Reply
Fri 29 Oct, 2004 03:05 pm
How do you feel about the issue? Should we allow it? Should we ban it? Or should we try and reach a compromise?
I just now submitted a post on the subject on the Mary Cheney thread -- only the most recent of many discussions.
I'm for it. I just don't see any reason not to allow it.
Re: Gay marriage?
cannistershot wrote:How do you feel about the issue? Should we allow it? Should we ban it? Or should we try and reach a compromise?
It's not up to us to decide whether "we" will allow it or not. Every individual has a fundamental right protected by the constitution to marry the person of their choice subject only to reasonable regulation by the state. (e.g., a state has a compelling interest in protecting children and may establish a minimum age for marriage in order to serve a compelling interest.)
However, a state does not have a compelling interest in preventing adult, consenting persons of the same sex from marrying one another. Any restrictions placed on marriage due to gender cannot be justified in a constitutional context and are therefore unreasonable and invalid.
I think if that were true it would be contested in just about every state...I think it is high time it is allowed...
The will of the people will prevail and the SC will have no choice but to allow the states the freedom to do as they place. I think the states passing their own state constitutional amendments will be allowed to create the law as they see fit. Courts are only going to interfere with what is really a state issue on marriage. There is no law in the constitution stating what marriage is and isn't, so the federal govt and or the states should be allowed to dictate what marriage is and who it should be allowed to be between. After all homosexuality is a choice as I have stated before and we shouldn't change views because a very small # of Americans choose to live outside the main stream. They are only doing it for the money and for some sort of mainstream recognition, which a majority of Americans don't think their life style of mainstream.
Baldimo wrote:. After all homosexuality is a choice as I have stated before and we shouldn't change views because a very small # of Americans choose to live outside the main stream. They are only doing it for the money and for some sort of mainstream recognition, which a majority of Americans don't think their life style of mainstream.
I see you are still suffering from sleep deprivation. Please get some rest.
None what so ever, I'm used to lack of sleep. Can you prove scientifically that homosexuality is not a choice? After all don't most of you love to invoke science when it comes to global warming and stem cell research? Why would this be any different? It seems to me that you are using a form of faith on this issue.
My fiance and I were discussing this the other night and he began to play a bit of the devil's advocate but brought up a valid point. I said something to the affect that with as much hatred in the world as there is, what difference does it make WHO we love, but that we still have the ability to love at all and that if, in a committed, loving relationship, why should we care who our neighbor marries?
He agreed but then threw in a kicker....so if we can love one person very much and want to marry them, why can't we love two or three or five or ten and marry them too? Bigamy, while illegal in the US is still practiced in many parts of Utah as well as either New Mexico or Arizona (I can't remember, darn CRS!) He stated, that by my logic above, I shouldn't have a problem with bigamy either. The ability to love and choose who we marry (much broader scale, of course).
I pouted of course and am still pondering that one....
So, what's the problem with bigamy?
Good point littlek! It's not affecting me in any way. For those that practice it, nothing at all. If came down to me though, I just don't like to share my toys! Thank you for opening a new level of conversation with my fiance!
Lady J wrote:Good point littlek! It's not affecting me in any way. For those that practice it, nothing at all. If came down to me though, I just don't like to share my toys! Thank you for opening a new level of conversation with my fiance!
Your name reminds me of G.I. Joe. GO JOE!!!!!!!!
Here's the problem, if people are allowed to marry as many people as they wish, then who is going to provide for the children they have? Men who have children with different children don't have the resources to provide for the mouths they create. In fact in areas like the inner city where this is more likely to happen, there is a 70% birth rate where there is no father and most of these mothers are the ones on welfare in the inner cities. Now imagine if it were legal to marry as many people as you want and all of a sudden you have a family with 5 wives and well over 10 or more children. How is the regular family going to support such a family when most people with only 1 or 2 kids can't support them? Welfare will be the answer because all of you bleeding heart libs don't believe in people talking responsibility for their own actions so you broaden the capacity of the nanny state to take care of people who make bad choices.
Quote: Welfare will be the answer because all of you bleeding heart libs don't believe in people talking responsibility for their own actions so you broaden the capacity of the nanny state to take care of people who make bad choices.
Yeowza! Was this a general statement or pointed?
Lady J wrote:Quote: Welfare will be the answer because all of you bleeding heart libs don't believe in people talking responsibility for their own actions so you broaden the capacity of the nanny state to take care of people who make bad choices.
Yeowza! Was this a general statement or pointed?
Not pointed at anyone specific, just the general spend more money and the unwilling to work and steal hard earned money from the rich.
Geez Baldimo - that's a stretch of an arguement. So, should we start making it illegal for 2 parent households to have more than 4, 6, 8 kids? I know people from 10 kid 2 parent families. And, what about people who divorce and remarry - serial bigamy? Should they be allowed only to have kids with one of their spouses?
Baldimo wrote:Lady J wrote:Quote: Welfare will be the answer because all of you bleeding heart libs don't believe in people talking responsibility for their own actions so you broaden the capacity of the nanny state to take care of people who make bad choices.
Yeowza! Was this a general statement or pointed?
Not pointed at anyone specific, just the general spend more money and the unwilling to work and steal hard earned money from the rich.
I'll definitely agree with you there then. I was 'bout ready to put up my dukes in defenese of what I am not.
I just thought littlek's point would open up more delightful conversation with my SO.
I think every relationship brings with it huge responsibility and that should never be taken lightly. If I offended you, I certainly did not mean to....
Why would someone who fathers children out of wedlock and doesn't support them jump at bigamy? What does that have to do with married couples and their ability to support their children? Your argument is a non-sequitur, baldimo.
littlek wrote:Geez Baldimo - that's a stretch of an arguement. So, should we start making it illegal for 2 parent households to have more than 4, 6, 8 kids? I know people from 10 kid 2 parent families. And, what about people who divorce and remarry - serial bigamy? Should they be allowed only to have kids with one of their spouses?
All good points littlek. About the only thing I know of polygamy is from the TV magazine programs. one of the problems as related by them in religious cult settings is that wives were often taken at a very young age and bordered on pedaphilia.
Even if polygamy were legalized, I doubt that it would be popular. It's a very scary thought for me to even think about.
Baldimo wrote:Here's the problem, if people are allowed to marry as many people as they wish, then who is going to provide for the children they have? Men who have children with different children don't have the resources to provide for the mouths they create. In fact in areas like the inner city where this is more likely to happen, there is a 70% birth rate where there is no father and most of these mothers are the ones on welfare in the inner cities. Now imagine if it were legal to marry as many people as you want and all of a sudden you have a family with 5 wives and well over 10 or more children. How is the regular family going to support such a family when most people with only 1 or 2 kids can't support them? Welfare will be the answer because all of you bleeding heart libs don't believe in people talking responsibility for their own actions so you broaden the capacity of the nanny state to take care of people who make bad choices.
I don't think marriage laws affect responsibility one way or the other. ANd why did you assume one husband multiple wives? How about one wife with multiple husbands?
In relation to your concern about the welfare that you think us bleeding heart libs want, I am not real crazy about an unlimited $1000 per child tax credit that you anti birth control, go forth and multiply, conservatives stuck us with.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace