<p>"I, for one, have many other things I want better financed than single sex marriages."</p>
<p>Yeah, so let's pour out millions to ban it.</p>
<p>I understand your reasoning for why people are so upset about it. I just don't understand your reasoning in justifying their bigotry.</p>
<p>I have not read this thread in its entirety (actually, I haven't read any of it). It is pretty clear that people are not ready for gay marriage in this country. I too do not understand it, as it seems to me that everyone is better off when people, who are not harming anyone at all, and who I believe are just born the way they are, are members of a happy family unit. All the research shows that people in family units are happier, more productive, etc.; and, when people have the kind of economic protections that marriage affords, the nation as a whole I think is better off. And, I just don't get the thing about marriage being between a man and a woman.</p>
<p>My own personal experiences are that gay people have some of the most truly loving and mature relationships on this planet. I can't explain it, it is just what I have observed. </p>
<p>Sometimes, unfortunately, it just takes a lot of time for social change to evolve. I HOPE that someday we will look back on this and say that it was a lot like the days before Brown v. Board of Education, and people will have a hard time understanding how anyone could really have officially sanctioned such a harmful, hurtful, policy.</p>
<p>Imposing your own beliefs on other people is contrary to the spirit of our great country.</p>
<p>I always believed that the United States should be a symbol of progressivism, not regressivism.</p>
<p>Pookdogg: I have studied the Bible in both church and class, as a piece of literature. Therefore, I have really been able to see it both objectively (through analyzation as a book, not necessarily the Book of God), and subjectively (as God's word, and how I perceive it). I can not say that I have read the entire Bible, most Christians have not. However, I have read much of it.</p>
<p>So no, this is not some unfounded "factoid" that I proudly and falsely display as my own. It is a result of my own thoguht and perception of the Bible.</p>
<p>PS- thomaschau, I couldn't have said it better myself. :) Your last line is perfect.</p>
<p>If you take a Pepsi and add 2 to 4 percent extra water, you still have Pepsi, but it tastes a little strange. In this analogy, the Pepsi is marriage. The added water is gay marriage. We live in a country that operates based on majority rule. As long as a majority of Americans want marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman, that is how it should remain. At this point in time, permitting gay marraige seems a little strange.</p>
<p>So thinkingoutloud, if the majority decides to enslave all the blacks, or kill all the Jews, is that what should happen????</p>
<p>A lot of us believe that homosexuality is not a choice, not a sin, but simply an aspect of the human condition, the way one was born. Just the way someone is born white, or black, or Jewish, or whatever. Then, denying them basic human rights is morally wrong. That is where a lot of us are, and what makes your statement extremely offensive and scary to many of us.</p>
<p>I definitley agree.</p>
<p>O my god. There ARE intelligent people out there. Great points patient and thomaschau</p>
<p>No, that's what is so scary. Intelligent people with frightening degrees of arrogance and intolerance for basic human rights. I really truly do wonder if America's days as a beacon of freedom and tolerance are over, if we are heading in the direction of 1930's Germany.</p>
<p>Race you to the concentration camp! Last one there is a rotten egg.</p>
<p>Calidan is right. I too have read much of the bible and there is one part which states that "It is better to marry than to burn." Basically, it is ideal for a pious Christian to remain a virgin forever because sex is inherantly sinful (only Mary and Jesus were born without sin). However, if one is unable to resist temptation it is better to get married than to fornicate. Thus, when Calidan mentioned that the Bible is actually against marriage he/she ment that they view it only as a last resort for those that are unable to resist tempation.</p>
<p>Patient says:
"So thinkingoutloud, if the majority decides to enslave all the blacks, or kill all the Jews, is that what should happen????"</p>
<p>Under the current Constitution, the answer is no, that can't happen. As to your question of "what should happen" you are asking for how I would vote and I would vote no or support legislators who voted no. </p>
<p>What you should have asked is COULD that happen? The answer is it already did with respect to blacks. When the Constitution was first drafted it showed black slaves counting only as a portion of a state's population. The Constitution was then amended to reflect the majority's view (granted the view was helped out by a civil war). </p>
<p>Your question can be easily reversed to reflect an even worse scenario. "If the Supreme Court decides that anyone with Jewish lineage cannot vote, is that what should or could happen?" The answer is yes the Suprme Court could do something so stupid because it is the one who is the final authority on interpreting the law. Even if the American people later passed a Constitutional amendment specifically stating that the Supreme Court must disregard jewish lineage, the Supreme Court has the power to ignore that as well. Remember Supreme Court justices serve for life. </p>
<p>My point is this, there can be abuses by both legislatures and by the Supreme Court. Those abuses can be fixed much more easily by voting out legislators. Abuses by the Supreme Court (such as Roe v. Wade) are much more difficult to fix becuase courts rely on precedent (thus, mistakes are perpetuated) and it is very difficult to amend the Constitution.</p>
<p>Thinkingoutloud, you were voicing approval of the idea that the majority rules, without regard to morality, kindness, compassion, empathy--I'm sorry, but that is what the gay marriage issue contains within it. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. Your cavalier acceptance of that concept--majority rule on such issues --is utterly frightening.</p>
<p>Patient says: "Your cavalier acceptance of that concept--majority rule on such issues --is utterly frightening."</p>
<p>Where do you think minority rights come from? If you answer is the Constitution, then were do think the Constitution came from? The answer is it came from a majority vote of State legislators who were chosen by a majority of the people in those states. In other words, all minority rights arise from a decision by the majority that those minority rights should exit. Once those minority rights are created, then courts are involved in balancing those minority rights against the current will of the majority. </p>
<p>There is nothing within the Constitution setting forth gay marriage as a protected right. (Merely being in a minority does not mean whatever one wishes becomes protected. For example, polygamist are in the minority but their lifestyle is not protected as a Constitutional right). There is nothing in the Constitution or elsewhere that says gay marriage is a basic human right. In fact, there is nothing that says marriage itself is a basic human right. </p>
<p>Anyone who thinks gay marriage should become a basic right, is free to try to persuade everyone else to adopt this conclusion. But to argue gay marriage is a basic human right "because I said so" is not persuasive.</p>
<p>Guess cross-racial marriages are not a basic right either. After all, it is explicitly condemned in the holy book (no mention is made of gay marriage whatsoever.) Next thing you know, they'll be marriages with monkees!</p>
<p>I don't know if this is an issue that will be put to rest. Just because the Supreme Court rules something is legal does not necessarily mean it is right. And debates about the rulings can continue for year on end. The rulings giving blacks equal rights, women equal rights have held resoundingly, but there are some rulings that are still hotbeds for discussion and keep surfacing for a "retrial". Roe vs Wade is an example. As for money being spent on the gay marriage debate, once the subject was raised, and the divide recognized, it is a done deal that the money is going to be spent discussing it. That is separate from the money that could be spent as a consequence of how the situation is resolved. And even then, I am sure there will be more money spent in contesting the decision. </p>
<p>At the present time, there are way too many people who are adamently against the idea of gay marriage. A civil union is probably is best first step to make, because it is more achievable in the foreseeable future. And it could immediately address some issues gay couples are finding that they need to have resolved. The next step would be to try to get as many "Marriage related perks" included in this civil union. This would include revising social security so that same sex partners could be covered. Some companies have redefined "family" so as the cover same sex partners. </p>
<p>I personally don't see an inssue with same sex partners. and would not take the time to spend time or money to campaign against those who would. But this is not an issue that I am going to rally for either, and if it comes to my vote, I am not interested in advocating for this cause. Not my fight. I have some of my own.</p>
<p>This greatly upsets me, banning gay-marriage in 11 states. Being a bi makes it extra hard for me to understand why people would do such a thing.</p>
<p>But you know what? There's nothing I can do to fix this right now.
I say give it a time.
I mean, now's way better off than fifty years ago, right?
Time will heal this, I say</p>
<p>Btw, thinkingoutloud-Great way to explain your view. My happiness makes pepsi tastes weird. I feel the love. HAHA I don't like pepsi anyways.</p>
<p>I am baffled by some people's interpretation of our Democracy. The Founding Fathers never meant for the US to be a "majority rule" democracy: the whole point of our democratic system, is to preserve the rights of the minority while taking into account the popular will of the people: America should be a pluralistic society, not a country ruled by the culture or the times. The Founding Fathers of this country never imagined, nor wanted the people to rule: the whole basis of the Senate was to protect minority rights (esp. the rights of the upper class). </p>
<p>Do I support gay marriage? Let's just say, I respect the rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. I do not "support" it, but I do not have the rights to take away others' rights to choose to commit themselves to one another, no matter their sexuality. I believe, that America is a country in which "the Bible is not the basis of democratic political order, or of our political order; and that gay marriage is a question of equality, and not the end of civilization as we know it." After all is said and done, it is truly disappointing to me that, in the heat of war, at a time when our nation's poverty rate is on the rise, while the dollar's value is nearing an all-time-low, while the economy seems to be again slowing down, while the terriorists are using the Bush administration's theology as means to recruit, when our troops are dying on foreign soil on a daily basis, and our national deficit a historical high (we HAVE TO PAY IT BACK PPL!), people actually deemed the issues of "guns, gays, and god" the most fundamental issues of this election: we are, officially, a country decided by the sexuality of our own people. In a time in which we must unite, I only see a division: the saddest thing is, the cause of this division is not fiscal, it is not security, but it is sexuality: the issue of whether two grown men who pay taxes, abide the law, deserve the rights to lawfully commit to each other...this, my fellow Americans, is what determined the outcome of this election. It makes me cringe just thinking about it.</p>
<p>I know my grammar sucks and my writing seems to ramble sometimes, but, you get the idea.</p>
<p>people PLEASE: If you are going to quote someone, just the actual codes. Don't type "Patient says: ________" and try to respond to it. Simplly just type in the quote tag around whatever you want to quote. It makes it a helluva lot easier to read.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It makes it a helluva lot easier to read.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^^ just like this</p>