Marriage, in the government sense, is not about any of those things. This is another instance where Liberals are on the right side of the argument but are making the WRONG argument.Very simple question - someone please explain to me why two people who love each other, regardless of their sexuality (which is irrelevant given their love), can't marry each other? Where does sexuality even come into it? Isn't marriage about love, respect and commitment?
When Marriage en les someone to State and Federal benefits, then Marriage should be open to any two people regardless of gender. Otherwise, you show preference to one view of Marriage, a view founded on Religious or Moral ideals.
All this stuff form these "bible-thumpers" on how gay mariage is immoral and yet we allow divorce in this country. Isn't that also immoral according to bible? Yet 50% of marriages end in divorce (so I have heard).
Instead of focusing on just gay marriage maybe these people should focus on this as well.
True, our conception of marriage being about "love" is very modern, a luxury of sorts arising out of our prosperity. However, since we live now, I will assume that most people, at least in the developed world, do marry for love.
Well said, absolutely agree.
The Bible argument about immorality goes hand-in-hand with the "unnatural argument", which science has recently shot in the head by showing that sexual sex is actually rampant throughout the animal kingdom.
I most enjoyed the case of the bird researcher and the male malard (duck) that smashed into his window, killing itself, and was then buggered by its male partner (who was obviously trying to wake it up) but only succeeded in further marginalising itself as a necrophile!
October 27, 2006
G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The divisive debate over gay marriage, which played a prominent role in 2004 campaigns but this year largely faded from view, erupted anew on Thursday as President Bush and Republicans across the country tried to use a court ruling in New Jersey to rally dispirited conservatives to the polls.
Wednesday’s ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are en led to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering cons utional amendments to ban gay marriage.
President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.
“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the ins ution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.
The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred ins ution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”
( they NEVER explain how permitting same-sex marriage will destroy the already weakened, mythical heterosexual marriage or how same-sex marriage will force Rick Santorum to animals. But let's not concern our selves with details or the truth. The Christ-bot rabble bigots will rally vigorously )
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us...rtner=homepage
BTW are you the CS of the old WOAI Board? the Charlie D Fan?
What is the "CS"?
BTW are you the CS of the old WOAI Board? the Charlie D Fan?
If by Charlie D fan you mean The Charlie Daniels Band....they yep.
DING! DING! DING!
Gay marriage becomes an easy wedge issue when it is about moral affirmation of the gay lifestyle rather than equal protection of citizens.
Divide! Divide! Divide!...And then the talking heads of the GOP turn around and blame the Dems for creating the divide in our country...
caveat for the righties: yes both parties divide this country whenever they can but I am referring those who make the claim that it is only dems who do it..
The argument against Gay marriage is that it would be a destabilizing force in our country. A very strong argument can be made that gay marriage would hurt children.
That's the intellectual argument, but of course partisians will demagogue the issue as pro-gay vs anti-gay.
Equal Protection as FWD said is what should be discussed.
A vast majority of Americans, far more than there are "Right Wing Religious Nut Zealots" oppose recognizing gay marriages. Every election on the subject, and poll, affirms this. Why is it wrong for a political party to point out that Democrat appointed judges (in this case 3/3) are more likely than Republican appointed judges (1/4) to find a cons utional right for it?
Is is devisive for a Democrat to rail on Republicans for passing tax cuts for the VERY RICH, as opposed to the "Working Class"? - As if all the "Rich" are pampered patricians?
How about the Stem Cell debate, don't the Democrats DIVIDE the country with that?
Damn near every issue has two, or more, sides. EVERY issue is "divisive". Only when the majority doesn't agree with your side of the divide, it seems, are you outraged at that.
"A very strong argument can be made that gay marriage would hurt children."
Link?
Children in heterosexual marriages being hurt by a same-sex marriage somewhere?
Children adopted or brought into a same-sex marriage?
Like Saddam launching nukes against the USA, just more rabble-rousing fear-mongering.
I agree that affirming gay marriage could be culturally harmful. A lot of liberals would disagree with that and start a long discussion about how this study and that disproves it, and how all children need is love, and how closed-minded we are not to see that.
And of course then they lose elections.
The ability to abuse the system when gay marriage is legalized could be amazing.
Cohabitation in many states, after a certain number of months can create a functioning common-law marriage - one partner (right now limited to opposite sex) can sue for property, alimony, child support, etc after that point. Will the same hold for same-sex roomates; One could claim the relationship was more than platonic....could be mighty lucrative if you happened to have a rich college roommate.
...Which makes a case for the government getting out of Marriage altogether.
I'm not sure that is so realistic. I had female housemates for a while in college, and I seriously doubt gaming the system in that fashion could have been credible.
(shuddering); Insurance/banking industries, among others, would be sent into tailspin.
Oh, also, by the way, gay partners already can and do successfully sue for palimony.
This issue has been pretty consistent for the past several years; politicians talk about it ALOT.
BTW; in THIS election cycle, more phobia has been exploited by the Dems than Republicans (until this ruling, that is).
Foley's situation was about a grown man who served in the congress who tried to seduce an under age intern.. the GOP tried to make it seem like Dems were attacking gays but it didn't stick
The age of consent in DC is 16.
What did Foley do that was wrong, exactly? Please explain from an enlightened liberal's perspective, like yours?
Fine by me... (partially kidding)
You'd never heard that before? It slides off the tongue easier than "implied non-marital relationship contract."
Also, would there have been more (hard to imagine any more), or less, "outrage" and coverage from the media if the intern(s) had been young ladies?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
