Texas Voters approve gay marriage "ban"

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by KSig RC
You're misusing terminology - which isn't surprising, because this confusion has been the greatest victory for the Christian Right in modern times.

Essentially, the vocal minority that comprises the various Fundamentalist Christian and so-called "Christian Conservatives" push this sort of agenda - not true conservatives.

Yep.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
Exactly! How is it on the one hand "conservatives" cry out SMALL GOVERNMENT!!! then out of the other side of their mouth: "GOVERNMENT CAN TELL YOU WHO TO MARRY!!! ?

I'm sorry, but during your blind stereotyping you seem to lack an education on politics, conservative or not.

History lesson for you: Christians evangelicals that support bans on gay marriage are more Democrats than Republicans. It's a Christian thing, not a conservative thing. Bring it up at a Church meeting and then report to GC.

Furthermore, states should have the right to make these decisions as opposed to the Federal government.

-Rudey

[sigmadiva]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by moe.ron
[B]I'm still trying to figure out how gay marriages is going to r

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by moe.ron
I'm still trying to figure out how gay marriages is going to ruin other people's marriage?

I don't think gay marriages are going to ruin heterosexual marriages, I just think the institution of marriage is being 'protected' by the law.

As much as our country emphasizes the separation of church and state, and many of the Founding Fathers of this country were Christian, our laws may be non-religious based (to a point) but our (America's) morals are religious based, specifically in Christianity. Since Christianity is based on the Bible and the Bible does speak against homosexuality in the New and Old Testaments, I think the proposition speaks more to morality.

I voted FOR Prop 2.

Would I consider it poetic justice if I have a gay child? No. No more than I would think it would be poetic justice if I had a child who became an arsonist or a bank robber. Would I love my child? I am sure I would, but that does not mean I have to condone my child's actions.

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by Rudey
I'm sorry, but during your blind stereotyping you seem to lack an education on politics, conservative or not.

History lesson for you: Christians evangelicals that support bans on gay marriage are more Democrats than Republicans. It's a Christian thing, not a conservative thing. Bring it up at a Church meeting and then report to GC.

Furthermore, states should have the right to make these decisions as opposed to the Federal government.

-Rudey

Don't talk to me about stereotyping when you and your cohort hoosier do more generalizing on this board than anyone else by far.

I also know more about American politics than you ever could so don't go there with me either.

My statement had to do with the interference of the government in peoples lives and how that is one of the hallmarks of the conservative and republican movement that is CURRENTLY flourishing in this country. It also spoke to the hypocritical nature of their constant whining about smaller government in at least the areas of business and economics. Now there may be some religious zealouts who align themselves with the democrats and tout the same hypocritical rhetoric, but the majority of people who think this way do not...THIS I know.

Now, I told you already that I did not care to debate ANY issues with you any further, and I tried to let you know that privately...I meant it. Due to your attack and my desire not to be angered on this site, you're now being ignored.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by Phasad1913

My statement had to do with the interference of the government in peoples lives and how that is one of the hallmarks of the conservative and republican movement that is CURRENTLY flourishing in this country.

I hear what you are saying, but to be fair, we are a society governed by laws issued by the government - people we elect.

It was because of the interference of government in peoples lives that ended slavery. It was the interference of government that established the Civil Rights Acts. It was the interference of government that gave women and minorities the right to vote. It was the interference of government that established Title IX.

I presume that you are angered by the interference of government in peoples lives to establish morality, but not civil order. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[LightBulb]

Last week there was an editorial called "Mangling Marriage: Handful of states, vocal activists and opinionated judges seek to destroy the institution of marriage" in the school newspaper (with plenty of interesting responses).

Here is the link - my name is Marly, and my thoughts on the subject are in the responses.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
Don't talk to me about stereotyping when you and your cohort hoosier do more generalizing on this board than anyone else by far.

He is not my corhot. I don't generalize. And you stereotyped. It's sad that you did so. So please stop with the personal attacks; it makes you look sad.

I also know more about American politics than you ever could so don't go there with me either.

Highly doubtful but making unfounded claims is your strong point.

My statement had to do with the interference of the government in peoples lives and how that is one of the hallmarks of the conservative and republican movement that is CURRENTLY flourishing in this country. It also spoke to the hypocritical nature of their constant whining about smaller government in at least the areas of business and economics. Now there may be some religious zealouts who align themselves with the democrats and tout the same hypocritical rhetoric, but the majority of people who think this way do not...THIS I know.

Now, I told you already that I did not care to debate ANY issues with you any further, and I tried to let you know that privately...I meant it. Due to your attack and my desire not to be angered on this site, you're now being ignored.

Too bad you lack a basic ability to read and understand. If you did you would realize you were wrong. Again, it's a Christian thing. Stand up in your church and discuss it. And the African-American community (even on Greekchat) is not accepting of gays and gay marriages. Why don't you focus on Christian and African-American rejection of gays for now instead of being an angry bitter woman?

-Rudey

[Phasad1913]

I TOTALLY agree with you. I realize that without the imposition of the federal government of laws and initiatives, many changes in the society would not have taken place. However, THOSE changes that you mentioned were changes that were absolutely necessary due to the systematic oppression of an entire group of people and they would not have occured without the involvement of the federal govenment. This is not a situation like that.

In the case of gay marriage, you have a situation where the government, as it did with interracial marriage 50 years ago, trying to tell people that they cannot marry whom they wish. Just as in the case of interracial couples, the government has no place and no right to come into the personal lives of these individuals and tell them that they cannot marry who they want which is exactly what its doing by limiting the definition of marriage in a state constitution. Now, personally, I have my reservations about homosexuality and yada yada yada, but my feelings from a political standpoint are completely different and I have the responsibility to keep my feelings about the next man or woman who may be my neighbor, classmate, co-worker, or whomever, to myself. Their choice to marry someone that I don't really agree with is not going to harm me or my choice of who I marry. That, in my opinion, is the position the government, both state and federal, should take.

Originally posted by sigmadiva
I hear what you are saying, but to be fair, we are a society governed by laws issued by the government - people we elect.

It was because of the interference of government in peoples lives that ended slavery. It was the interference of government that established the Civil Rights Acts. It was the interference of government that gave women and minorities the right to vote. It was the interference of government that established Title IX.

I presume that you are angered by the interference of government in peoples lives to establish morality, but not civil order. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by sigmadiva
I just think the institution of marriage is being 'protected' by the law....

I still have yet to hear anyone intelligently explain to me just how marriage is 'protected' by Prop 2. Its been said 110 times before, but if we're THAT concerned about 'protecting' marriage, (and not just further marganilizing the last group thats still acceptable to discriminate against) then lets create LEGAL & CRIMINAL penalties for adulterers, and re-institute at fault divorces, with penalties.

Originally posted by sigmadiva
Would I consider it poetic justice if I have a gay child? No. No more than I would think it would be poetic justice if I had a child who became an arsonist or a bank robber. Would I love my child? I am sure I would, but that does not mean I have to condone my child's actions.

Because its all at the same moral latitude, right? Gay kid, arsonist, bank robber.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by Phasad1913

In the case of gay marriage, you have a situation where the government, as it did with interracial marriage 50 years ago, trying to tell people that they cannot marry whom they wish. Just as in the case of interracial couples, the government has no place and no right to come into the personal lives of these individuals and tell them that they cannot marry who they want which is exactly what its doing by limiting the definition of marriage in a state constitution. Now, personally, I have my reservations about homosexuality and yada yada yada, but my feelings from a political standpoint are completely different and I have the responsibility to keep my feelings about the next man or woman who may be my neighbor, classmate, co-worker, or whomever, to myself. Their choice to marry someone that I don't really agree with is not going to harm me or my choice of who I marry. That, in my opinion, is the position the government, both state and federal, should take.

I know, I know.

That is why I specifically said we are a country based on Biblical (Christian) ideals. IF (the big if) we run our society based on that premise then homosexual relations are not to be tolerated because it is stated that way in the Bible. IF we choose to move away from a Biblical based society then homosexual relations may be acceptable.

That is why I said I think it is more of a moral issue. Should the government legislate a moral issue, probably not. But, 'we the people' elect government (congressmen, city and state representatives) based on some principle that is in alignment with our own and we the people expect our elected officials to carry out their campaign promises. If one just so happen to be a law banning gay marriages and that is what the people want, then it becomes law. This is why voting is sooooo important.

I just think at some point you (the general you) have to take a stand. The issue is not as simple and easy as it seems. Sure, I may have one or two neighbors who may engage in some activity I don't agree with, and I can kinda ignore it. It is not hurting me directly in any way. But over time that not-so-big-issue becomes a major issue.

[moe.ron]

What major issues would gay marriages cause to other married couples?

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by lifesaver
I still have yet to hear anyone intelligently explain to me just how marriage is 'protected' by Prop 2. Its been said 110 times before, but if we're THAT concerned about 'protecting' marriage, (and not just further marganilizing the last group thats still acceptable to discriminate against) then lets create LEGAL & CRIMINAL penalties for adulterers, and re-institute at fault divorces, with penalties.

*My* interpretation of it being protected is by only legally recognizing a marriage between a man and a woman and all that the law supports of that union. Maybe we should create legal and criminal penalties for adulteres and re-institute fault divorces with penalties, then I think people would seriously think about who they marry and why they are getting married.

Also, marriage has become such a billion dollar industry that there is profit to be made, so for every person who gets married 3 and 4 times, there are the bridal shops, limo companies and popular honeymoon resorts that make money. If you are in the wedding industry I'm sure the last thing you want is for marriages to last a lifetime.

I was talking to a co-worker of mine who is Chinese (born and raised in China) and he said he is confused and disgusted how marriage happens in this country. His marriage was arranged by his parents and he is very happy. Maybe we should have arranged marriages in this country.

Originally poster by lifesaver
Because its all at the same moral latitude, right? Gay kid, arsonist, bank robber.

For me, yes. A sin is a sin.

[sigmadiva]

Originally posted by moe.ron
What major issues would gay marriages cause to other married couples?

They would clog up the divorce courts more than they are now!!!


But seriously, I think gay marriages put society on a slippery slope. If gay marriages are legalized today, then next it will be polygamy and child brides tomorrow (with the latter two being legal in some countries). If majority of the people agree to run a society under some agreed concepts, then anything outside of that concept should not / may not be tolerated.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally posted by lifesaver
I still have yet to hear anyone intelligently explain to me just how marriage is 'protected' by Prop 2. Its been said 110 times before, but if we're THAT concerned about 'protecting' marriage, (and not just further marganilizing the last group thats still acceptable to discriminate against) then lets create LEGAL & CRIMINAL penalties for adulterers, and re-institute at fault divorces, with penalties.

its not about protecting marriage, its just an advertising term so that one side can make the other feel guilty... just like prochoice and prolife. What it really means is, protecting marriage in church.

What I think alot of people want is, they dont want to limit homosexuals, they just do not want them to be married in their church, because its against the bible yadda yadda yadda, but see, lol, you dont have to get married in a church, all that gay couples want is a certificate from a judge. I do not think that is going to hurt marriage that much