Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages

Whats a Deist?

Feel free to PM me if you don't feel like going off topic here.

Deism is the belief that there is a god who created the universe but then had nothing more to do with it... a gid that is not interested in human affairs and exerts no influence. Deism is more a means of explaining the origin of the universe than it is a religion.

Using religion for this argument is like throwing a dud hand grenade.

It would be much more interesting if people presented non-religious reasoning.

Exactly Garoad!

I've read alot on this topic (gay marriage) and not once has there been a reason that *did not* include religion.

religion is and should be incorporated into this argument because its the back bone of why the majority of people dont want gay marriges, that and the assumption of them having gay sex once they are married, which can be health hazarding, there is really no "non religious reasoning" when the argument itself is caused by religion.

The problem is, you can't force religion or religious ideas on others. Also, people are going to do whatever in their own privacy, as they should be allowed...it's not really relevant here, anyway.

Why is the argument itself caused by religion?

I'm still not 100% sure (yet) that there isn't any non-religious reasoning for being against this, though. I've been thinking about it alot, almost like a scientist would test a theory to see how well it holds up, but so far I'm mostly drawing blanks.

Im not against homosexual marriges, but homosexual sex is some what of a different issue, due the vast amounts of people getting affected with H.I.V., alot of homosexuals take the risk everyday, not caring for themselves or society as a whole. you cant impose religion, but it can come off as someone trying to do so, as a matter of fact it always does. But it all depends on the reader, and how they read it.

If I understand you correctly, I think you just presented a non-religious reason, actually. But I think it's flawed reasoning; people are going to do what they want in their own privacy, marriage or not.

Doesnt being married and committed to one partner take away the promiscuity argument?

Arent IV drug users at the same (or greater since their judgement is impared) risk of HIV?

Also the HIV argument doesnt work for lesbians. Lesbians contract the lowest number of STDs of any group.

Yes misnomer, your correct, but this issue is about gay marriges rather than bad IV's and blood transfusions. If im correct, I put "homosexual" and not lesbian since its obvious they cant get AIDs as easily, but still as well have the risk of devolping other diseases.

OK, I'll take a stab at it.

I don't like the notion of government, at any level, amending the dictionary. Words have meaning, and where old words don't fit a new concept we, generally, create a new word. I think that might be a solution that would make a lot of people happy (maybe not everyone) and allow a more civil discussion (about rights, rather than word definitions) to take place.

During the high point of the civil rights movement I don't remember anyone suggesting that we just be done with it and declare that "from this day forward, everyone is white", and it's most likely that a lot of people of all colors would have objected to that one-size-fits-all solution. What they wanted was (is) equality, and I wish that that were more the focus here.

Watching this "discussion" and all the name calling, makes me think of watching two drunks in a bar having a heated "debate". You watch it get louder and louder, knowing that it will probably end in a fist fight and that neither participant will remember what it was about the next day.

Someone earlier mentioned taking away the concept of marriage for everyone as a way of leveling the field. To a large extent that has already happened, and is continuing to happen. Many people don't get married. I have a friend who has lived with the same woman for 10 years or so. They have an elaborate set of contractual documents that lay out what will happen to their shared property, and their 3 children when (I don't think its "if" in their case) they eventually break up. It's pretty sad.

When I entered the workforce a married guy (or gal) could take a job and for no extra cost get full medical and dental insurance for themselves, their spouse and all 14 children (and yes I knew someone who had that many, all adopted). I can well understand that if that were the case today, and if the operative word on that employment agreement was the word "married", that a gay couple, planning to adopt 14 kids, would shout "I want THAT!" and I'm sure that anyone, no matter how much they are opposed to such a union can understand the economic incentive to such a desire.

But the fact is that the "freebies" for married people are mostly gone these days. Many companies these days only pay for insuring the employee, and often the employee has to chip in part of the bill for themselves as well. Spouse and children are covered on a per capita basis. No more free lunch.

For those few "perks" that still go with being married, I don't think most people would care if they were extended to gay couples. And I don't see why gay couples shouldn't have the same "defaults" available to them for property inheritance, hospital visitation, and all the other issues that go with this brawl.

But what about the gay couple who prefers a low key approach to this? Filling out that company benefits form one of them might like having the benefits options that go with being married without having to check that box on the form. What does that person do? What about the gay couple, who have lived together for 14 years, everyone knows they are gay, but they don't WANT to be called married, and they don't WANT other people to refer to them as "husband" and "wife"? I know people like this. What are they going to do after one side or the other wins this great debate?

I dunno the answer to that. What I know is that the debate, as it is currently framed will deprive this election season of a lot of valuable debate on other topics that are just as, if not more, important. It will get large groups of people at one another throats for the next year or so at least. It will serve as an embarrassment to a lot of people who just want to lead their lives and be left alone. And when it's all over and the dictionaries, constitutions, employment contracts, and papers at all the county clerks offices have been amended, or not, we will still have each other to deal with and we will realize, that like the two drunks, we have had a fight, both got kicked out of the bar, and forgotten the point of the argument.

In the mean time we can convince any potential new users that SL is a place where people don't know how to calmly discuss their differences and have a good time. Congratulations to whoever started this thread and whoever starts the next one.

Actually Mac,

I was pleasantly surprised at how rational, calm and humane most of the posts in this thread were (with a couple of obvious exceptions). I think it says a lot for the people of SL that such an emotive subject can be dealt with in such a way.

I'm sure that on other forums that has not been the case.

I agree with Selar, I think everyone is pretty reasonable for the most part. Debates like this are good things. They don't witness to our instability as much as to your general level of education and thoughtfulness, imho.

As to Apex's suggestion that logic "can only take you so far" -- I will say this.

Faith and Logic are not mutually exclusive. One can have faith and still use logic to bolster one's arguments. The two things do not have to be in opposition to one another. Plenty of good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. etc. etc. use logic in their every day lives to come to conclusions, and at the same time, they have faith in their particular religious views.

Also, you may want to check out your understanding of AIDS among the gay community and among the straight communities. I think your facts are just a little bit dated (no offense, but I believe they are). The vast majority of people who have AIDS in Africa, for instance, are nice straight people in nice straight relationships. It's a disease that impacts everyone. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have more of a chance of getting it than a straight person.

As far as religion goes and particularly Christianity I have to say -- I respect all religions, in fact, I love religious texts. I'm fascinated by them. But I still hold that many religions are a method of social control as much as they are a method of expressiing faith. I mean, in the Bible and the Koran, it tells us that women should be "subject" to men and that men are required to "lead" their wives, i.e. women oughta be home with the kids, period. But you wouldn't argue that now, would you? Remember, a lot of the "laws" in religious texts were intended for an audience 2,000 years old or more -- and some of that stuff simply doesn't apply to us today.

Besides, Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes and the lepors -- he probably hung out with a gay man or two too -- it's not like gay people just "appeared" in this century, you know? Jesus's mission was to be kind to sinners, not to torture them by telling them they had to remain outside society. Jesus was the ultimate rebel good guy >

Zana

after witnessing this debacle and taking in all of the opinions expressed, criticism tossed around, and stabs at political stance I talked it over with the little lady, who oddly enough believes as most if not all of my detractors. (weird how opposites attract huh? )

I have come to the following conclusion...


Sure... gays can be married... I dont care.
As long as you ELEVATE the status of TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE to Holy Matrimony.

Then what? They Gays will want that too?

We are married in the traditional sense.
We have struggled long and hard to make this work.
In this age of astounding divorce rates I think we DESERVE an elevated status.

You can argue all you want.
Im done with this thread, it simply is going no where.
Whatever the political outcome, I still think you are all a great bunch of people. Some skewed from center of my own views, but a great bunch of people nonetheless.
But I will support my president, I will urge my senators and congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment that holds marriage to be between one man born male, and one woman born female.
If you disagree, you should not dilly dally on these forums, you should get to contacting YOUR representitives
I know I will.
Good luck to those that wish otherwise!
However, I hope you lose
I promise I will be a good sport about it when you do.

[/B]

I haven't been keeping up, or I'd have said Here, Here long ago to this post! As a "breeder", I too would love the benefits of a civil union that was not "marriage" - a recognition of Sig Other by the state that did not attach to me the cultural bullsh*t associated with "being a wife".

My favorite part of reading this thread is the use of the smiley face. Your god sucks . Your chosen lifestyle is wrong . Your really a moron .

hahaha

this thread is teh sux

Daemioth's idea is a good one but I don't see it ever happening.

Mac hit one of the things (redefinition) I've been pondering, no complaints.

That is their choice though. This kind of setup is very expensive and if you are gay and have kids you share responsibility for, largely legally untested. So, you can spend thousands of dollars, go through a very invasive process and still not have your kids protected.

As far as marriage & holy matrimony, so long as it doesnt involve any governmental rights or liberties and is equal to marriage in accordance to the state and feds, elevate away. If semantics makes you feel better I'm all for it. Same holds true (for me) with civil unions. If legally they are equal and its the matter of a word or two title, thats great, lets do it.

Why even bother then? Why not just grant civil unions the same "legal" rights? (Which aren't all good, to begin with, are they?)

I don't think that the people fighting for this really want equal legal treatment, if they did, they would probably just push for civil unions to become equal legally. I think one thing that some are trying to do is redefine marriage to be what they want it to be. But you can't force changes in the meaning of words, it should be natural. Polls I've seen seem to show that the country is not willing to change this word.

You have NO idea. This battle has been going on for some time now. "Marriage" is already in place. The easiest thing is to just let gay people marry. Civil unions would need to be ceated and laws would need to be passed and or ammended to get the two to equate. Don't believe what the right is telling you. Its the right who is all hung up on semantics otherwise this would not be an issue. Don't assume you know what "those people" are fighting for or what they want or dont want. If you want to know, go to the source.

EDIT:
I am one person, I dont care as stated above because I just want equality. Many people dont like the idea because its like segregation.

That's just my (current) opinion, it has nothing to do with what the "right" is saying. I think there's a bigger agenda at work here.

Boy Apex, you really showed your ignorance on this one. How much do you really know about HIV and transmission? Not much evidentally.

For you to single out homosexuals as you do in that comment is just plain wrong, on many counts. Most gay people are not HIV positive. As a matter of fact, gay women have one of the lowest rates of HIV of any demographic group.

You should really brush up on your HIV knowledge before making comments like that, it just makes you look, well, dumb.

Newsflash: lesbians ARE homosexuals.

Do tell.

That comment seems to suggest that you believe you are superior than others simply by your heterosexual nature. I fail to see how you deserve more than me.

On another note Christopher, I predict you, and your 'camp', will lose. Time has historically never served the conservative factions well. Over the 200+ years of this great country, we have made it even more amazing by being progressive and encompassing new ideals.