Arnold, Gray Davis, and Gays

[spursfan101]

I still don't get all the uproar from conservatives about gay marriage. Religious leaders are free to decide who can and cannot be married under their rules. I understand that there are religious prohibitions against homosexuality. That's fine -- religious leaders are free to define marriage under their religion as they see fit.

What does any of that have to do with civil unions or civil marriage? What are the secular arguments (conservative or otherwise) against homosexuals getting married? All I keep hearing are relgious arguments. If two guys or two gals want to get married -- why does society care? What about separation of church and state? If homosexual activity is legal, why not homsexual marriage?   :huh:


 

[JoMal]

What once was strictly a religious ceremony, to bind a man and a woman together in the eyes of God, etc, has long since evolved into a binding contract, a legal joining of assets and future assets, and how those assets should be distributed when one partner dies or if the marriage dissolves and one partner was the earner and the other had little, and who can receive medical coverage if one partner works and the other does not, and who has the legal right to turn off the life-support system is dire situations and who can even be allowed in to see the loved one.

The problem gay couples have long had has been one of rights. They have none in the eyes of the State and the Nation. Marriage provides those rights by law. If an alternative binding contract can be allotted gay couples that circumvents marriage, I truly believe gay couples would opt for it.

But currently, that legal joining and sharing of benefits and assets can only be attained through marriage.

[spursfan101]

The problem gay couples have long had has been one of rights. They have none in the eyes of the State and the Nation. Marriage provides those rights by law. If an alternative binding contract can be allotted gay couples that circumvents marriage, I truly believe gay couples would opt for it.

See, THIS is what I support. I'm totally against them being married by the church, I just think that couples, even homosexual ones, are entitled to some basic civil rights.  

[spursfan101]

The whole gay marriage thing is irrelevant anyway, as the constitutional amendment banning this would be impossible to pass.

[WayOutWest]

What once was strictly a religious ceremony, to bind a man and a woman together in the eyes of God, etc, has long since evolved into a binding contract, a legal joining of assets and future assets, and how those assets should be distributed when one partner dies or if the marriage dissolves and one partner was the earner and the other had little, and who can receive medical coverage if one partner works and the other does not, and who has the legal right to turn off the life-support system is dire situations and who can even be allowed in to see the loved one.

The problem gay couples have long had has been one of rights. They have none in the eyes of the State and the Nation. Marriage provides those rights by law. If an alternative binding contract can be allotted gay couples that circumvents marriage, I truly believe gay couples would opt for it.

But currently, that legal joining and sharing of benefits and assets can only be attained through marriage.

Thanks JoMal.  That's dead on the point.  

The argument I've also heard is how gays will get the breaks that families get and that's not fair becuase it's tougher to raise kids.  That's true but gays are not encroching on those perks just like childless couples don't.  There are also people who get married JUST for those benifits yet have no intent on building a family but they don't catch any flak because it's not about the civil issues it's about moral ones.

I know homo's are wrong because it's un-natural and would not allow our species to survive but niether is birth control, abortions and blow jobs but nobody should be able to dictate which of those are allowed to be done when neither is illegal.

Still religious nuts in the country want to push their morality on everyone else.  This is a religous nut issue.

[westkoast]

I think you're mistaken in calling this a Christian issue. Maybe in the small minds of some politicians and citizens it is. However, if you've spent any time studying world religion, you'd know better. Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Confucianism basically ever other major world religion or social code ALL view marriage as the union of man and woman. Don't hate on Christianity just because they're one voice against gay marriage in the U.S. This issue has much more to do with human society in general. The foundation of human civilization since mankind started recording history has been the traditional family. Personally, I think we need to give it some serious consideration before weakening that foundation. If we all put our heads together and decide that tolerance of gay marriage is the way to go, then that's fine. But if society decides against it, don't blame Christians. My God is not the only one against this.

Any idea what Muslims do to homosexuals?

Id be mistaken if Bush had not made this a big personal issue because of his christian agenda.  I mean its not like the guy hasn't gone out of his way to make this very clear to everyone.  Bush has a very out in the open christian agenda.  He is letting his religion effect the way he is deciding and thats the problem.  Who cares if the rest of the world doesn't deem it ok.  Most of the people who are heavily against this happen to be Christian in our government.  The white christian males have quite a bit of control inside the government.  So yes it is a christian issue because the politicans, who are christian, have made it such a big deal.  Last time I checked there were no Islamic or Jewish politicians trying to get an amendement banning the marriage of gays.  I don't believe ive heard Lieberman chime in on this.  Correct me if you guys have heard anything from him.  This is a christian issue inside the US because of who is involved.  Why am I against this?  Church and state are to be seperate.  Not blended.  This country cannot have views from ANY one single religion effecting goverment issues......we have too many people from too many different backrounds/religions for it to work in a way that helps all the people here.

Society is split I believe.....is society pushing for an amendement to be put into place banning gay marriages?  No.  The foundation you speak of should be based on love.  Since its possible for two homosexuals to be in love with each other what is the problem with them getting married?  No one has been able to answer that question except with "Because its not right".......who is it not right to?  God?

Spursfan101 is 100% correct.  If the church doesn't want to marry two male or females then that is their own choice.  They have the freedom to say no you cannot be married here....it is not right in the eyes of god.  Civil marriages between gays should be allowed.  Gays still are people too.  I know the old timers (Ted and Randy) see marriage as it was 20 years ago.  As JoMaL has pointed out its quite different than it was when you both were being raised.

[Ted]

Old-timer? LOL! I'm 29 years old. Ahh, the old argument of "you're old, times are changing."

Westkoast, I think you need to go back and read the previous thread on this issue. If you do your homework, you'll see that my views on civil unions for gays don't contradict yours. All I'm saying is that in today's world, it isn't just the Christians who oppose gay "marriage."

Your interpretation of church and state is far too broad. Go back and read the constitution. "Separation" of church and state doesn't mean the electoral process is supposed to separate an elected official from his or her religious and/or moral beliefs. It's a purely institutional credo: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." In fact, the words "church and state" do not appear in the First Amendment. They were coined by Thomas Jefferson well after the First Amendment was passed.

A candidate's morality is an important factor in most voters' decisions. There's a reason this country has never elected an athiest. Republican democracy relies on the virtue of the people and the ability of the people to govern themselves. For right or wrong, the majority of people, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, even Athiest, oppose gay marriage as either immoral or unnatural. So it stand to reason that the majority of elected leaders oppose it, too.

Personally, I think this is a national debate that needs to happen. You speak as if the President of the United States is some all-powerful tyrant who can pass any law and any amendment whenever he wishes. Bush can't pass an anti-gay-marriage amendment unless the House of Reps AND the Senate pass it first. My personal morality leads me to oppose things like abortion and gay marriage for myself, and for my children, but our country is not governed by my personal morality alone. It is governed by Westkoast's, JoMal's, Randy's, Reality's and . . . "gulp" . . . WoW's too. So if the people decide against an amendment, you won't see me driving a tank to the White House.

[SPURSX3]

whats funny is that on the same day rosie odonnell got married in san fran, both demo's running for pres, Kerry and Edwards, both stated they were against GAY marriages as well...there goes your Bush is too damn religious arguements...

[westkoast]

Ted, I dont not believe it is too broad.  I do not think that a politican should let his religion decide what is ok and what is not due to the simple fact that not everyone is that certain religion.  How are you going to be for ALL the people when you are catering to one crowd?

I am not making Bush out to be some tyrant who can do whatever he wants.  I believe I passed 6th grade and I do believe I understand how our government works.  Thanks for the review  tho.  Out here in California Bush has been all over the media trying to do his all to keep gay marriages from happening.  I get two way alerts daily talking about the issue.  Lets be real here.....the guy has alot of pull in this country right now.  He has alot of people who back him for any reason.  Not very many people want to go up against him right now because he is a shoe-in for re-election.  So when he speaks very passionate about this it makes people who may be undecided just go ehhh whatever.  That nudge from the President makes a world of difference.  Even to the other politicans who are going to want to not get on his bad side because they have to deal with him for the next 4 years.  I think you are underestimating how much Bush is effecting alot of people's views on the subject.

[Guest_Randy]

Spursfan101 is 100% correct. If the church doesn't want to marry two male or females then that is their own choice. They have the freedom to say no you cannot be married here....it is not right in the eyes of god. Civil marriages between gays should be allowed. Gays still are people too. I know the old timers (Ted and Randy) see marriage as it was 20 years ago. As JoMaL has pointed out its quite different than it was when you both were being raised.  

[Guest_Randy]

Spursfan101 is 100% correct. If the church doesn't want to marry two male or females then that is their own choice. They have the freedom to say no you cannot be married here....it is not right in the eyes of god. Civil marriages between gays should be allowed. Gays still are people too. I know the old timers (Ted and Randy) see marriage as it was 20 years ago. As JoMaL has pointed out its quite different than it was when you both were being raised.

I had no idea that marriage had changed -- and being "gay" is a new concept, right?  Oh, except it isn't -- it's an old one.  The great thing about democracy is the fact that people can vote according to their convictions and/or opinions -- this isn't a "new" concept -- it isn't something that has caught the world by surprise -- it has been around a long, long time.  There is nothing new under the sun -- just different excesses of the same old thing.

[WayOutWest]

The "Randy's" are confusing me.    

[Guest_Randy]

The "Randy's" are confusing me.  

Sorry, my 'puter freaked out on me -- I'm home today -- boy do I hate dial-up.  I have time to go fix dinner by the time something actually loads around here.

[jn]

Marriage has changed immensely.  The concept of being able to chose your own spouse based on compatability and love is very new.   For most of history it's been a matter of economic security and/or political advantage.  


 

 

[Ted]

You are absolutely right that marriage has always been a tool for political or economic gain, even today, but only in certain social castes or circles. Unfortunately, history usually tells about only those classes who did use marriage that way. Deeper research shows that the common man lived differently.