FYI American CICer's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Erkle

Rear Admiral
First off let me first say that this thread is not meant in any way to offend anyone and I ask the Powers That Be that should this thread turn into a flame war, please lock it.

On July 15 2004 the US Senate will be voting on the Federal Marriage Ammendment. If you are in favor of it then call in your support to your Senators. If you are against it the call in your disapproval. If you have no idea what it is do a web search. My personal opinions are going to be kept to myself for now, but if anyone wants to ask, I'll be happy to share.

Please remember to call, they work for you. Remember this thread is only meant as an FYI to interested parties.

Jim
 

Shipgate

Rear Admiral
Erkle said:
First off let me first say that this thread is not meant in any way to offend anyone and I ask the Powers That Be that should this thread turn into a flame war, please lock it.

On July 15 2004 the US Senate will be voting on the Federal Marriage Ammendment. If you are in favor of it then call in your support to your Senators. If you are against it the call in your disapproval. If you have no idea what it is do a web search. My personal opinions are going to be kept to myself for now, but if anyone wants to ask, I'll be happy to share.

Please remember to call, they work for you. Remember this thread is only meant as an FYI to interested parties.

Jim


Okay, I'll ask. What's your personal opinion about it? And is this that thing that takes away state's power to decide whether or not they want gay marriage to be legal? Is that what you're talking about?
 

McGruff

Banned
Let em do whatever they want to in the privacy of their own homes - just not where I have to see it.

Let em even have some special status with legal benefits such as domestic partners or whatever - just don't call it marriage because it's not. Calling it so is an insult to the institution of marriage which by definition (voted on by the majority of California voters) can only be between a man and a woman.
 

Shipgate

Rear Admiral
I'll just say this and then be like, "Back away not today...Disco Lady"

I don't feel too strongly about it one way or the other. What I do feel strongly about is the supposed balance between state and national governments. And this proposed amendment seems like it would just take away an important state power to decide that sort of thing for themselves.

Now I do the dance....
 

McGruff

Banned
Gotta agree with you on that one too, although for all intents and purposes, there really has been no 10th amendment for some time now.
 

Grimloc

Rear Admiral
I know several gays and lesbians personally (I, however, am very much heterosexual and plan to stay that way). Regardless of their sexual preference, they are my friends. I can give you the perspective of some of my friends, but I'm keeping my view to myself: Many of them feel the government has no right to tell them they can't marry. The heterosexual view of marriage is well known, but their view of marriage is different in that... well, it involves two consenting members of the same gender. Now, I'm pretty sure no one likes being told by the federal government that they can't do something that they see as fundamental.

And the definition of marriage was not decided upon based on a vote by the majority of California voters, although I wouldn't put it passed the people of California to claim that.

edit: Hurray for my 100th post!
 

ace

Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
Grimloc said:
Many of them feel the government has no right to tell them they can't marry. The heterosexual view of marriage is well known, but their view of marriage is different in that... well, it involves two consenting members of the same gender. Now, I'm pretty sure no one likes being told by the federal government that they can't do something that they see as fundamental.

I'm pretty sure anyone can say they're married and live together happily ever after. The reason the government enters into the marriage is because if people want it to be legally recognized they kind of have to answer to the government. Nothing fundamental is being denied; gay people can still be together and do whatever they want. They just can't legally engage in something that is fundamentally based on two opposing genders procreating.
 

Grimloc

Rear Admiral
Good point. I suppose what they want is marriage, exactly as it is for heterosexuals with all the legal, financial and family perks and recognition, with the singular exception that it is homosexual. They don't want it called something else, and they very much don't want a different legal standing than heterosexual married couples. They want the same marriage. Several states have allowed them to marry, but the federal government wants to put an end to that. Can the federal government "unmarry" couples? I guess we'll see what happens.
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Grimloc said:
Good point. I suppose what they want is marriage, exactly as it is for heterosexuals with all the legal, financial and family perks and recognition, with the singular exception that it is homosexual. They don't want it called something else, and they very much don't want a different legal standing than heterosexual married couples. They want the same marriage. Several states have allowed them to marry, but the federal government wants to put an end to that. Can the federal government "unmarry" couples? I guess we'll see what happens.
The Fed has nullified other legal arrangements in the past with a wave of the legal wand, but I doubt it will. The course of our history is inevitably drawn straight through and out the other side of this issue, and it's not going away until a lot of self-righteous people get their way.

But it doesn't make sense. Consider: What does the Federal Government of the United States get out of a homosexual marriage? The Fed specifically wants men and women to get married, so they can have successful children (various studies have shown that children born to stable heterosexual marriages are better adjusted blah blah than kids of any other sort of family - of course that doesn't mean kids from single-parent families, or adopted children of any nature can't be successful, but we're going for what's best, not what's good enough,) and build stable families, and hold jobs, and own homes etc. All of these things not only contribute to, and strengthen each other, they essentially constitute a standard of living, and one which isn't too bad, and they perpetuate as well, leading to newer generations who seek and achieve the same successes.

Our government is not legally obligated to support and endorse every conceivable lifestyle. It's not required to support and endorse any, but it does so for those it sees as benefiting it somehow. The fact that the Fed sees no benefit in a gay marriage, and therefore does not legally sanction it, is seen by ideologues as being a punitive measure against homosexuals, and that's how it's styled by them.

And that should illustrate the key problem here: It isn't about marriage - it's about legitimacy. The homosexual "community" wants its lifestyle to be legally recognized as equivalent to the default norm. Well no, sorry but I don't think it's equivalent, I don't think it's interchangeable, and I don't think the governments I fund with my own money should be endorsing it.

Clearly, nobody's rights should be curtailed or suspended based on their sexuality, but let's face it, folks: with respect to marriage, theirs aren't. They can get married any time they want, and live happily ever after. People got married before the United States existed, before the US Federal Government decided to sweeten the deal. I can't fathom why a homosexual man or woman should feel entitled to receive the same bonuses which are awarded to me specifically because I'm a heterosexual.

I'd rather they take the whole thing away - at least that still makes some measure of sense.


But I'm really just raging against an incoming tide. People want this, because they don't understand it, and they're going to get it, and they're going to continue getting whatever they want until we've piled on enough bullshit that it all comes toppling down around us.

And then I'm going to start shooting people.
 

Erkle

Rear Admiral
My personal opinion is against the gay marriages. As I said above I am not against another type of living araingment just not marriage. My views are mostly steming from my religion but that debate has already been fought in this forum. I do not harbor any ill fate to anyone whoconsiders themselves homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual. I just happen to believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. By open it up to one person and another person, you are paving the way to one person and one or more "other"; such as groups of people, animals, polygamy, and who knows what else. Studies have shown a determent to children with out access to parents of both sexes. Nobody knows what would happen to a childs emotional or mentle wellbeing if both parents where of the same sex. I do have friends who are gay and are in longterm partnerships and I wish them best.

Please follow this link if you wish to read about why smae sex marriage is dangerous to us as a nation.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm

Read the facts, weigh the arguments, then do what is in your heart, not what others are telling you to do.

Jim
 

KrisV

Administrator
From the article:
How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable.
Well, who could argue with that? Thread closed, as it should have been several posts ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top