gay marriage quote

[nostatic]

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God — that is my belief," [Jacobs] said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals [sic]."

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

[lendaddy]

Go right ahead Todd, we don't mind anymore

[Jeff Higgins]

Yeah; so who is the lucky guy?

[dtw]

Was driving through a parking lot yesterday and saw a big sign taped to the back of a car, "I have a HOT boyfriend - HONK if you support gay marriage".

The thing is, it was the parking lot of a huge construction equipment (Caterpillar) and service business here in Raleigh. All the guys that work there are pretty straight, to say the least. I think one of them lost a bet or something...

Edit: Congratulations, Todd! When are you going to break the news to your g/f?

[alf]

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible,"

Good point. I am not gay but do not see anything wrong with gay marriages. It is not unconstitutional and if you are not Christian, why not?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by alf
"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible,"

Good point. I am not gay but do not see anything wrong with gay marriages. It is not unconstitutional and if you are not Christian, why not?

It's not about religion. The government has a stake in seeing stable families. They are good for society and generate contributing citizens and taxpayers. Two dudes do neither so there is no advantage to recognizing them in such a way.

That was a purely non-emotional examination of course.

[alf]

Originally posted by lendaddy
It's not about religion. The government has a stake in seeing stable families. They are good for society and generate contributing citizens and taxpayers. Two dudes do neither so there is no advantage to recognizing them in such a way.

That was a purely non-emotional examination of course.

That makes sense to me, but it is not the usual argument made against gay marriages is it? If so, do we have empirical data to prove it one way or the other from places with gay marriages?

[kang]

Originally posted by lendaddy
It's not about religion. The government has a stake in seeing stable families. They are good for society and generate contributing citizens and taxpayers. Two dudes do neither so there is no advantage to recognizing them in such a way.

That was a purely non-emotional examination of course.

First, why does the “government” have a stake in stable families? To generate more taxpayers?

And even if the government, or religion, or society as a whole as a stake in stable families, what does this have to do with gay marriage? There are plenty of unstable heterosexual marriages. Why isn’t that your cause? Why don’t you ban marriages between two heterosexual drug abusers? Or two heterosexual pedophiles? Certainly a happily married gay couple would provide for a more stable family than those examples. Of course, there are stable heterosexual families as well, but rather than a law preventing gay marriage, why don’t you make a law against unstable families regardless of the sexual orientation of the two parents?

[Drago]

Come on guys, we're getting of course here.

Todd, tell us, who's the new mount?

[pbs911]

Originally posted by kang
First, why does the “government” have a stake in stable families? To generate more taxpayers?

And even if the government, or religion, or society as a whole as a stake in stable families, what does this have to do with gay marriage? There are plenty of unstable heterosexual marriages. Why isn’t that your cause? Why don’t you ban marriages between two heterosexual drug abusers? Or two heterosexual pedophiles? Certainly a happily married gay couple would provide for a more stable family than those examples. Of course, there are stable heterosexual families as well, but rather than a law preventing gay marriage, why don’t you make a law against unstable families regardless of the sexual orientation of the two parents?

You cannot ban marriages between a man and a woman because the rght to marry is a fundamental right and the state has no compelling reason to prohibit such marriages. Less restrictive means to prevent drug abuse and pedophilia are available. There is no fundamental right to same sex marriages under the US Const. and therefore the State must only show a rationally related or possibly a legitimate state interest in prohibiting such marriages. That is very easily met standard for the state.

The issue is not a "stable marriage" as many attempt to argue.

Todd, best of luck in your new endevors.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by nostatic
[BRaskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.
[/B]

Where exactly in the bible does it ban interracial marriage?

When Moses wife died he married an Ethiopian.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by Drago
Come on guys, we're getting of course here.

Todd, tell us, who's the new mount?

I, for one, couldn't blame Todd for being down on women...not after reading his side of the marriage saga...

[kang]

Originally posted by pbs911
You cannot ban marriages between a man and a woman because the rght to marry is a fundamental right and the state has no compelling reason to prohibit such marriages. Less restrictive means to prevent drug abuse and pedophilia are available. There is no fundamental right to same sex marriages under the US Const. and therefore the State must only show a rationally related or possibly a legitimate state interest in prohibiting such marriages. That is very easily met standard for the state.

The issue is not a "stable marriage" as many attempt to argue.

Todd, best of luck in your new endevors.

Please show me where the constitution says that the right to heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right.

[Nathans_Dad]

Probably the same place it says you have a right to an abortion.

But this thread isn't about abortion...

The fundamental priniciple is that society has an interest in promoting healthy heterosexual relationships because heterosexual relationship can produce new members of society. Homosexual couples cannot (well perhaps now with artificial insemination they can, but we are talking about the traditional support for marriage).

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by kang
First, why does the “government” have a stake in stable families? To generate more taxpayers?

Because society prefers well adjusted citizens. The degeneration of the family has caused many of our countries ills.

So it's not just taxpayer creation, it's the creation of quality/contributing citizens.

[dd74]

Originally posted by alf
That makes sense to me, but it is not the usual argument made against gay marriages is it?

The usual argument comes from a socio-religious point of view - at least that's where a lot of the anti-gay marriage reasonings derives.

As for "stability" between a man and woman in the U.S., ummm...one statistic I heard was about 50 percent of marriages in the U.S. in the last ten years have ended in divorce. And one of the largest factors to that is economics (i.e. having no money). Gay couples - at least the ones I know - all have white collar jobs. So they're making bucks and vactioning as a happy couple in Maui while Joe and Mary Average are bickering over bills and one word away from the big D. This could work the opposite way as well: Bob and Bob could have financial trouble and be close to splitting, while Joe and Mary are kicking it in their timeshare near Kapalua.

So it isn't the sex(es) of the marriage that creates instability, it is the economics or lack thereof.

[kang]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Probably the same place it says you have a right to an abortion.

But this thread isn't about abortion...

The fundamental priniciple is that society has an interest in promoting healthy heterosexual relationships because heterosexual relationship can produce new members of society. Homosexual couples cannot (well perhaps now with artificial insemination they can, but we are talking about the traditional support for marriage).

OK then, if it is about procreation, how about a law requiring heterosexual couples to [try to] procreate? You can’t get married if you don’t try to procreate. What about all the hetero couples that don’t procreate?

Besides, there’s plenty of procreation going on. We’re way overpopulated already.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
The usual argument comes from a socio-religious point of view - at least that's where a lot of the anti-gay marriage reasonings derives.

As for "stability" between a man and woman in the U.S., ummm...one statistic I heard was about 50 percent of marriages in the U.S. in the last ten years have ended in divorce. And one of the largest factors to that is economics (i.e. having no money). Gay couples - at least the ones I know - all have white collar jobs. So they're making bucks and vactioning as a happy couple in Maui while Joe and Mary Average are bickering over bills and one word away from the big D. This could work the opposite way as well: Bob and Bob could have financial trouble and be close to splitting, while Joe and Mary are kicking it in their timeshare near Kapalua.

So it isn't the sex(es) of the marriage that creates instability, it is the economics or lack thereof.

????? As long as there is money there is a happy stable family???? What a messed up outlook.

Anyway, just because the traditional family is getting less common does not mean it isn't a great and desirable institution for society.

And again, it matters not what Bob and Bob do as they cannot contribute to the citizenry.

Another reason that Kinky Friedman should be elected governor of Texas. One of his quotes:

I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by kang
OK then, if it is about procreation, how about a law requiring heterosexual couples to [try to] procreate? You can’t get married if you don’t try to procreate. What about all the hetero couples that don’t procreate?

Besides, there’s plenty of procreation going on. We’re way overpopulated already.

Because social engineering can only be somewhere in the area of subliminal or nudging in approach (we have rights you know) so you cannot "force" people to do anything, you just create an environment that is likely to produce your desired effect.

No environment puts a uterus in Bob.