Quote:

Quote:
Next thing you know they'll want to abolish slavery

Yeah, and, you know, it wasn't the Right that made that into an issue, it was the slave activists...

Peter

Quote:

Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history...

You know, I think it's this particular attitude about the marriage argument that's the most maddening. Mostly because it's incorrect. People making this argument seriously need a history class (any good Western Civilization course should do). The "church" had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently (well, recently being maybe the last 1000 years or so).

Quote:

Quote:
I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.

Defending it from what, exactly? So-called "activist judges?" The "attack" that is being "defended" against here simply does not exist. I cannot possibly speak any more eloquently on this than this document from the Center for American Progress has, so I will simply quote them here as evidence there is no "attack" on the institution of marriage:


Marriage is not being redefined by "activist judges." As a new Cato nstitute report by Professor Dale Carpenter notes, "The 'threat' from courts is more imagined than real." Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision; 45 states have barred same-sex marriage by various means. The question isn't whether "activist judges" should redefine marriage, but whether the states should have the opportunity to settle this matter in their own fashion, without federal interference.


For those unaware, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian (and often Conservative) think tank. The fact is, true conservatives believe in States' rights, and the goal of this amendment is to take away the right of individual states to confer marriage upon certain couples.

Again, what exactly is it that social conservatives are so afraid of that they need to "defend" from?

Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up..

Bill Frist sets the legislative calendar for the Senate. He has chosen now to bring this issue up (along with flag burning, another golden oldie from the GOP Wedge Issue Greatest Hits collection.) With all of the other problems that need to be solved in the halls of Congress, why does he choose now?

You've acknowledged that the timing is a little too convenient, and I appreciate your candor. I will, in turn, acknowledge that gay rights groups are exerting a fair amount of legal pressure on the various state laws which restrict marriage. But, for you to claim that it's the left that's "bringing this topic up" means that the left somehow has the power to do so, and the only person with that power is Bill Frist. Bringing it up now, with all of the other things that need attention, implies that there is a grave, iminent threat. With 45 of 50 states having statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly barring gay marriage, how can this threat be categorized as iminent?

Quote:
Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.

From The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by noted social conservative Bill Clinton:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

In other words, under existing law, states have no obligation to recognize another state's marriage if it goes against their definition of marriage.

Quote:
I would wager that most conservatives would be okay if some states were in support of this and some weren't.

Would you put yourself in this "most conservatives" category? If so, you are in opposition to this amendment, which prevents states from deciding for themselves.

Tony, thanks for you post. While it's clear we disagree on the issue, I appreciate you being clear in your arguements. I'm not seeking to change anyone's mind here, but gaining clarity in where we disagree is an accomplishment (ie, you didn't make any bogus arguments that Republicans are only concerned about the rights of right while males).

You are talking about this issue as if it was just broughten up last week when I argue that it was brought up several years ago. Marriage, as defined today IS under attack. Whether that's a concern to you or not is your opinion, but the fact remains that gay activists (supported by the Left) are using the courts to impose their view of society on the whole country. This is being done through the courts. While we seem to agree that this should be left upto the states, what is a state to do if it's amendment to a state constitution is tossed out by its supreme court?

I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so. At this point, I'm not "for" the US amendment because of that but if states are not allowed to pursue this locally, then I don't see an alternative.

I had the honesty to admit that this looks a bit too well timed for the 06 races, but I wonder how many of you will admit that Democrats would do the same thing? Leaks to the press days prior to a vote on the Patriot Act? Reprinting of a 6 month old story days prior to a new CIA chief being voted in? (Yes, I'm basically granting the NYT and WP official positions within the DNC! ) Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

Quote:
Provide examples. The quote from me says nothing about the church and even if it did, that doesn't change the fact about what marriage has been.

Quote:
I'm Catholic and I support the idea of equality, which includes same-sex unions and/or marriage.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.

Quote:

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.

I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)

Quote:
I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)

However, that's a rubbish argument

Quote:
Not least because it assumes that the availability of marriage is a big enough incentive to make someone switch teams.

Quote:
Honestly, though, I'm not really sure what the real point of the state recognizing marriage actually is . . . .

Quote:

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.

Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

I certainly don't mind discussing gay marriage, but this thread was started complaining about the political motives of the gay marriage amendment. To that, I brought up two points and added a third:

1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. Many of you bring up good reasons on why it should be changed (and to be honest, I'm not 100% against it but it comes across that way because I'm one of only two people taking this side now), but you have to admit that it's not the conservatives initiating the change. To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.) To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about. I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me. I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue. Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about? To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats. It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans. I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Damn I wish I had more than 20 minutes a day online.. while we seem to disagree, you guys are much more fun to debate that some of the other sites I visit (even the ones where I'm in the majority).

Quote:
I argue that it was brought up several years ago.

Quote:
I wonder how many of you will admit that Democrats would do the same thing?

Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

Quote:
Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history.

Quote:
I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so

Quote:

Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word

You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. (Or maybe you live in Texas. ;-) You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.

Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

Hence the reason I also added the phrase let alone society as a whole. And personally, none of those things you've mentioned above, I see as being particularly bad for society as a whole, either. I find some of them revolting (incest/beastiality), but others (legalized prostitution and drug use, in particular) I think would actually go so far as to improve society (even though I have no interest in partaking of either activity). It's not the Judeo-Christian values I object to -- it's that people think religious values should be used to guide society even to the point of persecuting minority segments of the population. Isn't that partly why this country was founded in the first place? To escape religious persecution?

That said, can you provide any valid demonstration of how gay marriage harms society?

Quote:
1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. [...] To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.)

I'm quite well aware that marriage existed before Christ. I'm also quite well aware that the concepts of marriage have changed and evolved over time, too -- both before, and after Christ. Polygamy was, at one point, acceptable (and still is, in some cultures). The bride, at one point, was considered nothing more than property, for which a bride-price was paid. According to the Bible, a man is required to marry his brother's wife, should his brother die -- we don't do that, anymore, either. Nor do we practice arranged marriages, though some cultures still do. Inter-racial marriages were also unacceptable at one point, too. There may or may not have been gay marriages at some point in history (I don't know of any instances of such, but, unlike you, I'm not willing to categorically deny such possibilities -- I'm not a scholar of the topic), but it doesn't matter: the crux of the argument is that you're defense is "tradition says...", but tradition is a) constantly changing, and b) culturally dependant.

Quote:
To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

Not really. I don't think it's radical to have behave based on ignorance. What I consider radical is, having been educated about the ignorance -- realizing the hypocrisy, oppression and bigotry involved in the subject -- to continue in that behaviour, and to defend that continued behaviour based on flimsy arguments drawn almost purely from religion. It's not radical to want to be treated as any other human being.

Quote:
2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

I agree that the Republicans may not have started the ball rolling, and I didn't claim that Republicans did so. The word I used was conservatives, with a lower-case 'c'. Further, it's not that they suddenly stopped giving out marriage licenses -- it's that they refused to give them out in the first place. The only two courses of action available after that, as a gay couple, is to either a) go along with the crowd, and accept your sub-citizen status, or b) seek redress through the legal system.

Quote:
3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about.

Oh, yes... the tired old "well the other guys are doing it" argument.

Quote:
I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me.

I agree -- strong family values are very important. However, there is a very large sector of the US that needs to wake up to the fact that a strong family isn't due to its constituent members -- it's made through love, caring, generosity, sacrifice, communication, and a whole host of other things. Conservatives are willing to deny the potential for a strong family based on nothing more than the presence of a penis and a vagina.

Quote:
I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue.

Not global warming, so much as a comprehensive, and sustainable energy policy -- I think the solutions for global warming will fall out of that. However, yes... I think the question of "how can we continue to advance our society when continuing to advance in our current direction is detrimental to our society's existance" is a hell of a lot more important than whether or not two "roommates" can get that little piece of paper that says they are, in fact, married.

Quote:
Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about?

Yes, but I also expect them to prioritize those issues with the society, as a whole, in mind -- not on getting re-elected.

Quote:
To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats.

Agreed -- the DNC was being run by idiots.

Quote:
It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans.

Honestly, I don't think so. I think there were far more nefarious things happening in Ohio than simple DNC idiocy, that lost it to Republicans. (Note that the provided link is not to some random leftwing conspiracy-theorizing blog, but to Rolling Stone magazine. Put your political biases behind you while reading it, and look at it from a purely numbers perspective.)

Quote:
I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Of course... you and Jeff both give me hope that rational (or even semi-rational) discourse isn't as futile as I sometimes feel it is.

Quote:
Either that or we just ban marriage outright. No benefits, no tax breaks, nothing. The curches and the like can do as they please, but on a civil level nada.

Quote:
William J. Bennett on the Jon Stewart show.