Bush Bash, Anti-gay marrige.

by SC_Guy 101 Replies latest social current

• 

  Yerusalyim

  Please show ME where marriage is not a right between two unrelated persons.

  Patio,

  I think the very fact that you must obtain a license to marry show that it's not a "right" per se.

  Marriage is a contract NOT ONLY between two people...but also between those people and society. That's why the ceremony is conducted by an official of the state. Society has the right, therefore, to define marriage. Given this, the desire of a few individuals shouldn't override the will of the vast majority (about 76% oppose "gay marriage")

  Live together? Sure, why not. Have papers drawn so that you can have medical power of attorney and inheritence rights...GREAT. Demand that society sanction your relationship...over the top.

  As for the ridiculous response about thanking liberals...seems to me that plays both ways...It was a republican president that freed the slaves in the US...granted the party has changed a lot since then...but so has society. Seems to me it was southern democrats that caused most of the problems on issues of racism too.
• 

  Atilla

  Given this, the desire of a few individuals shouldn't override the will of the vast majority (about 76% oppose "gay marriage")

  Using this logic, we would still have slavery, it would still be like the 60's with prejudices and divisions abounding between the races. Surveys in the 60's indicated that many people, the vast majority in society, were not for desegregation. I thought the whole reason for having a democracy was not to just protect the rights of the majority but also the minority.

  Also, when you say a few individuals, do you think that there are only a 1000 gay people in this country? There are millions of so called "gay people" in this country but as I showed earlier there is no such thing. For the most part, genetically, everyone is bi-sexual. So, the more you oppose the integration of homosexuals into our society, that means the more you are trying to cover up your own insecurities about your own sexuality. It called homophobia, the fear of being feminized and being outed as being "gay". Thus, any survey showing indviduals opposed to gay marriage is flawed because the so called majority that is opposed are simply homophobic.

  As far as marriage goes, the states, nor the Federal Government should have no rights in my mind to decide who I marry. The states are only into granting marriage licenses for the money aspect, the taxes, etc. Why don't they make some more money by granting more licenses or here is a better idea, get out of the marriage license business all together. Shouldn't we be more worried about the quality of the marriages in this country and not about the sex of those being married. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, the most tumultous event that can happen to a young child. It's hypocritical for so called heterosexual people to complain about gay marriage when their own marriages are a wreck. I thought having a happy family unit where a child has two loving parents were suppose to be "conservative values." Face it, intergration of homosexuals into our society is inevitable, it will just take some more time unfortunately.
• 

  patio34

  I don't think that probably the government should license marriages, or if they do, to not discriminate and define it.

  What I would think is probably a good idea, if it could be managed, is to license sans discrimination on the basis or religion, gender, and race, etc., having a child. Think of the good potential if it were possible: no unwanted pregnancies.

  Yeru, and while one has to get a license also to drive, it can't be denied on the basis of religion, gender, etc. Marriage licenses could be said to be being withheld on the basis of gender.

  Pat
• 

  CountryGuy

  I'm sick of liberals trying to denegrate society and traditional values...of trying to destroy the society we know and create one that's foriegn to most people. That's what I'm sick of.

  Yeru,

  Interesting post. Made me think a little bit. I think you have a little bit of circular reasoning going on. This is what I "heard" when I read your post:

  • For straight people, traditional values (i.e., the way it's been up until now) would be getting married. Conversely, that would mean that those straight couples who choose to live together without marriage would be, as you put it, denegrating to society and traditional values.
  • For gay people, traditional values would be living together. While the marriage of two gay people would cause the downfall of our society and values. (I think you're giving gay people way too much power.)

  Why should it be different based on who you love? Honestly, if the love of two people (no matter what sex they are) is a threat to a society and it's values, then that society wasn't very strong after all. That society would need strengthening. Which is what has happened to our society over the decades. Our society would be totally foriegn to your grandparents; you grandchildren's society may be totally foriegn to you.

  I don't always agree with your posts, but they always make me think.

  Best regards,
  CountryGuy
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Using this logic, we would still have slavery, it would still be like the 60's with prejudices and divisions abounding between the races.

  Attila,

  Are you just used to being wrong that you do it so often? The issue of slavery and race are indeed a matter of individual rights...no one issues a license to be a human, just by being one you have certain rights. These are seperate issues entirely. It does those who suffered in the civil rights movement a terrible disservice to try to tie the gay marriage issue into civil rights.

  No, a driver's license isn't denied on the basis of race, gender, etc, it CAN be denied for reasons of testing...inability, etc. What's your point?
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Yeru, your licensing argument is invalidated by the fact that bearing arms is a right guaranteed by constitutional amendment, but still requires a license.

  All the discussion about surveys and percentages is a bit irrelevant - we don't live in a democracy per se, we live in a republic with democratically-selected representation. This whole mess is not tied to the will of the majority at the moment, it's tied to the contract we all sign off on together by virtue of our United States citizenship - the Constitution and its guarantees.
• 

  gitasatsangha

  As for the ridiculous response about thanking liberals...seems to me that plays both ways...It was a republican president that freed the slaves in the US...granted the party has changed a lot since then...but so has society. Seems to me it was southern democrats that caused most of the problems on issues of racism too .

  Your respoce is rediculos. I never mentioned Democrat and Republican, I was discussing Liberals vs. Conservatives. If you think Democrat=Liberal and Republicans=Conservative, then you are missing a great deal of the diversity in both parties.
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Yeru, if society is party to the marriage contract, and I am a member of said society, I wanna start seeing more back from the straight marriages. We straights seem to have f#$ked this up pretty well without the guys from Queer Eye coming in yet to help us out. Other than telling people not to get divorced, what has the conservative movement done to improve the efficacy of marriage in this country?

  - "...according to one Gallup report (1) 10% of Protestants and 10% of Catholics are divorced and (2) 26% of Protestants and 23% of Catholics have been divorced at some point." (http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/rreligion.html)

  - The Associated Press 12/30/99 BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) -- Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination, and are more likely to get a divorce than atheists and agnostics, according to a national survey. The survey conducted by Barna Research Group in Ventura, Calif., found that 29 percent of all adult Baptists have been through a divorce. Among Christian groups, only those who attend non-denominational Protestant churches were more likely to be divorced, with a 34 percent divorce rate.
  
  Alabama, with a population of 4.3 million, has more than one million Southern Baptists and a majority of evangelical Protestants. The state ranks fourth nationally in divorce rates, behind Nevada, Tennessee and Arkansas, according to U.S. government statistics.

  - From http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf

  "About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women's first marriages may end in divorce for these age groups. The likelihood of a divorce is lowest for men and women age 60, for whom 36 % of men and 32 percent of women may divorce from their first marriage by the end of their lives. A similar statistical exercise was performed in 1975 using marital history data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). Projections based on those data implied that about one-third of married persons who were 25 to 35 years old in 1975 would end their first marriage in divorce."

  This census study also indicates that income and education are not influencers of divorce. I stipulate that the no-fault divorce concept has increased these numbers... but I further stipulate that most of the additional divorces would simply have continued as unhappy, dysfunctional marriages. The divorce laws didn't make those people do it.

  So if there is a need to defend marriage, apparently the threat comes from Baptists in Alabama.
• 

  ThiChi

  Bush is saving the US. Using your logic, this man should be able to marry his daughter. Why not? Why stop love? Every thing now becomes subjective. I agree with the one of the four organic laws of the US and supported by the Founding Fathers: Religion and Morality is a pillar of a strong Country. Lets fight this radical liberal, red diaper doper baby madness!! Let's keep the values which has made this country great! Go Bush!!

  F ather who married daughter ordered back to prisonThe Associated Press
  February 27, 2004
  
  Email this story.
  
  

  ? Discuss this story

  A 53-year-old man was sent back to prison after a judge decided the man had violated a probation order barring him from cohabitation with his 30-year-old daughter, who is also his former wife.
  
  Mobile County Circuit Judge John Lockett ordered Carroll Eugene Ferdinandsen to prison on Thursday after determining he violated a probation order barring him from cohabitation with Alice Ferdinandsen.
  
  Each had pleaded guilty to incest last summer in connection with their May 2003 civil marriage in Mobile County and served six months in jail before being released in January.
  
  Prosecutors presented police witnesses who testified they found the father and daughter together in motel rooms on two occasions, just days after the couple's release from jail.
  
  Each had pleaded guilty to incest last summer and served six months in jail before being released in January.
  
  Lockett ordered Carroll Ferdinandsen to serve the remainder of a 10-year sentence.
  
  The judge said the state had not proved its case against Alice Ferdinandsen and ruled she had not violated her probation.
  
  ---
  
  Information from: The Mobile Register
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Yeru said:

  No, a driver's license isn't denied on the basis of race, gender, etc, it CAN be denied for reasons of testing...inability, etc. What's your point?

  Yeru, the point, which you make very well, is that the license is granted without regard to immaterial things like race, gender, etc. If you show me where gay people are somehow less qualified or less able to be married, I'll support your position.

  SNG