gay marriage

[whakiewes]

Since your writing your paper only on the basis of the constitution, I will provide it in such a manner. There opinion is strictly coming from a strong conservative. I am a conservative not because of the litmus issues, but because of governmental issues. It just so happens though that many of the litmus party platforms, I believe in as well. That said, I am not a 'christian-toting' neo-conservative. I believe in god, but I also believe in free-will. Those who lead good lives will be rewarded as an act of reciprocity. Now that you understand where my opinion comes from, I will give it.

Unfortunately there is no scientific, religious, or social foundations that permit or deny gay marriage. Infact, those who choose to bring up religion in this debate are misinformed and are speaking just to speak. In a book by Bob McCann, entitled Justice for Gays and Lesbians, it outlines many major Christian doctrines including the Episcopalean, Methodist, Catholic, Presbytarian, and Baptist. In which, there is only one modern religious doctrine (what pastors preach about) that doesn't accept or slide by the gay marriage issue. In the Methodist doctrine, it is elicitally written that no pastor shall ever preach on the subject of marriage as to not offend or deny religious freedoms to those of same-sex beliefs. The Episcopal church is is divided currently and is on the verge of becoming to seperate churches. The Catholic religion is the only religion that currently denys same-sex marriage to its members and deems it unholy; as a sin. With the new Pope in power as a stronger reconstructionist, it will get stricter not more open. So to say that because the bible restricts gay marriage is defying all current religions with the exception of Catholicism. No bases for change on that belief only.

In that case, what does the constitution say? Well, honestly it says nothing. When the constitution was written, this was not of a concern. Homosexuality was strictly prohibited and those taking parts in acts would have been exiled or killed. No need to write what isn't needed. Post 1950's/Vietnam, you can view the 'slippery slope' of more liberal thinking. Before the 1920's enlightenment period (time of the 'city' girl), woman stayed at home, raised children, cooked, cleaned, all the goods. During the period from the 20's to the 60's woman in middle to lower class positions started taking part-time working roles (less then 20% of the woman population) to help during the depression and to seek personal freedoms 'apparantly' denied to them before. After the 'hippie' era and the civil rights movement, people of all beliefs and thoughts sought equality. First woman were no longer 'thought' of to stay at home, but they were told they had to work. African Americans sought equality through affirmitive action which has all but backfired. Televisions and such shows have shown a significant decline in social capital and have began to alter peoples beliefs. 1972's ruling of Roe v. Wade set foot to the liberal thought movement across America since the courts were now willing to hear traditionally state controlled issues. Even before that, the creation of the 14th Amendment established the ability for reformist or sociological justices to read into the constitution how they wanted. In particular, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been the brain child for this liberal thought -

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So what is life, liberty, and property? Following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court set the precedent that there were certain unalienable rights, such as undefined rights that were suitable to life, liberty, or property. This essentially opened the door for anyone with enough support and evidence to determine it legal. The gay marriage subject though is one the Supreme Court has not touched, and doubtfully will anytime in the near future. Why? Well there are three ways the Supreme Court rules on cases; Rational Basis - an overwhelming change in thought, evidence, or information. In the interest of the states, Strict Scrutiny - compelling governmental interest for the welfare of the people; not just legitmate reasoning, but compelling, and Middle-Level review for items that aren't compelling, but more than legitimate. The same-sex marriage falls only under the rational basis category making it in no interest for the Supreme Court to rule on. In order for it to be ruled, they would only accept strict scrutiny in which there was compelling interest. Thus they have left it up to the states under the 10th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So it remains in the hands of the states where strict constructionist judges rule that it is immoral and defies the sanctity of marriage. Other reformist judges such as in Massachusets will rule that its in the best interest of the people to make it legal. Same basis for decriminalizing marijuana, banning partial-birth abortions, ecettera. So if your writing on the basis of the law, there you have it.

So now, my opinion - marriage was and will always be defined as the union of a man and a woman. The thought of homosexuality is irrational and goes against human nature. We as humans have the ability to process thoughts and the thought of two physically identicle men partaking in sexual actions goes against human rationality. The number one identified reason for homosexuality is through child raising, in which the highest rate of homosexual men come from intercity, single parent (mother in particular), lower to middle class families with more than one child. Infact that numbers of middle to upper class traditional family households have the lowest numbers of homosexual children. My thoughts are that the children are lashing out or seeking differences to standout since they lacked the care and nurturing needed as a child. Furthermore, it goes against humanity. The sole nature of animals, humans included, is the reproduce. It is imbedded in our DNA that we have one goal in life, to procreate. Thus the reason why homosexual couples still have to partake in sexual activities. There is a reason why the womans vagina has natural lubrication and receptors to make sex both easy and pleasurable. The anus has neither of those. The Merian-Websters dictionary was amended in 2002 to include the same-sex marriage clause, just as 'bling-bling' is a word amongst others. If you can take that dictionary seriously, then you are prime example of the liberal thought evolution of America. People have the ability to make choices for themselves, but with the decline of morals in America, people are making more and more of the wrong ones. Look at the lending problems, abortion problems, STD cases, etc... Marriage was a strong bond until the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act that has enabled 'No-Fault' divorces. Until these acts were ratified by states, you had to prove in a court of law that your spouse had vialated a number of statues. Now you can in nearly ever state perform a no-fault divorce where the 'relationship is no long viable'. This opened the door to people just getting bored and getting divorced. 60 years ago it was a trial to get divorced, now its just attorney's filling out paperwork. Again, the moral decline of the United States.

[E30trash]

i have a friend that was raised by 2 moms and she turned out fine

If you are reffering to Ian then no he has a dad aswell who he was raised with also, its not like he was ONLY raised by his mothers.

And as for the original topic, i dont care that much at all, but if i had to decide i would say "no". it's weird for me

[decay]

It is funny how our country was founded on this but now everyone wants it gone. I just find it funny.

where exactly does it say in the constitution that we were founded as a xian nation?

cuz i kinda remember this thing about "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"... or something to that effect.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty."

-Thomas Jefferson

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

-John Adams

[Fidhle007]

there are too many people on this planet anyway.

I agree, let's have a suicide pact. You first.

[*R*]

huh. personally i say fuck'em. there are too many people on this planet anyway.

Just think of gay marriage as "Population Control"

[LEANE30]

I know of so many HETERO parents that fuck their kids up for life. Plus, there's enough kids in this country that don't even have the luxury of one person that really loves them.

If a gay couple can offer the nurturing, education, home, and love to a child that would have none, I thank them for their efforts.

huh. personally i say fuck'em. there are too many people on this planet anyway.

[*R*]

and i dont have anything against christian people, i just choose not to follow the religion because i disagree with some of their beliefs. and thats what my arguments have been about, not that i hate christians.

[Fidhle007]

There are WAY too many fucked up people in the world training children to emulate their twisted perspectives already, permitting homosexual marriage will only increase that percentage.

So two straight people can get married, have kids and teach them that it's alright to beat up their significant others and/or be beaten up by them? Based on the gay/straight people I know, the homosexuals are WAY better suited to raise children who will be functional members of society.

[*R*]

Are the moms hot?

absolutely not

[browntown]

homosexual parenting

I know of so many HETERO parents that fuck their kids up for life. Plus, there's enough kids in this country that don't even have the luxury of one person that really loves them.

If a gay couple can offer the nurturing, education, home, and love to a child that would have none, I thank them for their efforts.

[blunttech]

To this argument I say ALL marriages should be civil unions. The govt shouldn't make a marriage, they should just be in charge of the contract. If you want to be married in the traditional sense under your god with flowers and false promises, go for it. But the legal contract should just be a civil union whether it's a man-woman situation or a man-man / woman-woman deal. Take the govt out of the belief situation.

SOOO if you have a hangup about fudgepackers getting "married," then don't go to the church that allows that marriage. Marriage means different things to different people. Don't assume marriage SHOULD be sacred, just because it is to you. Your belief system is your own, why do you care what others' are?

Marriage is just a word, what makes a marriage is the commitment between two adults.

None of this will ever happen though since our country will never get over it's hangup with Jesus. This is why I don't visit off topic. I get all worked up.

we are from different generations. ive seen the world slide into the toilet year after year with morals almost non existent in todays youth. and every generation gets worse. im far far far from perfect but i know right from wrong and my right from wrong is different than your generation. the world is a shithole and it all began with baby steps. this is just another of those steps. soon the liberals will out number the people who are correct and theres no turning back then

[*R*]

You are such a tool. If you are so against Christianity, then why all the dumbass side shots to try to get them riled up? get a life douchebag

get over it

[LEANE30]

Ask Jscotty - he should be an expert.

As for me - there's no reason for them not to be married. It's only a tax advantage.

actually, not in the most common situation. the only time there is a "tax advantage" is if only one of the individuals earns essentially all of the income (80-90%), then for that individual, being married yields a tax break. ...however, most same-sex couples are dual-income, often of a similar tax bracket. in the case where both parties would qualify for the 20% or higher tax brackets being married actually costs both individuals MORE than if they were in fact single. the major advantage of legalizing same-sex marriages is the benefits of employer provided healthcare packages, annuities & Life insurance policies, as well as survivorship property rights (which is irrelevant if people are competent enough to have living will drafted and annually revised) as well as the remaining/widower 3 year tax break after one of the individuals in the marriage dies.

personally i am fully opposed to gay marraige as i feel the function of marriage is to benefit the naturally born decendents of solely the two individuals married. personally i do not believe a child should be intentionally raised without the presence of both a father figure as well as a mother figure. shit happens, and that is a valid excuse. but not some test-tube kid being raised in an environment overflowing with only estrogen nor should some adopted child (children are too impressionable and have no control over much of these matters) be taken and influenced by homosexual parenting. there are WAY too many fucked up people in the world training children to emulate their twisted perspectives already, permitting homosexual marriage will only increase that percentage.

now, let the flood gates open with the torrent of opposition to my opinions. that is how it is. my brother-in-law's sister is a married homosexual, and i find it fucking disgusting, and i tell that straight up to anyone who asks me...... now if she was hot, as well as her wife.... and they had their occasional bi-sexual urges, more power to them

[dinanm3atl]

A-Mother-Fucking-MEN.

It is funny how our country was founded on this but now everyone wants it gone. I just find it funny.

[Jordan]

None of this will ever happen though since our country will never get over it's hangup with Jesus.

A-Mother-Fucking-MEN.