Should the constitution be amended to ban gay marriages?

[otseng]

Bush Presses for Ban on Gay Marriages

President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry and John Edwards.

Does the constitution need to be amended to ban gay marriages?

[Chancellor]

Yes, the Constitution should be amended: if for no other reason than to prevent the slippery slope. Once gay marriages get approved, the polygamists are going to start demanding the right to polygamy; then who's next? The pedophiles? The zoophiles? Further, the more combinations of coupling to which you're going to give special rights (inheritance, status as next of kin, etc.) the more the costs of these special rights are going to be hurled onto the backs of the remaining singles -- who already pay a higher tax rate than married folks. In addition, the Constitution doesn't give the judiciary the right to legislate from the bench and, so, a federal definition of marriage established through the Constitutional process (and not the judicial activism of the courts) is essential.

But let's just say for a moment that gay marriage becomes reality in the United States just as it is in a few European countries: that doesn't mean the Church has to recognize those marriages. Even with heterosexual marriage there's nothing that requires the Church to recognize any coupling that is not Biblical (e.g., a divorced person remarrying while the ex is still alive and the first marriage did not end because of a Biblical reason as found in Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7).

Homosexual attraction is unnatural. Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation. Same-sex coupling, when it does occur, is an anomaly, i.e., something that is contrary to nature. God's created design for humans is for male and female to be joined in opposite-sex marriage. If you're not in an opposite-sex marriage then you are to be single and celibate.

Families are the foundation on which societies are built. The formation of families is accomplished through opposite-sex marriage and procreation/adoption. Any attempt to form families by some other way is to pervert the very nature of families and must be opposed at every turn.

[Corvus]

Yes, the Constitution should be amended: if for no other reason than to prevent the slippery slope. Once gay marriages get approved, the polygamists are going to start demanding the right to polygamy; then who's next? The pedophiles? The zoophiles?

Pedophiles and zoophiles cannot marry for obvious reasons. Firstly, neither animals or children have the right or the authority to consent to marriage, and children should be protected from being taken advantage of. As for polygamous marriage, I have no objection to them, other than the fact they often result in abuse and exactly how ordinary marital benefits could be applied to such a group is uncertain.

Further, the more combinations of coupling to which you're going to give special rights (inheritance, status as next of kin, etc.) the more the costs of these special rights are going to be hurled onto the backs of the remaining singles -- who already pay a higher tax rate than married folks. In addition, the Constitution doesn't give the judiciary the right to legislate from the bench and, so, a federal definition of marriage established through the Constitutional process (and not the judicial activism of the courts) is essential.

If you believe it's unnatural, then surely the amount of gay couples wanting to marry shouldn't be too high, would it.

It's awfully nice of you to care about us singles, however. And I'm sure the straight people who are currently married are also glad that you've chosen to support exclusive rights to these very special citizens.

Homosexual attraction is unnatural. Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation. Same-sex coupling, when it does occur, is an anomaly, i.e., something that is contrary to nature. God's created design for humans is for male and female to be joined in opposite-sex marriage. If you're not in an opposite-sex marriage then you are to be single and celibate.

That which can be done is not unnatural.

Families are the foundation on which societies are built.

True.

The formation of families is accomplished through opposite-sex marriage and procreation/adoption. Any attempt to form families by some other way is to pervert the very nature of families and must be opposed at every turn.

False. There are plenty of other ways by which families have existed. One of the most interesting is the Nai, a Chinese tribe that having nothing resembling marriage, and where sex is consensual and any children born of these couplings are raised by the mother and her female friends. It's the strong bond of community that makes this unusual yet enduring society work.

Marriage should end altogether. The definition of marriage varies from culture to culture, and it's sorrowful to be forced to accept only one rather insular perspective on the thing. Marriage should exist only as a cultural recognition of love, to be entirely defined by the people, churches and organisations without any special benefits or recognition by the government.

[Chancellor]

Yes, the Constitution should be amended: if for no other reason than to prevent the slippery slope. Once gay marriages get approved, the polygamists are going to start demanding the right to polygamy; then who's next? The pedophiles? The zoophiles?

Pedophiles and zoophiles cannot marry for obvious reasons. Firstly, neither animals or children have the right or the authority to consent to marriage, and children should be protected from being taken advantage of. As for polygamous marriage, I have no objection to them, other than the fact they often result in abuse and exactly how ordinary marital benefits could be applied to such a group is uncertain.

Further, the more combinations of coupling to which you're going to give special rights (inheritance, status as next of kin, etc.) the more the costs of these special rights are going to be hurled onto the backs of the remaining singles -- who already pay a higher tax rate than married folks. In addition, the Constitution doesn't give the judiciary the right to legislate from the bench and, so, a federal definition of marriage established through the Constitutional process (and not the judicial activism of the courts) is essential.

If you believe it's unnatural, then surely the amount of gay couples wanting to marry shouldn't be too high, would it.

It's awfully nice of you to care about us singles, however. And I'm sure the straight people who are currently married are also glad that you've chosen to support exclusive rights to these very special citizens.

Homosexual attraction is unnatural. Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation. Same-sex coupling, when it does occur, is an anomaly, i.e., something that is contrary to nature. God's created design for humans is for male and female to be joined in opposite-sex marriage. If you're not in an opposite-sex marriage then you are to be single and celibate.

That which can be done is not unnatural.

Families are the foundation on which societies are built.

True.

The formation of families is accomplished through opposite-sex marriage and procreation/adoption. Any attempt to form families by some other way is to pervert the very nature of families and must be opposed at every turn.

False. There are plenty of other ways by which families have existed. One of the most interesting is the Nai, a Chinese tribe that having nothing resembling marriage, and where sex is consensual and any children born of these couplings are raised by the mother and her female friends. It's the strong bond of community that makes this unusual yet enduring society work.

Marriage should end altogether. The definition of marriage varies from culture to culture, and it's sorrowful to be forced to accept only one rather insular perspective on the thing. Marriage should exist only as a cultural recognition of love, to be entirely defined by the people, churches and organisations without any special benefits or recognition by the government.

You may think the reasons are obvious but are they? There was a time when the same argument would have been made about homosexuals. The argument just doesn't wash; particularly in a society where morality is whatever the individual decides it is and where there's a segment of society trying to change the very definitions of marriage and family. Further, the "right or authority to consent" is something that is conferred upon them by society and you are making a presumption in even suggesting that consent is a requirement. You appear to be one of those who believes in moral relativity and, yet, you contradict such relativity by suggesting there is this absolute standard called "consent."

[Corvus]

You may think the reasons are obvious but are they? There was a time when the same argument would have been made about homosexuals.

What argument? That they are able to be taken advantage of, or not able to consent? That seems odd, and I've never heard that one before.

In any case, why should I be concerned about the antiquated arguments when I use the resources and circumstances of the present?

The argument just doesn't wash; particularly in a society where morality is whatever the individual decides it is and where there's a segment of society trying to change the very definitions of marriage and family.

You mean the current definition of marriage in your particular country. Why should it remain the same? Marriage has already been radically redefined lately so that women now have equal rights and people of two different races can be wed. Why dread multiculturalism? As I previously stated before, the definition of marriage and family varies from culture to culture, as does morality. This is nothing short of xenophobia.

Yes, morality is whatever the individual decides it is - within the limits of the law, which strives to protect its citizens.

Further, the "right or authority to consent" is something that is conferred upon them by society and you are making a presumption in even suggesting that consent is a requirement. You appear to be one of those who believes in moral relativity and, yet, you contradict such relativity by suggesting there is this absolute standard called "consent."

Morality is subjective, but that does not mean standards cannot be implemented for protection. It is the government's duty to institute these standards to prevent one citizen from harming (emotionally, psychologicall and physically) another citizen. Since no one is harmed from a homosexual relationship, there should be no exceptions to having one. Since the existence of marriage is a threat to social equality, it should not exist either.

The adoption of a standard does not claim some form of absolute truth, as the adoption of your particular style of marriage as an absolute does.

As for children; I am sure you know most people below a certain age lack the critical judgement to determine right from wrong in certain situations, and can be manipulated by other people. These powers of judgement are usually granted through experience, which is why some sort of age is usually the defining means of a standard. I would much prefer that the title of adult be bestowed through some sort of psychological test, but all sorts of problems arise from this, including the creation of class distinctions and the problems of administering and developing such a system. Here is where the practicality of having a standard comes into it.

As you have stated, there is no authority on what constitutes a child. Do you yourself really believe that the date decided by law is exactly the moment when a child can be trusted with important decisions - not a minute more, not a minute less? Do you believe these same about the age Americans are allowed to drink alcohol? Vote? Did the bible state the answers to these questions too? Doubtful. Even the various states of America differ in deciding when exactly is the age of consent (ranging from a surprising 14 with parental consent in North Carolina, to a startling 18 in Arizona) which goes to show there is no real absolute except where we decide to have one out of the interests of practicality. In the 1860s the age of consent was 12 years old. It was raised after concern children were being sold into brothels. Although children would have been more mature earlier, common sense dictates the age of consent was too low - and that most of these children probably had not even hit puberty (an important deciding factor in maturity).

[Chancellor]

You may think the reasons are obvious but are they? There was a time when the same argument would have been made about homosexuals.

What argument? That they are able to be taken advantage of, or not able to consent? That seems odd, and I've never heard that one before.

In any case, why should I be concerned about the antiquated arguments when I use the resources and circumstances of the present?

The argument just doesn't wash; particularly in a society where morality is whatever the individual decides it is and where there's a segment of society trying to change the very definitions of marriage and family.

You mean the current definition of marriage in your particular country. Why should it remain the same? Marriage has already been radically redefined lately so that women now have equal rights and people of two different races can be wed. Why dread multiculturalism? As I previously stated before, the definition of marriage and family varies from culture to culture, as does morality. This is nothing short of xenophobia.

Yes, morality is whatever the individual decides it is - within the limits of the law, which strives to protect its citizens.

Further, the "right or authority to consent" is something that is conferred upon them by society and you are making a presumption in even suggesting that consent is a requirement. You appear to be one of those who believes in moral relativity and, yet, you contradict such relativity by suggesting there is this absolute standard called "consent."

Morality is subjective, but that does not mean standards cannot be implemented for protection. It is the government's duty to institute these standards to prevent one citizen from harming (emotionally, psychologicall and physically) another citizen. Since no one is harmed from a homosexual relationship, there should be no exceptions to having one. Since the existence of marriage is a threat to social equality, it should not exist either.

The adoption of a standard does not claim some form of absolute truth, as the adoption of your particular style of marriage as an absolute does.

As for children; I am sure you know most people below a certain age lack the critical judgement to determine right from wrong in certain situations, and can be manipulated by other people. These powers of judgement are usually granted through experience, which is why some sort of age is usually the defining means of a standard. I would much prefer that the title of adult be bestowed through some sort of psychological test, but all sorts of problems arise from this, including the creation of class distinctions and the problems of administering and developing such a system. Here is where the practicality of having a standard comes into it.

As you have stated, there is no authority on what constitutes a child. Do you yourself really believe that the date decided by law is exactly the moment when a child can be trusted with important decisions - not a minute more, not a minute less? Do you believe these same about the age Americans are allowed to drink alcohol? Vote? Did the bible state the answers to these questions too? Doubtful. Even the various states of America differ in deciding when exactly is the age of consent (ranging from a surprising 14 with parental consent in North Carolina, to a startling 18 in Arizona) which goes to show there is no real absolute except where we decide to have one out of the interests of practicality. In the 1860s the age of consent was 12 years old. It was raised after concern children were being sold into brothels. Although children would have been more mature earlier, common sense dictates the age of consent was too low - and that most of these children probably had not even hit puberty (an important deciding factor in maturity).

What argument? Simply the argument that they can't marry for obvious reasons. It could be argued that homosexuals can't marry for obvious reasons, i.e., they're not of the opposite sex.

As for antiquated arguments, you should be concerned because the antiquated arguments are still valid and the institution you're seeking to overthrow is nearly as old as Creation itself.

There is only one correct definition of marriage: the life-long joining of a man and a woman in matrimony. "For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Morality is not relative. Just walk up to any three year old, rip his toy out of his hand for no reason, and then ask him whether he thinks it's okay for you to do that.

[perspective]

Morality is not relative. Just walk up to any three year old, rip his toy out of his hand for no reason, and then ask him whether he thinks it's okay for you to do that.

I would similarly challenge you to walk up to the three year old child of homosexual parents and rip his heart out by telling him his family is an abomination in the eyes of your god and that his mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy are going to hell.

[Corvus]

What argument? Simply the argument that they can't marry for obvious reasons. It could be argued that homosexuals can't marry for obvious reasons, i.e., they're not of the opposite sex.

But other cultures have throughout history.

As for antiquated arguments, you should be concerned because the antiquated arguments are still valid and the institution you're seeking to overthrow is nearly as old as Creation itself.

The institution has been "redefined" without incident in plenty of other cultures.

As for "overthrown", if marriage is a religious rite, God doesn't require that the state throw benefits the way of the married couple. Why aren't you content for marriage to be purely a ceremonial affair? Marrying in the eyes of God should be enough. Why must you be compelled to marry i n the eyes of the law?

There is only one correct definition of marriage: the life-long joining of a man and a woman in matrimony. "For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Why is it correct, and why are you foisting that particular definition of marriage on other people? No one is preventing a man and woman joining together in matrimony. Why are you intent on a cultural monopoly?

Morality is not relative. Just walk up to any three year old, rip his toy out of his hand for no reason, and then ask him whether he thinks it's okay for you to do that.

What does that prove? That the three year old will suffer from having his toy taken from him. Here you are using man or his pleasure or suffering as the chief measure of morality.

Funny also that you should provide a qualifier "for no reason". That seems to suggest that if one had a reason for ripping the toy from his hand, the suffering the little boy experiences would be an acceptable consequence.

Also, since I am ripping the toy out of his hand for no reason, I am perpetrating what Andre Gide would have called a "motiveless crime". Then it becomes a question of whether intent matters more than results. Since the "no reason" suggests no intent, the action could be a perfectly acceptable one.

As you see, morality is decided upon circumstance.

[perfessor]

Once gay marriages get approved, the polygamists are going to start demanding the right to polygamy; then who's next? The pedophiles? The zoophiles?

This is almost word for word what the news outlets were saying. But these examples cannot logically be equated with homosexuality, making for a false comparison. This just sounds like paranoia.

Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation.

But isn't one of the central tenants of the christian faiths that God raised 'man' above the lowly beast? Man is supposed to be different. Who is to say what God's plan for man was then? What if homosexuality is God's way of stopping the planet from overpopulating? As it is now - ruining a 'masterpiece'?

[Chancellor]

Once gay marriages get approved, the polygamists are going to start demanding the right to polygamy; then who's next? The pedophiles? The zoophiles?

This is almost word for word what the news outlets were saying. But these examples cannot logically be equated with homosexuality, making for a false comparison. This just sounds like paranoia.

Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation.

But isn't one of the central tenants of the christian faiths that God raised 'man' above the lowly beast? Man is supposed to be different. Who is to say what God's plan for man was then? What if homosexuality is God's way of stopping the planet from overpopulating? As it is now - ruining a 'masterpiece'?

Why is it a false comparison? What makes homosexuality different from zoophilia (other than the fact that the former is sexual/romantic attraction toward the same human sex and the latter is sexual/romantic attraction toward animals)? Both are unnatural, contrary to nature, contrary to God's created design. If the argument is that because homosexuals don't choose their same-sex attraction that they should have the same rights as heterosexuals, then the same argument applies to zoophiles and, for that matter, pedophiles. If the argument is that same-sex couples should have the same recognition of their relationships that heterosexual couples have, then the same argument applies to the bigamists and polygamists.

God didn't "raise" man above the lowly beast, God created man as something entirely different from the lowly beast. Since people on the pro-gay side often like to use examples from the animal kingdom (since many of them believe that ridiculous lie of evolution that humans are nothing more than animals), I was using their own argument. The point, of course, being that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. It is an aberration. However, let's use a different argument here: when God created humans, He created male and female. Specifically, He created the female to be the male's "suitable helper." Because of the first male's response when God presented him with the female, the institution of marriage was established: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and be joined unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh." Notice that God specifically created male and female -- not male and male or female and female. Further, God has specifically prohibited homosexual relations and all sexual activity occurring outside of opposite-sex marriage.

[fried beef sandwich]

Homosexual attraction is unnatural. Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation. Same-sex coupling, when it does occur, is an anomaly, i.e., something that is contrary to nature.

Homosexuality does occur in nature. I've got some gay penguins here that showed up in the news recently ... what say you? http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork ... 10/591.asp[/url]