Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 3)

As of today, sadly, 38 states have DOMA laws on their books.

FWIW, for the amendment to pass, no more than 3800 politicians would have to vote in favor of this noxious amendment. POTUS and his people keep saying "We want the Democratic process to decide. We want the people to decide" blah blah blah but the TRUTH is that the Republic process would decide; politicians would decide.

Given that 38 states have DOMA laws on their books, I doubt it would be a huge battle for 38 state legislatures to vote in favor of the amendment. HOWEVER, I don't believe for a second that the Republicans really want this amendment to pass. It's just their mid-term election ploy to stir up their base.

*sigh*  I don't think anyone who supports it is a coward.  If you read what I've said, I stated that those who voted anonymously for it, and refuse to back up their reasoning for denying rights to fellow humans, are in my eyes, cowardly.

Edited to remove snarky reply about pots and kettles.

I have a problem with the wording. A ban on gay marriage. Marriage occurs in a church. The government can unite two people in a civil union. What happened to separation of church and state? If churches want to ban gays from marrying in the church so be it, that is your right. I don't think the government should ban civil unions. I don't understand what the big deal is.

Tom, one culture war at a time!

I don't know what the "conservative christian" stance is on divorce but I have read the Texas Republican Party Platform and it clearly stated that is it their goal to repeal the no-fault divorce law.

a) plenty of straight couples adopt children 

b) plenty of gay couples have biological children

c) my mom and dad, bio parents to both my brother and me, treat us each differently, and differently from one another. 

ergo and hence, different does not equal bad. 

Thanks for that vote of confidence, Chucky. Right back at ya.

Just as a side note: I'm in the middle of a huge change in my work. I've had time right now to log my workouts and lurk a bit, but haven't had any time to post with any care. And if any issue needs to be treated with care it's this one.

I didn't vote on the poll. I believe that marriage ought to be defined as being between a man and a woman, but I'm not sure how I would vote on a change to the federal constitution. If it came to it, I'd probably vote for it, but I haven't thought through it enough.

I would certainly vote for a state ammendment.

The question was put to defend a position like mine and to do so without appealing to religion. I believe there is a compelling non-religious, non-bigoted argument that would suppport the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and I think I can make it. My goal would be to make it clearly enough so that those who disagree could at least state it back to me.

Making the argument will take a lot of time and thinking. There is a lot of ground to cover. I can't afford that right now. Long time BTrs know I'm good for it.

This isn't an issue that is going away. Maybe I can jump in at a latter point when it's put back on the table.

Don, we know your opinions are always worth waiting for. Cheers! 

I'll start out by saying that I'm 100% for equality in every aspect including giving homosexuals the right to marry (and very proud that my country has done this already).

With that said, how can you expect someone to even want to debate you. When you discuss a topic with someone you need to have an open mind to have a free and meaning full exchange of ideas and a certain amount of respect. You obviously have completely closed your mind on this issue and it seems like you are just looking for someone to attack.

You can't come out with such an antagonistic post and then expect people to want to participate. I'm not sure that anyone could change mine on this issue, but I'd be happy to listen to them first before I make a judgement on their character.

So, it's okay to prejudge people who have a different opinion than you by calling them bad people, but it's not okay to prejudge people who are gay?  That doesn't really seem fair.  How about we not prejudge anyone?

Uhh, that's the point I was trying to make to the post that I replied to.  I was pointing out the inconsistency of the position that it's okay for supporters of the amendment to prejudge gays, but bad for me to prejudge the supporters.

This is a defense of coredump…sorta.

I know exactly how he feels.  I, for one, think that denying homosexuals the same rights heteros enjoy is morally wrong….thus, people who are in favor of denying those rights are engaging in behavior that, to me, is morally repugnant.  Therefore, they are technically “bad people” according to my own moral paradigm. 

I highly doubt that anyone has anything that I would consider a convincing argument.  I do look forward to hearing Don Tracy's eventual reply. 

It is antagonizing to me for someone to say that they wish to deny rights to people that I consider my friends, some here on BT, and many outside of BT.

Point taken.  Issues of what I perceive to be a grave social injustice boil my blood, especially when it affects people in my life ( and I'm referring to non-BT people here ).  I've have friends who have been physically and verbally assaulted and their property vandalized, simply because they are gay.  I see this proposed amendment as a federal condonement of that type of action, perhaps not in direct word, but in spirit.  That is why I am so vehemently opposed to it and to anyone who supports it.

Is there a deadline on that?  Because my daughter is only 4, so I've got some time left, right?  When do I need to sell her by?  I've looked and there's no "sell by date" stamped on her.

12345678910 blah blah

(note to self: learn to use this computhingy)

Double post.......... computer skills not very tight.