Apples and oranges. My marriage is interracial.
My marriage is not same sex, nor would I even contemplate it.
Don't even try to draw any conclusions by comparing the two.

The "point" of all the time wasted on the debate in the Senate was not to talk about the issue of Gay Marriage, which most people do not think is important enough to spend all that time talking about it.

The point was to avoid talking about and voting on bills that people on both sides of the spectrum consider important like appropriating funds for rail security and passing an energy bill.

It was a case of keeping the floor "debating" when they knew there was no way they could get 67 people to vote yes to the amendment.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by osuracnaes Interracial marriages used to be illegal, and the concept of a black person and white person loving each other and living together was repulsive to most people. Call me biased, but I don't see how same-sex marriages are wrong. Massachusetts isn't in complete chaos. Canada seems to be doing just fine. What's the huge leap of reasoning needed to see that if two breeders love each other and can get married, so can two fags. And don't give me that tradition shit. Things change. Traditionally, women were subservient to men, staying at home, making sure dinner was done when the Old Man came back from work. Traditionally, those who you conquered or captured became your slaves - it goes back I'm sure much longer than the Oh-So-Sanctimonious Marriage these religious bigots seem to be talking about. Traditionally, songs of praise to the goddess Hymen were sung at lavish marriage ceremonies. Time changes. Tradition changes. Society changes. Get it through your heads.

There is one key difference in all of your examples, osuracnaes:

Biblically, and I think morally, inter-racial marriages are ok, and I find it sad there was a time where they weren't. Slavery is also not condoned biblically, or morally (all men are created equal, etc). As far as women being subservient to men, that's a bit of a grey area since the bible can be construed as a bit sexist at time (according to our "modern" ways of thinking).

Same sex marriages, I believe, are not morally or biblically correct. I have friends that are gay, and they will always be my friends, and I judge them on who they are, not what they do in their bedroom. However, marriage is a word and a belief that was granted to us by God. I won't go into the "history" of marriage, but I think a lot of people (including myself) believe that it's just not right for two people of the same sex to be "married". I would be all for some *other* legal way of joining them together (for tax purposes and celebration purposes) - they can call it a "partnership" or something.

Marriage should be the same as it always has - a man and a woman.

Same sex "marriage" just feels wrong to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by emander Apples and oranges. My marriage is interracial. My marriage is not same sex, nor would I even contemplate it. Don't even try to draw any conclusions by comparing the two.

What makes them so different? I am drawing conclusions by comparing the two. Please, explain.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil There is one key difference in all of your examples, osuracnaes: Biblically, and I think morally, inter-racial marriages are ok, and I find it sad there was a time where they weren't. Slavery is also not condoned biblically, or morally (all men are created equal, etc). As far as women being subservient to men, that's a bit of a grey area since the bible can be construed as a bit sexist at time (according to our "modern" ways of thinking). Same sex marriages, I believe, are not morally or biblically correct. I have friends that are gay, and they will always be my friends, and I judge them on who they are, not what they do in their bedroom. However, marriage is a word and a belief that was granted to us by God. I won't go into the "history" of marriage, but I think a lot of people (including myself) believe that it's just not right for two people of the same sex to be "married". I would be all for some *other* legal way of joining them together (for tax purposes and celebration purposes) - they can call it a "partnership" or something. Marriage should be the same as it always has - a man and a woman. Same sex "marriage" just feels wrong to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

You're throwing this word, 'biblical' at me. I won't go into my thoughts on the Bible/religion. As far as slavery goes, it is encouraged many times in the Bible. Ex. 22:2-3, Lev. 19:20, Lev. 25:44-46, etc.

You say "it's not right." What makes it not right? My morals say it's right for a gay couple to have the same priveliges as a straight couple. Same sex marriage just feels perfectly fine to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

___________________
My myspace

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil There is one key difference in all of your examples, osuracnaes: Biblically, and I think morally, inter-racial marriages are ok, and I find it sad there was a time where they weren't. Slavery is also not condoned biblically, or morally (all men are created equal, etc). As far as women being subservient to men, that's a bit of a grey area since the bible can be construed as a bit sexist at time (according to our "modern" ways of thinking). Same sex marriages, I believe, are not morally or biblically correct. I have friends that are gay, and they will always be my friends, and I judge them on who they are, not what they do in their bedroom. However, marriage is a word and a belief that was granted to us by God. I won't go into the "history" of marriage, but I think a lot of people (including myself) believe that it's just not right for two people of the same sex to be "married". I would be all for some *other* legal way of joining them together (for tax purposes and celebration purposes) - they can call it a "partnership" or something. Marriage should be the same as it always has - a man and a woman. Same sex "marriage" just feels wrong to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Argument denied.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by emander Apples and oranges. My marriage is interracial. My marriage is not same sex, nor would I even contemplate it. Don't even try to draw any conclusions by comparing the two.

No kidding...I found that comparison rather offensive too, as I have a very good friend who's white, and she married a very devout Catholic from the Dominican Republic, and they'd shudder at the comparison. When you get down to basics, it's still a marriage between a man and a woman, and cannot be compared to a same sex marriage.

I heard something else today, which really made me think about the long-term effects that same-sex marriages (or partnerships) have on children. There was a woman on one of the news channels today who had given testimony before the Senate about the marriage amendment. She's now an adult, but was adopted by two lesbians back in the 1970's - one of the first adoptions by a same sex couple. In her testimony, she came out strongly against gay marriage.

Instead of having a normal childhood, her "parents" expected her to defend their lifestyle, as well as trying to live the life of a grade-schooler or a teenager. The child didn't ask to be placed in a same-sex household, and she shouldn't have had to be the spokesperson for her two mothers' social experiment.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Here are some fun quotes to kick around for a while. Enjoy.

"The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government." ----Francis Grund

"[P]erfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he . . . introduces confusion and disorder into society . . . [thus] where licentiousness begins, liberty ends." ----Samuel West

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith." ----Horace Greely

". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger." ----Patrick Henry

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ----John Adams

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom." ----Patrick Henry

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

this is how dumb this issue will get when and if same sex marriage becomes legal.

my good (male) friend, a guy i've known worked and partied with for four years, has agreed to marry me if this shit falls through.

we've thrown this idea around to other male friends and co-workers and and have gotten a decent response. they think it would be fairly cool to marry your best bud not just in protest but for the benefits.

and yeah i'm very secure in my hetero-ness. not that sure about Zach though. it would be an open marriage, no doubt.

oh yeah. did i mention that we're in the military?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I heard something else today, which really made me think about the long-term effects that same-sex marriages (or partnerships) have on children. There was a woman on one of the news channels today who had given testimony before the Senate about the marriage amendment. She's now an adult, but was adopted by two lesbians back in the 1970's - one of the first adoptions by a same sex couple. In her testimony, she came out strongly against gay marriage. Instead of having a normal childhood, her "parents" expected her to defend their lifestyle, as well as trying to live the life of a grade-schooler or a teenager. The child didn't ask to be placed in a same-sex household, and she shouldn't have had to be the spokesperson for her two mothers' social experiment.

strangely, i totally agree with your statement expressing her childhood in the 1970s.

But does any child have a choice of the environment in which he/she is raised? I know children of alcoholics who detest drinking, children of pot-heads who hate to smoke, and children of heterosexuals who turn gay.

the 70s were a time where anyone practicing a "abnormal" lifestyle were constantly on the defensive (funny, considering disco and quaaludes), and yeah, the parents were being irresponsible to expect a child to conform to and defend their chosen lifestyle.

what happens if someone comes forth and explains their own childhood as being supportive and loving in a same sex upbringing? should we cast them out as being themselves abnormal? arguing on a case-by-case basis seems a little short-sighten in this light.

if two people are able to demonstrate the level of responsibility required for adoption, should we discriminate based on sex? It's funny that the same people who generally are pro-life, don't want the unwanted children their policies produce in the hands of people who's lifestyles seem strange.

I'd love to see the bumper sticker: "I'm pro-life and i adopt"

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Open up any pre-90's dictionary and read the definition of the word marriage. Then consider the following argument: Since almost all marriage laws were written prior to the 90s, the definition of the term marriage is what it was when the laws were written. Not what it has been politically correctedly adapted to mean today. Unless you disagree that we should try and interpurt the laws in the initial spirit they were written, you would agree that from a legal stand point gay marriage is illegal. Why worth less? Gays are different. They've told us this, and I accept that - I have no issue with it. But being different fundamentally means we can not be equal. Gays from their fundamental nature can not marry - by the traditional definition marriage is between a man and a women. That's ok. Because I can not marry myself either (which I'd love to do!) nor can a man chose to have a child. Our differing sexualities place physicial limitations on us which have often been extended to become legalistic limitations.

Nice argument. I've never considered anyone being opposed to gay marriage because of a high respect of tradition. Of course, to be consistent, you would also have to oppose working men owning shares in the companies they work for, as that would interfere with the classical employer-employee relationship.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Perhaps for me it is a linguistic concern as you say. I do not think there is any more benfit to a marriage than a union aside from religious conotations. I am not against gay couples, or gays making a commitment to living as a couple and enjoying any advantages or disadvatnages of being a couple. If marriage gives any benifits over a union I would believe it would dervive from the fundamental purpose of marriage - a stable structure for raising children - and would apply mainly with child benifits. If it is beyond that realm, I will agree with you and say that all benifits enjoyed by marriage should be shared by a union as well (aside from any child benifits stated earlier).

I think that there are societal benefits from being married that even law cannot take into account. Take a gay at a job interview, who is asked whether she is married (as married people are seen as having some order in their life). Further, lots of applications include only the boxes "married", "engaged", and "single". What is someone in a civil union supposed to do?
Hence, I'm for gay marriage - but that may also be because I've never been one to accept traditions on account of them being traditions.

Just for the record: I think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. It's insane that there are orphanages and stable working homosexuals who want to adopt at the same time.