yellow_hammer 10 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Novice_Cubmaster said, "I don't think same sex marriage is anywhere nearly as big a threat to the fiber of our society as irresponsible heterosexual mating and breeding." You'll get no disagreement from me on that. But that's no reason to allow yet another degradation of the institution. Your argument is very close to "all the other kids are doing it" logic. The toothpaste is already out of the tube on heterosexual marriages. We can only fix the problem by raising the general level of morality in society. Allowing gay marriages won't help. Fuzzy Bear, Funny. But if it's pointless then why did you join in? OGE, I brought up Screamin' Dean because of his recognition that southern voters as a group are more concerned with religion, right to bear arms, and social issues (God, guns, and gays as he put it) than they are with economic issues and it's not too far from the truth. As for Dean himself - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Link to post Share on other sites
frznpch 10 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Okay, my take on the whole gay marriage issue...The problem is that the main objections to gay marriage are based in religious philosophy, and our country's laws and priviledges are supposed to be "religion neutral." Therefore, gay people feel that they should have the same rights granted by marriage (i.e. insurance coverage, control in emergency situations, etc). The main problem I see is that our social security system is failing already, without the added burden of a instant new class of beneficiaries (non-working spouses of gay retirees). But, as I see the Constitution, it IS discriminatory not to allow gay people the same rights given to the heterosexual couple. My feeling is that it should work this way: any "couple" should be allowed civil marriage, that is, marriage by Justice of the Peace, but no church should be forced to perform or sanction such a marriage, or to allow the couples to be members of their churches, because they are not government organizations. Further, no private organization (such as BSA) should be made to acknowledge or accept such couples as leaders or whatever, because they are not government. Our government was founded on some religious principles, but I don't think any of them trumps the basic idea of religious freedom (including the right not to believe at all. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 It isn't gay marriage. It is same sex marriage. Same sex marriage means almost anyone one can be married, two brothers, two sisters, a mother & grandmother, to male best friends, two female best friend, etc. and receive the same benefits as a traditional married couple. And that's OK? Having an amendment to the Constitution takes this issue out of the hands of judges who legislate from the bench! Very important! On the state level, not one state has voted against this amendment to their state Constitutions. In fact, it has passed with an average vote of 70% for this amendment! Apparently it is important to a lot of people. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Novice_Cubmaster 10 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Hi YellowHammer, re: "Your argument is very close to "all the other kids are doing it" logic. The toothpaste is already out of the tube on heterosexual marriages. We can only fix the problem by raising the general level of morality in society. Allowing gay marriages won't help. " The anti-gay marriage faction would have a much stronger leg to stand on if overall heterosexual behavior was more moral. People in glass houses... Since religion & morality are so tightly bound, I don't know that our diverse society can come up with a more uniform stance on gays, premarital sex, abortion, etc.. But I hope that someday society in the US might at least arrive at a national sense of what constitutes responsible behavior - especially in regards to having and raising children. And frankly, personal responsibility would fix a lot of other problems in this country. PS- It's a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. There's no substitute for politeness & civility. NC Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzy Bear 12 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Yellow H. You are right there is very little that is added by anyone's addition to any of these religious/personal arguments. Everyone already has their stock opinion. We could do this by the numbers rather than spend time typing it out. It makes little difference how strong a position that anyone has; nobody changes, even the weakest of musings has solid support. So, it is the ethereal optimist in me that puts wind under my wings. FB Link to post Share on other sites
SaintCad 10 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 "It isn't gay marriage. It is same sex marriage. Same sex marriage means almost anyone one can be married, two brothers, two sisters, a mother & grandmother, to male best friends, two female best friend, etc. and receive the same benefits as a traditional married couple. And that's OK?" Really? Can you point to ANY proposed law that repeals the consanguity marriage bans that every state has? I didn't think so. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted June 12, 2006 Author Share Posted June 12, 2006 SaintCad, I dont know if you were around for the Equal Rights Amendment debate or if you were too young to remember it, but the arguments against same sex marriages you see here remind me of that era. I remember being told as a child by an adult I respected that he was against the Equal Rights Amendment because if it passed, then there couldn't be public Mens and Womens restrooms, all public toilets would have to be "unisex" and he just couldnt see how that would work. I dont understand how having Bob and bob get married by a religion that chooses to marry them translates to people legally marrying their pets or brothers marrying their sisters but when you cant win an argument based on logic, fear is a mighty handy second option. I think the word we need to pay attention to here is exenophobia Link to post Share on other sites
yellow_hammer 10 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Novice Cubmaster said, "The anti-gay marriage faction would have a much stronger leg to stand on if overall heterosexual behavior was more moral. People in glass houses..." So true and so sad. Personally, I don't live in a glass house. I've been married nearly 20 years to the same sweet wife (opposites attract) and intend to stay that way. "Since religion & morality are so tightly bound, I don't know that our diverse society can come up with a more uniform stance on gays, premarital sex, abortion, etc.. But I hope that someday society in the US might at least arrive at a national sense of what constitutes responsible behavior - especially in regards to having and raising children. And frankly, personal responsibility would fix a lot of other problems in this country." I think that we agree more than we disagree. I think it boils down to this: I think that allowing same sex marriage would make a bad situation worse. You think that it couldn't be more broken so we might as well allow it. Is the glass half full or half empty? Being an engineer, I think the glass was designed incorrectly - it's twice as big as it needs to be. ;-) "PS- It's a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. There's no substitute for politeness & civility." A Scout is friendly, courteous, and kind. -------- Lisabob, As one member of the "socially conservative base" I recognize when I am being pandered to and react accordingly, with disdain. -------- Fuzzy Bear, Admit it - it's just plain fun. Pointless, but fun. Link to post Share on other sites
SaintCad 10 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Old Grey Eagle I'm not sure why you directed your comments to me specifically. I said that I don't believe that SSM's will lead to the downfall of Western Civilization. I also pointed out that SSM laws do not repeal incestuous (consanguity) marriage laws. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I also pointed out that SSM laws do not repeal incestuous (consanguity) marriage laws. Providing any state where this might be made legal has such a law. Are there any states? It seems all those where an vote to amend the states constitution have voted to ban SSM! And if Ritalin is the answer, we are in big trouble! Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
SaintCad 10 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 " 'I also pointed out that SSM laws do not repeal incestuous (consanguity) marriage laws.' Providing any state where this might be made legal has such a law. Are there any states? It seems all those where an vote to amend the states constitution have voted to ban SSM!" Are you serious, Ed? Can you point out one state that allows brother/sister, father/daughter, aunt/nephew, etc. marriages? The closest relations allowed to marry in ANY state would be first cousins. And what does this have to do with same-sex marriages? Can you give even one example of a proposed SSM law that would also allow close relatives to marry? Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzy Bear 12 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Yes, Y.H. pointless and fun, so here goes: I am against homosexuality because it doesn't float my boat and because the BSA says it's wrong and its off limits to the Catholics but then I am not a Catholic but I am a Scout leader. I just happen to agree with them but not for the same reasons. With that being said, I am not against homosexuals marrying because there have always been homosexuals and it is high time they have a taste of something that will settle them down. Running from person to person for sex doesn't do much for disease control or for relationship building and I am for building strong healthy relationships. Marriage at its worst can be a place where great personal lessons are learned and even homosexuals can learn. If somebody believes that they must have a person of the same sex for a partner, then I couldn't stop them nor would I want to try even if I were king. For personal responsibility to even begin to work each person needs live ammunition to see what will happen, so light it off, stand back and watch! I want to live in peace with others even if they are different. I don't want a religion that is contrary to loving one's neighbor as I do for myself, so I am putting homosexuals in the neighbor category. I am a citizen of these United States and I believe in personal freedom and that means that if a persons electrical charge is DC instead of AC then that is their choice, of course it must remain within the limits of infringing on the rights of others, which means marriage between close relatives. Life is short, difficult and sometimes brutal without me adding to it. While we are here, we should make the very best of it even if it doesn't add up to a set of standards that few live up to anyway. So when we run afoul (not if) we will all need forgiveness. It is a term for the masses not the few. The log that I shoved in my own eye is much bigger and more burdensome than the splinter in my brothers, so with that kind of confession, I must be more careful with my rock throwing. FB Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I posted Same sex marriage means almost anyone one can be married, two brothers, two sisters, a mother & grandmother, to male best friends, two female best friend, etc. and receive the same benefits as a traditional married couple. And that's OK? Same sex marriage means the same sex getting married. Brother & sister aren't the same sex! And if the closest is two cousins it could be two male cousins getting married or two female cousins getting married. And that's OK? If you think it is, that is really sad. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
SaintCad 10 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 "Same sex marriage means the same sex getting married. Brother & sister aren't the same sex! And if the closest is two cousins it could be two male cousins getting married or two female cousins getting married. And that's OK? If you think it is, that is really sad." Ed, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Here's what I think you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong: You believe that proposed SSM laws would repeal current consanguity marriage laws, in effect allowing anyone over 18 to marry anyone else over 18 - even close relatives. Is that what you believe? Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Ed, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Here's what I think you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong: You believe that proposed SSM laws would repeal current consanguinity marriage laws, in effect allowing anyone over 18 to marry anyone else over 18 - even close relatives. Is that what you believe? Same sex marriage means people of the same sex getting married! A brother & sister aren't the same sex! And the word is consanguinity. If you're gonna toss around $5 words it really helps if you spell them correctly! Are there laws on the books to prevent 2 brothers from marrying each other? Or 2 sisters? Or 2 male cousins? Or do those laws only apply when a brother & sister want to marry? Would SSM laws repeal the consanguinity laws? They could if they are written to do that. And if you think there is nothing wrong with SSM, then you are more clueless than I thought! Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now