NYTimes: "Strong Support Found for Ban on Gay Marriage"

[orange]

"It's a two party system. You HAVE to vote for one of us! :evil laugh:"

::Ross Perot punches hat::

"Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos"

[Solly]

EDIT: Arrrh. VJ's Very Obscure Chain of Logic (tm) -- > Everything what the 'not normal' group is wanting to do is actually 'normal', therefore

What the **** is this...profess a chain of logic and then start with a contradiction

[Ned]

I think there is growing consensus that the courts have gone way too far in pushing the social envelop against the wishes of the majority in matters that really do not involve constitutional issues. By defining the so-called right of privacy to be both in the constitution and a fundamental right, the courts are legislating their particular views on social matters through "substantive due process" which was roundly criticized in the legal community as being a false doctrine just prior to the court announcing Roe v. Wade, which we all have to admit, is the most aggressive "substantive due process" case in history.

If we were to provide a constitutional amendment, I would prefer to address the underlying problem - substantive due process. Get rid of it.

[orange]

Why do you have such a problem with substantive due process? What you fail to understand is that, at least in the context of this thread, marriage affects no one but those entering the union and possibly their offspring - likewise, gay marriage does not effect anyone but those entering the union - so why should it matter what the 'majority' thinks about the issue. If the majority of Americans think that Christianity is the one true religion, does that mean that we should all convert?

Absurd...

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava

No, people on the right try and make it Democrats vs religion... but it's not. It's lunatic, ignorant, bigoted Christians versus everyone else. These people hate freedom and they are so afraid that their dopey brand of religion is losing followers that they want to turn this country into a Christian nation.

Sava said my opinion exactly. You don't see that every day. But not very tactfully.

[Al B. Sure!]

Christians? the majority of Muslims are opposed to gay marriage as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Isn't anything more just paranoia-based overkill?

How is it "paranoia-based"? Gay marriage has already been legalized in Canada and several US states are moving towards it. Seems like a pretty compelling reason to think that the traditional definition of marriage is being changed, something that many people do not approve of and would like to see stopped.

The legislate against it. It's a perversion of the intent of the US Constitution to address trivia such as family relationships and social values by the Constitution. The only time that was done (18th Amendment) ends up looking pretty damned silly when you come along and get to the 21st Amendment.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Christians? the majority of Muslims are opposed to gay marriage as well.

yeah, but they aren't as much of a problem... Ashcroft is doing a good job deporting them...

[Drake Tungsten]

The legislate against it. It's a perversion of the intent of the US Constitution to address trivia such as family relationships and social values by the Constitution. The only time that was done (18th Amendment) ends up looking pretty damned silly when you come along and get to the 21st Amendment.

I agree with your sentiments, as I would much rather see both sides handle this issue through legislation. Unfortunately, we're far beyond that at this point. You can't condemn the anti-gay marriage folks for putting things into the Constitution that don't belong there when the pro-gay marriage folks are pressuring the courts to come up with "rights" in the Constitution that don't belong there, either. Both sides are perverting the Constitution and as much as you or I would like to see it stopped, I think we can both agree that it isn't going to.

[MrFun]

You know -- I have no need to create a gay-issues thread.

This is what -- the second or third gay-oriented thread created by someone else recently?





So is Park Avenue advocating the tyranny of the majority?

And about this argument that sexual orientation may not be a choice, but you can still choose whom you have sex with?

Starchild and others seem to have brought forward good counter-arguments to that bit, but I want to add that I cannot fathom why it would ever be justifiable for other people to dictate sex lives between two mutually consenting, competent adults.

[Al B. Sure!]

I cannot fathom why it would ever be justifiable for other people to dictate sex lives between two mutually consenting, competent adults.

what does that have to do with gay marriage though?

[MrFun]

The refusal to legally recognize gay marriage is based on the bigoted, biased perception that sex between two people of same gender is not acceptable.

So this way, society is attempting to dictate individuals' sex lives.

[Drake Tungsten]

Marriage has nothing to do with one's sex life. Just ask all the married guys on the board.

[Al B. Sure!]

marriage is a mental, spiritual, and emotional union of a man and a woman and is thus on an entirely different level than the purely physical act which is sex.

[MrFun]

So then why are heterosexuals who oppose marriage so hung up on the physical aspect when opposing recognition of gay marriages?

It seems that their opposition is based on their repugnance towards sex between two people of same gender.