

Additionally, President Bush is not the government of the United States. He has been slammed in some circles for his religious beliefs and his willingness to express them. However, his expression of his faith is not a command that all the people of the US follow his lead. It is simply a person that happens to hold a political office expressing his philosophy on a subject just like any other. He has as much right to speak out in favor of his faith as he does to speak against the abuse of illegal drugs, for instance.

Thus, the actual abuse of the church and state clause would be to pass a law prohibiting the president from expressing his beliefs. At that point you have the government telling an individual how to worship his God - an obvious violation.

canucksaint

?? who defined what Marriage was/is?
From webster\'s dictonary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=marriage
The only reasonable argument I can see on this is the issue of workplace benifits, which in Canada that has already been granted. (not sure about the policy in the States).

If I\'m correct I never accused him of goind down as the worst president in history. What I said was he was probably one of the worst leaders for foreign policy. With his unlawful attack on Iraq (right thing to do, wrong way to do it), his amazing ablitiy to make his closest allies take a huge step back and distance themselves from him, and his renewed interest in policy\'s that should have died when Regan won(finished) the cold war, does not equal the fact that he has gotten 1 leader of a rouge nation (circa 1980\'s) to change his tune. (which I will give credit for). However it\'s not like Lybia was really a major threat compaired to China or N. Korea.
You\'re right that another 4 years of his reign will not kill you. However it will harm your ecconomy and severly tarnish the view of the USA in the eyes of the world.

GumboBC

canucksaint -- Marriage in the US has always been for people of the opposite sex. Define marriage however you want, but that\'s the way it is.

Since you don\'t object to gay marriage, is there anything you object to that you think is morally wrong? What about incest? What about having multiple wifes or husbands? What about sexual relationships between adults and childern? Who has the right to say this isn\'t OK? Me, for one. Just like gays. You got to draw the line somewhere. It\'s not natural to sleep with your sister and it\'s not natural for a man to sleep with a man. Of course, an arguement could be made to justify all of \'em.

[Edited on 13/7/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 13/7/2004 by GumboBC]

canucksaint

ScottyRo - Good point about the separation of church and state. I guess I misspoke.
In regards to you and Billy relating homosexuality to being a pedophile is horribly wrong IMO. I don’t feel that anything should ever be related to being a pedophile, as nothing can even come close to that stage of evilness.
Now Billy, stop putting words in my mouth. Don’t jump to the assumption that I am pro-gay marriage. I didn’t say that.
I just don’t understand the argument. If being homosexual is now accepted in mainstream culture (as much as many people still feel it is immoral), they are entitled to their partner’s health benefits, in many states/countries they are allowed to adopt, they are allowed to vote, join the military and even become an NFL quarterback if they want. Then why isn’t their lifelong union with their partner allowed to be called marriage?
I’m not trying to start something about whether being homosexual is accepted, immoral, evil, lovely or whatever else it may be.
I am just trying to figure out why they just don’t call a spade a spade.

GumboBC

canucksaint - LOL.... I\'m sorry if I jumped to conclusions.... But, when you said you just can\'t understand why folks are against it, then I assumed you were for it. My bad.

You know, back in the day, girls were married at the age of 13. This was perfectly acceptable. Some countries it still is. The point I\'m trying to make is:

What makes something right or wrong?? Who decides? And if it does become law, does that make it right? It comes down to personal beliefs. Religious or whatever.

Myself, I try to use common sense. I do NOT belive it\'s right for girls to marry at the age of 13. I do not believe in incest and I do not believe in homosexuality. But those are MY beliefs. I don\'t try to force them on anyone. This is a democratic society, and the majority rules. Right now, the hetrosexuals would win. How much more fair can you get than that?

canucksaint

Not necessarly for it, not necessarly against it. Just ignorant enough :P
I like to understand all sides of an argument prior to jumping into the fray and picking sides. As I stated, I just don\'t understand that side yet. Just making sure that I\'m not missing anything.
Getting a bit philosophical here, but I guess that\'s what off-season is for.
IMO, right or wrong is decided by the majority of the society that you have chosen to live in. Who decides; the voting public. If you don\'t vote, you don\'t have a right to bitc... uh.. complain. If it becomes law, then it needs to be followed and accepted (or at least not broken), because that is what a democracy is.
My spideysense tells me there\'s a debate coming on....

GumboBC

Well, it\'s just nice to see that we\'ve got some smart folks that can think for themselves. No matter how they feel about something. Often times I talk to folks and they have bought into the propaganda from the national media. They don\'t even bother checking the facts.

Just because something is LAW doesn\'t make it right. Ask some black folks if they thougtht slavery was right when it was legal to own people.

The BIG problem I have right now is when something can\'t be won on the national level, you\'ve got people wanting to take it to a vote on the state level. That\'s not right. Every state is part of the US. Remember that little thing called the CIVIL WAR. Sould we have let individual states vote on slavery?? Of course not. If they did, you\'d still see folks picking cotton in Louisaian and Mississippi!!

Right now gay marriage would lose on a national level. When gays can win on a national level, then fine, I\'ll live with it. But, I still won\'t agree with it.



[Edited on 13/7/2004 by GumboBC]

canucksaint

I agree that the individual states/provences should accept the decision that is made on the national level. However speaking of Gay Marriages, the national level doesn\'t want to touch that issue. So the state level is the only level that actually has the balls to do anything about it. Not the best way, but if enough states do something about it, then they are forcing the hand of the feds who are too chicken to step into it. (Not bashing Bush, as our federals are doing the same).

Very true. But that\'s why laws can be changed. Even constitution\'s can be changed when one realized that they got it azz backwards the first time around. But what I was saying, is that when it is a law, it does need to be obeyed until (if ever) it is changed. If not we would have an anarchist society. (I\'m not even touching the slavery issue, as I doubt you will find too many people who will try to justify that one... at least not smart people )

Nomtoc

I\'m more confused/middle of the road than ever.
This is \"The Other White Meat\" pat two.
:casstet:

GumboBC

That\'s why, while you can listen to both sides, you\'ve got to vote how your heart tells you to. Anything can get complicated real quick. Debating is good, because it can bring FACTS to the table that otherwise might have been overlooked. And it can call BS on things that are being presented as facts. But, in the end, all it comes down to mostly is somone trying to \"sell\" their beliefs.