Marriage Amendment

Bush today has come out with support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman: Firstly, can somebody explain to me how his first statement isn't contradicted by his second? If he wants to allow the states to come up with whatever kind of legal arrangements they care to, how can he support a federal amendment that would restrict what kind of arrangements the states can make?Secondly, I'd like to see some discussion here about why anybody has the right to tell other people they can't get married. I'll grant that the Bibles in use by most Christian churches clearly admonish against homosexuality, though I believe that's through mistranslation. But for purposes of argument I'll even grant that Christians may very well believe that their god doesn't want gay marriage.So what, though? Islam's god doesn't want you to drink, but you can. Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do?(None of this crap about being a "Christian-founded nation." I'll believe that when you can show me democracy or the First Amendment in the Bible.)

This is Dubya you're quoting here, remember. Logic need not be involved.

What a fucking moron.I think the church has the right to tell it's own members what they should and shouldn't do. If people want to live their lives like that, fine, but the church has absolutely no say whatsoever in how non-members should live their lives.I cannot for the life of me understand why that concept is so hard to understand. And as the President of the United States, you'd think even a dumbass like Bush would understand that.The biggest obstacle to this type of forced religious fanaticism is that Christians all think everyone else needs to be saved. They are called into Christ's work to preach and spread the word of god. So of course they think they know better than any and all non-Christians and the fact that this country is primarily Christian makes it a very hard concept to fight.

quote:

---

marriage as the union of a man and a woman

---

What I find even more confusing about the whole thing, dropping the homosexual issue, is that in Genesis there is one example of one man marrying two women (can't think of specific reference right now). If this is such a "sacred institution" that can't bear the brunt of two men marrying one another, why hasn't it been so since the beginning of time?

Well, Coragyps kinda beat me to my first point, but secondly it might be that Dubya meant "state" in the general sense of "governing body" (think: US Dept of State), not really realizing that there is a significant differentiation between the federal and state-level authorities.Doesn't make his statement any less idiotic, though.At any rate, his proposed amendment is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and wouldn't survive review by the Supreme Court.

quote:

---

At any rate, his proposed amendment is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and wouldn't survive review by the Supreme Court.

---

Constitutional amendments can't be unconstitutional: once an amendment is approved, it is the Constitution. They can, however, be stupid.

quote:

---

Constitutional amendments can't be unconstitutional: once an amendment is approved, it is the Constitution. They can, however, be stupid.

---

True. They can be contradictory, which is even worse.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, of course. Thanks for correcting me -- I apparently had a brain fart. Awwww... c'mon! Prohibition was such a good idea![/sarcasm]

I don't know, he does say "state level"; I think the pretty clear implication is that he's talking about the states. I don't think the Supreme Court has any power to review amendments. That's one of the checks and balances, isn't it?

-bump-None of you Christians want to tell me why this Marriage Amendment is a good idea? Disappointing...

Dear Crashfrog,
I hesitate to respond to this because I don't have time for a long drawn out battle, but here you are just asking to understand why Christians oppose same-sex marriage. I think I can do that much - help you understand why, although you may not agree. Basically, I just want to give you some resources for you to understand our way of thinking. You might be surprised at all the research that actually upholds this "bigotted" view. There is too much information on this subject out there to put into one answser. So please let me just copy a few main points from some articles on the subject.First of all, I don't expect you to ever agree because you don't accept the idea of absolute morality. For you, because you cannot accept the idea of absolute right and wrong, in the end when it comes down to it, anything goes. I disagree.You can use your argument against this issue(same-sex marriage) to try and get anything accepted including group marriage or even polygamy. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/...es/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp) And, what is to prevent acceptance of sex with animals or adult sex with children if both are individuals are consenting? In fact there is an organization called the North American Man Boy Love Association that promotes this kind of "freedom". Plus the radical homosexual agenda isn't to stop with just this concession. Some are even interested in the destruction or abolition of marriage. Where do we draw the line? And if not here, why draw it where you would want to draw it?As you know, Christians believe in a God who Himself is the defining factor of absolute morality. For instance, because God is love, humans are also to love. Because God is holy, humans should also be holy. Because God is faithful, humans should also be faithful for example in marriage. Anyway, this moral standard is absolute and applies to every person alive regardless of whether or not they recognize that standard. We humans tend to think that God's laws are restrictive, boring, and bothersome. We fail to see that they are good for us, that they come from the heart of a loving God with our best interests in mind. We reject them at our own peril. God's laws both protect us from harm that might come our way if we don't live as He says and it provides many positive blessings for us that come our way when we do live in that way.Without clear boundaries, life would turn into a soccer game played without a referee and boundaries. Soon it would be chaos. People would be hurt and it would not be fun at all. In this way, laws actually provide freedom for us, just as the rules of the soccer game and the field boundaries provide the freedom to have a good game of soccer. Now we will certainly have differing opinions about where the boundaries should be drawn, but the basic principle is true. We need laws in order to experience real freedom. If God doesn't draw the boundaries, then there is no way to know where they should be drawn.In the Bible, there are some areas which are gray areas and might be right for some while wrong for others because of their individual convictions. However there are other areas which are clearly black and white and there is no room for human opinion. Same-sex marriage is one of them. We still have the ability to disobey, at our own peril of course.We need laws because we humans are sinful at heart. Without laws, society would soon descend into moral chaos. People would get hurt, fear would become rampant and eventually anarchy would result. The very fact that you need keys, locks, police, etc. is clear proof that we humans are sinners. In some ways all laws are legislated morality aren't they? I mean, why do we infringe on the right of others to steal, defraud, or rape? It seems to me that laws like these are legislated morality. How bigotted!Sure, you might find some of God's laws restrictive, but so do children find some of their parent's rules restrictive. When they grow up, they come to understand. I prefer to trust my heavenly Father and His infinite wisdom. You are free to do what you want, but of course, the Bible says that we are all ultimately responsible to God for our choices. And if we're not, then in the end, it doesn't really matter whether we live a "good" life or a "bad" life does it? Why be good if we can get away with being bad? Why turn in a wallet you find on the street instead of keep the money for yourself? What purpose is there in that?Of course, one reason is so that we can actually live with ourselves, -in order to avoid self-shame and condemnation. But, why should we feel bad about something that in the end is neither right or wrong? A conscience is a very interesting thing. Where did it come from? If not from God, then it is meaningless and we are really free to ignore and trample them.So you can see that our disagreement on this issue stems to our worldview. Arguing about a particular action is kind of pointless, but at the same time, I believe there are very good reasons that we should say no to redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. That is because God's laws make sense and are ultimately in our best interest so there should be good reasons for this. Some we may never know, but others we are learning as we do more and more studies on the subject.I will give a few reasons here as to why Christians think we should refuse to include same-sex relationships as marriage. I am going to quote from some articles on this issue. If you are really interested in learning the reasons for this, please check out the articles to learn more.1) Being married is in our best interest because married people enjoy on the average better health and well-being than others. Now of course there are always exceptions, but it is clearly the best way to go. For more information on that and research backing that statement up, please check out this article.Family Policy Alliance2) Marriage is the most significant factor in children having happy and well-adjusted lives.
"When society debates what children need to grow into healthy, happy, productive, well-adjusted adults, many things are listed as essentials: access to healthcare, nutrition, good schools, safe neighborhoods, love and plenty of encouragement. All of these are important to proper child-development, but the discussion often ignores the one factor that is prior to all these others: marital status of parents.All things being equal, children with married parents consistently do better in every measure of well-being than their peers who have single, cohabiting, divorced or step-parents, and this is a stronger indicator than parental race, economic or educational status, or neighborhood. The literature on this is broad and strong."
For further information on this, please check out this article:
Family Policy AllianceFamily Policy AllianceResearch on same-sex parenting: Family Policy Alliance3) Nature itself makes it clear that heterosexual relationships are the basic fundamental and even natural and right unit for society. "There is a natural sexual order, a proper order for love Ean ordo amorum, as St. Augustine put it. We are made male and female, and these immutable characteristics define proper sexual behavior. Because this proper sexual behavior quite commonly results in childbearing, these characteristics also define the appropriate relationship for sexual behavior: marriage."Family Policy AllianceHow can we Christians be so bigotted to say no to same-sex relationships getting recognized as marriage?It is not bigotted in my opinion. In the end, it is the most loving thing to do and the best thing, both for the gays themselves as well as for society in general. However, I will grant you that if there is no God, then yes, it could be conceived to be bigoted and totally unfair. I might still oppose it even if I didn't believe in God because of all the research. However, if there is no God, then this issue cannot be said to be an issue of right and wrong. This is how you look at it so no wonder you think it is bigotted. As you can see, we're back to our worldview. That is where it all stems from and we will never be able to agree because of our differing worldviews and view of truth.Well, you wanted an answer. I've given you lots of food for thought. As I said, I have no intention of getting into a long argument. I don't have time for that. I've done that on this board before and it is fruitless, but if you are really interested in why we Christians believe that same-sex marriage will harm society, then please take a minute to read some of the articles above. You may not agree, but at least you can see the research for yourself and better understand why some people actually think that opposing same-sex marriage is the loving thing to do. And, I might add, please don't put all the "blame" for this on Christians. There are others as well who see the light simply from the research.Merry Christmas,
Tokyojim

I am against the marriage amendment. The marriage we speak of today is much more of a secular practice than a religious one. The Bible says (maybe implicitly) that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I agree. However, the Bible says do not commit adultery, but people still do it. Am I saying that we should throw out everything the Bible says to do and not to do? Certainly not. I still believe we should try to follow God's commandments. It's just that marriage today is much more of a secular practice.When I get married, I will in no way be a sinless man. Am I still allowed to get married even though I have lusted, etc.? Of course. Homosexuals are no different. Homosexuality IS a sin, I believe, but that is it. Besides, homosexual marriage doesn't hurt anyone like murder or rape does.And since when does Congress decide to try to enforce God's will? Debauchery, adultery, homosexuality, idolatry, envy -- these are all sins but are not illegal in our society. Homosexual marriage may not be marriage in God's eyes, but who are we to stop it?(I don't if that made much sense, but whatever -- there's my two cents.)

Tokyojim responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

You can use your argument against this issue(same-sex marriage) to try and get anything accepted including group marriage or even polygamy.

---

No, you can't.You see, allowing marriage between people of the same sex changes absolutely nothing about the way marriage is regulated just in the same way that allowing marriage between people of different races didn't change anything about it.Polygamy, on the other hand, requires a change in the administration of marriage. If Person A marries Person B, what happens when Person B marries Person C? Are A and C also married? Does A need to consent to the marriage, too? Does divorce dissolve all marriages or only the connection of one? How is property divided at that point? What is the relationship between the children and the non-biological parent? How do things like Social Security and insurance get taken care of?There may be good answers to all of these questions such that we might conclude that polygamy is something we shouldn't deny, but the justifications for it cannot be found in the same ones for same sex marriage.

quote:

---

And, what is to prevent acceptance of sex with animals or adult sex with children if both are individuals are consenting?

---

Because children and animals, by definition, can't give consent.I knew this was going to be the reason: If you allow people of the same sex to get married, what's to prevent people from marrying a six-year-old or a goat or even a lawn mower? Because that is, after all, the most logical thing. A loving, mutually supportive relationship automatically leads to coercive, manipulative relationships or desire to have sex with something that isn't even alive.Question: How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry lead to child abuse any more than allowing two people of the opposite sex to marry? What is it about being of the same sex that leads to child abuse? What is it about being of the opposite sex that prevents child abuse? After all, the evidence clearly shows that heterosexuals are much more likely to engage in sexual molestation of children than homosexuals.

quote:

---

In fact there is an organization called the North American Man Boy Love Association that promotes this kind of "freedom".

---

And no gay rights organization supports them. That's because everybody recognizes the difference between a loving, mutually supportive relationship between two people who can give consent and a coercive, absuive relationship predicated upon a power trip over one who cannot give consent.

quote:

---

Plus the radical homosexual agenda isn't to stop with just this concession.

---

Strawman. Even if we assume the existence of this "radical homosexual agenda" (where can I find a PDF of it, if you don't mind?) what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that because there are some things you don't like, that is justification for denying equal rights?Are you seriously saying that because you are paranoid that Person A might get a legal advantage over you, that's justification to deny equal treatment under the law to that person?

quote:

---

Some are even interested in the destruction or abolition of marriage.

---

That makes no sense.How does allowing people to get married lead to the abolition of marriage? How does fighting for the right to get married lead to taking away marriage?

quote:

---

Where do we draw the line? And if not here, why draw it where you would want to draw it?

---

How about where the Constitution requires it to be drawn?Or does the Fourteenth Amendment mean nothing to you? Equal treatment under the law should be abolished?

quote:

---

As you know, Christians believe in a God who Himself is the defining factor of absolute morality.

---

Irrelevant. Please respond to crash's question: In other words, crash fully recognizes that you have your religious beliefs and thus, you would never get married to someone of the same sex.But by what right do your religious restrictions against it get to be applied to everybody else in a free society? How does allowing same sex marriage make you do anything you don't want to do?

quote:

---

1) Being married is in our best interest because married people enjoy on the average better health and well-being than others.

---

Then why deny this to gay people? If being married is a good thing, why are you trying to stop people from getting married?

quote:

---

2) Marriage is the most significant factor in children having happy and well-adjusted lives.

---

Then why deny this to gay people and their children? If being married is of a benefit to children, why are you trying to stop the parents of children from getting married?

quote:

---

3) Nature itself makes it clear that heterosexual relationships are the basic fundamental and even natural and right unit for society.

---

No, it doesn't. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Nature itself makes it clear that every single sexual combination is basic and fundamental and natural for society. I direct you to Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl that clearly shows that homosexuality is rampant throughout the rest of nature.So if every other animal does it, why is it unnatural?You don't get to have it both ways.

quote:

---

How can we Christians be so bigotted to say no to same-sex relationships getting recognized as marriage?

​

It is not bigotted in my opinion.

---

Does it treat people equally under the law?No?Then it's bigoted.

quote:

---

In the end, it is the most loving thing to do and the best thing, both for the gays themselves as well as for society in general.

---

How? If marriage is such a benefit to people, why are you trying to keep gay people from getting married?It makes no sense!

quote:

---

However, if there is no God, then this issue cannot be said to be an issue of right and wrong.

---

Sure it can.Surely you aren't saying that atheists have no morals, are you?Nowhere in the Constitution is god mentioned. And yet, it has a clear sense of right and wrong. "Equal treatment under the law" is right. Unequal treatment is wrong.So if something treats gay people unequally under the law, then it is wrong. No need to invoke god...just look to the Constitution.

quote:

---

Well, you wanted an answer.

---

But you didn't give one.You went on and on and on about Christian theology, but you didn't answer crash's question: In short, you can have all the theological reasons you want for not liking same-sex marriage.By what right do your theological beliefs get to be forced on everybody else? How does your neighbor's marriage change anything about yours?

quote:

---

I've given you lots of food for thought.

---

No, you haven't. You've merely regurgitated the same old debunked arguments and illogical paroxysms we've heard for years.And you completely avoided the question: ------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

If Person A marries Person B, what happens when Person B marries Person C? Are A and C also married?

---

What? You've never heard of the Transitive Property of Marriage?

That just cracked me up.------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!