|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 27, 2004 13:31:30 GMT -5
I think I'll try and keep my stance neutral on this subject but I do have one observation to make. Lets just say Galadon is right and the majority of the United States of America is against allowing same sex marrages. Doen't the very concept of Democracy mean that it should be banned as it is the will of the majority? Challenger Couple of things, prolly take two posts: 1) The United States is NOT a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Let's just get this whole "democracy" thing out of our heads. If we were a true democracy we wouldn't have an Electoral College... 2) The point of the US Constitution is not to do what is popular, but what is JUST. The Constitution is not designed to remove the rights of the people; the one time in history that happened, it was disastrous. Heck, if we did what was popular, we'd still be living in a country where schools were segregated, races couldn't mix, we could intern members of a racial or ethnic minority living on American soil just because we went to war with another country, women couldn't vote, etc. Popular does not always equal just. Folks got over it, they'll get over this as well. Now for Galadon: Pick up a paper or watch cnn, msnbc, etc. A number of REPUBLICAN senators and representatives have plainly stated that this is a bad idea and that it will never get out to the states because not enough members of Congress would vote for it. Many feel it's a waste of time. Secondly, people don't get married just to procreate. Marriage is a social institution conferring both legal and social benefits. According to your logic my friend who cannot bear children for medical reasons should not be able to marry since she cannot procreate. You really wanna continue with this line of logic? Thirdly, there are very good reasons to prohibit bestiality, pedophilia and incest. And none of them are moral. All are scientific or psychological. The only reason folks can give for prohibiting same sex marriage is the fact that some book no one can accurately translate says it's wrong. Whoopee, I'm not Christian. Fourthly, WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY. The First Amendment guarantees that we are free from laws establishing a state religion, which means that any law prohibiting same sex marriage to "preserve the Christian institution" is ILLEGAL. Read the Constitution, it's in there. Fifth, although you may not be old enough to remember, until 1963, IIRC, it was illegal in this country to marry outside your race. Thanks to the United States Supreme Court, that silly concept is no longer legal. It's the same crap here. Finally, marriage will not be destroyed by allowing same sex couples to marry. That's preposterous. What, because I can marry Arryk, is Hussar gonna leave his wife and soon to be born child? Are all the straight boys suddenly going to go queer, and thier wives go lesbian? Please, save the hystrionics. If you have solid proof to back up such a statement, present it, otherwise, please don't waste everyone's time with the drama. Finally, Christians got the term from the folks wo came before them. It's not a Christian term, it's not a Christian institution, so can we forget that please?
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Feb 27, 2004 13:35:12 GMT -5
1) The United States is NOT a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Let's just get this whole "democracy" thing out of our heads. If we were a true democracy we wouldn't have an Electoral College... Can you please define the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 27, 2004 13:50:26 GMT -5
Democracy: Every citizen has an equal say on every matter. Every bill or issue must be voted on by every individual.
Republic (or Democratic Republic): Citizens elect representatives to vote for them, such as a senate, a house of representatives, or an electoral college. These elected representatives vote on bills or issues for them.
Bush would not be president if the US was a democracy. Gore actually won the majority of votes, but because people were voting for somebody to represent their vote instead of the president himself, Bush had more electoral votes and won.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 27, 2004 14:41:16 GMT -5
Let's not get off the subject. The AlGore people have to live with Gore lost and lost every recount.
I was talking about people. Politicians will say anything just to get reelected.
How many out there got illegaly married just to make a statement. Like rosie o'donnel, got married just to make a statement. Just because President Bush said something she didn't like.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 27, 2004 15:12:27 GMT -5
Rosa Parks made a statement, too. You have to make statements if you want something to change that you feel is wrong. It's called "civil disobedience."
And the Bush-Gore comment was just as an example. I didn't mean to get anybody riled up over it, just wanted a good example of how things might change if we were a true democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 27, 2004 15:20:16 GMT -5
Merkuri trying to get me started. But I won't take the bait. {I think}
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 27, 2004 15:33:31 GMT -5
What part of "I didn't want anybody to get riled up over it" didn't you understand? :eyeroll:
Anyway... back to our regularly scheduled gay amendment discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Feb 27, 2004 19:48:15 GMT -5
Thinks about posting something, looks back up, rereads SSD's post and realizes that if that don't convince people, nothing will. Anything I say will just be restating the obvious.
|
|
Jemima
Peasant
The Lioness of Kor'Danil
Posts: 23
|
Post by Jemima on Feb 28, 2004 5:26:07 GMT -5
Aye, I can only agree on SSD and Hussar on this. I do however feel a need to add one thing:
Someone posed the question: Who would it hurt if gay ppl got arried? No one ever answered convincingly.
I am of the opinion that if it doesn't hurt anyone it's ppl's own business. A majority of Christians (and other religions with the same standpoint on Marriage) want to prohibit the rights of non-Christians or the more open minded ppl of their own religion. Why should they have teh right to do that?
Let's imagine the tables turned: Let's say a majority were atheists, and found all religious beliefs to be so utterly moronic that they wanted to make any worship, prayer, or donation to/for any church or religion absolutely illegal. Would that be right in any way? No. I'm an agnostic. I have searched for a religion I could devote myself to, but I haven't found any that really spoke to my heart. But the fact that I personally don't find Christianity a convincing faith it doesn't mean that I want to turn all Christians from their path.
If a religion means something to someone, all I can do is respect and accept it. What ppl believe and do with their own lives is none of my business. In return I expect ppl to stay out of my religious decisions unless I actively ask them for advice or the like.
Of course gay marriage should not be banned - it is utterly pointless. Gay couples can still live together and act like they're married. The marriage will have financial consequences - and no extra effect whatsoever on the surroundings, and personally if I saw a gay couple walking down the street I wouldn't be able to tell if they were married or not.
If gay marriage is to be banned because it would affect children, it should also be strictly forbidden for 2 men (or 2 women)to even live together. Then how would you manage housing in colleges for example? Put men and women together? Oh yeah, that'll work just fine. *please note extensive use of sarcasm*
|
|