It sure looks like your name on the posts.
Dan
critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.
Bout time.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.
Bout time.
Discussion is locked
Obviously he considered them not worth saving.
Hmmm, I was always under the impression that God spared Lot only out of God's relationship to Abraham. Genesis 19:29.
And there has been arguments that Lot's efforts to protect the 'visitors' worked on his behalf, although I'm not sure that his efforts were all that good when you consider his bargaining chips were his daughters.
'it no longer takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world'? How rapidly things change! Last I heard you still needed an egg and sperm to produce a child. I must have missed the cloning announcement.
While 'there's no proof whatsoever, other than in narrow minds, that a child in a loving homosexual household isn't much better off than a child of the many hate-filled and abusive heterosexual hoeseholds', I didn't think the scientific method dealt with comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps, you're too vitriolic to think rationally however. Do you think a child raised in a 'hate-filled and abusive homosexual hoesehold' would be better off or worse off than a child raised in a ''hate-filled and abusive heterosexual hoesehold'? Are you saying that homosexuals are more loving and virtuous than heterosexuals? In my experience, that is no where near reality.
What do you mean by 'health of marriage'?
Dan
children raised in that marriage. See the post above for comments on 'normal'. We all know normal marriage is male-female until we get to PC arguments.
in a marriage that has no children? There are many of these and I'm interested in your serious thoughts.
Dan
At first glance, it appears that the state has no compelling interest in such a situation. However, after a bit of reflection, I think it does.
First, the present lack of children does not preclude their future presence. In fact, in our litigious society, the presence of a marriage will make it more likely that children will be present. Gays will argue even more vociferously that they are victims of discrimination if children are denied them.
Second, once the definition of marriage is put into play, what will establish any bounds on that definition? This is especially true in the presence of a dedicated minority with many allies seeking the break down the 'last' discriminitory barrier. Polygamy and its counterpart (multiple husbands) will certainly quickly follow since, even today, many Mormon sects want to follow this practice. What will prevent adult and child marriage that cannot also be torn down with charges of discrimination and equal treatment under the law? Then multiple males and multiple females where no one will know who the father is for any particular child, and no one may care who the mother is. The sky is the limit, and the potential devastation to the family unit is uncalculable. Children coming out of such situations, where nobody will care for and protect them, will be seriously scarred.
While it can be argued that the preceding paragraph goes beyond what is sought today, this is a specious argument. What is sought today is merely a way point toward the ultimate goal. We cannot be assured that this is the stopping point, and more than the recognition of domestic partners was a stopping point. What is the ultimate goal? I don't know, but I'm not reassured by arguments that it is marriage.
Gay couples are parents now. This is, of course, complicated by the lack of formal recognition of the couple's relationship. There is no legal reason that children should be denied them. Allowing them to marry would only provide a more stable environment for any possible children.
I don't think group marriages are a bad idea. On the other hand, I think don't think anyone should get married before they are 18, and the vast majority should wait until 25 or later. The age of marriage is, of course, a separate question that is difficult even with the limited definition of legal marriage that we're working with at present.
The final two points you raise are also a problem under the current system. Some children do not know who their father is. This is regrettable but it is not a function of marriage. There are also children who have no one to care for and protect them. This is both heartbreaking and tragic, but it is also not a function of marriage. If the current state of marriage were not what it is, you might be able to argue that expanding our definition of it might cause problems. Right now you're arguing that new types of marriages are going to cause problems that we already have.
Dan
Therefore, it is appropriate for it to enact laws to promote and defend that interest. Simply because we have problems today, does not mean that we should make matters worse than they already are.
Group marriage is a good idea? A kid not knowing who his father is is a good idea? You just don't GET IT Dan. Kids are not social experiments, and they should not be placed in an experimental situation. Group marriage was tried in the 60s, and failed miserably! Dan, your ideas on this subject are simply bad ideas. It blows my mind that you would suggest regulating the age of people marrying and not the marriage structure itself.
Wow!
You'll have to explain what the health of marriage means. That point is still unclear. You'll also have to explain what the compelling state interest is. That remains unclear, also.
I didn't say group marriage was a good idea. I never said a kid not knowing who his father is is a good idea. Where are you reading this?
I said group marriage was not a bad idea, in general. Some would be good, some would be bad. Just like hetero marriages. I'm sure you know some hetero marriages that were just plain bad ideas that turned into just plain bad marriages.
Just because a child is born in a group marriage it does not follow that he necessarily does not know who his father is. That logic fails. In just the same way a child born in a hetero marriage does not necessarily know who his father is. A woman can plan to have a baby and plan who the father will be. She can choose her husband, or one of them, to be the father. Or she could choose a man she is not married to to be the father. On the other hand, a woman can be more free with her affection, regardless of marital status or marriage type, and become pregnant without know who the father is. Knowing who the father of a child is is not dependent on marriage in any way.
Where was group marriage legal in the 60's?
Dan
by having more married people? I happen to despise anchovie pizza. But I wouldn't dream of proposing a law, let alone a Constitutional Amendment, denying people who like it to order anchovie pizza!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Hi, JR.
>>Laws can be changed by the majority<<
And therein lies the threat of majoritarian dictatorship. The Bill of Rights does not exist to protect the rights of the majority (they don't need protecting!), but those of the minority. If universal sufferage and abolition of the poll tax had been put to a vote in the 60's South, do you think it would have passed?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Re: "If universal sufferage and abolition of the poll tax had been put to a vote in the 60's South, do you think it would have passed?"
No. But then you are putting the vote to just a few southern states and not the "majority" of the USA.
Yes, I understand the Bill of Rights. ![]()
Hi, James.
So the current discrimination is more widespread than racial discrimination was then -- that doesn't make it any more correct!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
You're saying it should remain a state issue and is not the subject for a constitutional amendment. Is that it?
Dan
You should have been with me last Friday where we did catch some very good White Bass.
On the very 1st post of this thread where I announced the Pres made a TV appearance, I said: "Bout time".
So you want me to come right out...OK.....
'I AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT ON A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT'.
That could take years, in the meantime the STATE LAWS should be enforced and throw those Mayors/License Administrators in jail until they realize that they cannot flaunt and violate the LAW. Do we just observe the laws we like??
JR
but I'm not awful at casting into the surf.
They are violating these laws because they believe them to be unconstitutional. This has happened time and again in our history.
Dan
"They are violating these laws because they believe them to be unconstitutional. This has happened time and again in our history."
True, and sometimes is has resulted in improvement, other times it was decided by the nation (and time) that the protestor/objector was wrong.
However, one point, anyone that chooses to disobey a law to make a point, must recognize and understand that he/she may end up being held criminally guilty of the same, and be punished by the legal system.
If the cause is great enough, they become leaders, even martyrs. If they can't convince enough others they are right, they fade into history as another minor criminal or mistaken crusader at best.
It's not to detract from those that choose to take such a stand, as long as they recognize the consequences until they convince enough others they are right. And if we as a society reject them, they may be wrong or perhaps are just way ahead of their time.
Either way, they can't expect a pass for disobeying laws just because they believe the law is unjust.
If very lucky, it may be decided they are right before they're punished.
If justified, they may be restored and recognized for the courage of their stand, even after they're convicted and punished in the justice system.
But they may never be accepted by society. Or their views may be accepted a long time after their life reaches the end.
They must accept this is the POSSIBILITY of their actions.
I haven't seen much about it, but it doesn't sound like the mayor of SF is hiding from his actions.
Dan
that if a ban against gay marriage is ruled constitutional, or an amendment is passed causing the same, that this will be the end of demands for gay "marriages"? Oh, that I should live to see that day. Open the closet door, they're heading back in!
I posted:
***
They are violating these laws because they believe them to be unconstitutional. This has happened time and again in our history.
***
You posted:
***
Are you finally admitting that if a ban against gay marriage is ruled constitutional, or an amendment is passed causing the same, that this will be the end of demands for gay "marriages"? Oh, that I should live to see that day. Open the closet door, they're heading back in!
***
I certainly didn't say anything like what you said so there's no way I could have admitted to it.
Perhaps you posted in the wrong location?
Dan