Should the constitution be amended to ban gay marriages?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Should the constitution be amended to ban gay marriages?

Yes
8
16%
No
37
76%
Undecided
3
6%
No opinion
1
2%
 
Total votes: 49

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20591
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Should the constitution be amended to ban gay marriages?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Piper Plexed
Site Supporter
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:20 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post #2

Post by Piper Plexed »

OK Osteng, I'll bite the apple LOL. No the constitution should not be amended to ban Gay marriage. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that the only arguments I have heard to ban Gay marriage are based on morals and religion. I firmly believe that such arguments have no place in a free society as all people do not share the same religion and therefore do not share the same morals. I believe our laws must remain unbiased for our society to remain free. The slippery slope works both ways in this argument, if we codify rights (laws) in relation to one belief structure will we not in essence devalue other belief structures and ultimately establish a state sponsored religion. Wasn't our country founded on the premise of freedom of religion? I know in my personal family history my ancestors were French Hugenots (Protestants). The Hugenots were beheaded and all worldly possessions confiscated. Protestants were no longer welcome in France as the majority had converted to Catholicism. We must tread the waters of individual rights carefully as they may lead to unexpected outcomes, we may become what we feared most.
It was Catherine de Medici who persuaded her weakling son Charles IX to order the mass murder, which lasted three days and spread to the countryside. On Sunday morning August 24th, 1572 she personally walked through the streets of Paris to inspect the carnage. Henry of Navarre's life was spared by pretending to support the Roman Catholic faith. In 1593 he made his "perilous leap"and abjured his faith in July 1593, and 5 years later he was the undisputed monarch as King Henry IV (le bon Henri, the good Henry) of France.

When the first rumours of the massacre reached the Vatican in Rome on 2 September 1572, pope Gregory XIII was jubilant and wanted bonfires to be lit in Rome. He was persuaded to wait for the official communication; the very morning of the day that he received the confirmed news, the pope held a consistory and announced that "God had been pleased to be merciful". Then with all the cardinals he repaired to the Church of St. Mark for the Te Deum, and prayed and ordered prayers that the Most Christian King might rid and purge his entire kingdom (of France) of the Huguenot plague.
http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm
The Huguenots "carried with them the fixed principle of the supremacy of constitutional law. Liberty of thought; liberty of faith; liberty of worship -- these were the aspirations of the Huguenots. They fostered here the germ of independence, regulated by law, which brought to pass what... we call American democracy."

No less than eleven Presidents of the United States were descendants of Huguenot immigrants; George Washington (in whose home, Mount Vernon, hangs the Key to the Bastille), John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, James Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty are these words: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, the tempest-tost, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." What better place for this gift of France to stand than on Bedloe's Island (now called Liberty Island), named for a Huguenot who found refuge on these shores?
http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor8

I think George Jr. needs to read up on his family history a bit......
*"I think, therefore I am" (Cogito, ergo sum)-Descartes
** I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that ...

User avatar
k-nug
Site Supporter
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Panama City Beach, Florida
Contact:

Post #3

Post by k-nug »

Any amendment that regulates the religious belief of its citizens should never be allowed into the constition, period. I dont see any gray area here. Even as a christian you cant deny the fact that while this country may have been founded by religious principles, The whole point was to protect religious freedoms, even non-christian values. The last poster pretty much summed up the argument. Being gay is not for me, its also none of my business who is and what they do, and it is especially not the governments bussiness to be regulating personal lives and freedom.

From The Declaration Of Independance


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit if happiness are inalienable rights for everyone, not just christians. banning gay marriages is an affront to those three things. The Bush White House needs to brush up on his country's history as well. I dont think most Americans will stand for the government reaching in our personal lives like that.
My version of Genesis.
At first there was symmetry. Then something broke.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20591
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #4

Post by otseng »

Actually, I'm not really in favor of amending the constitution to ban gay marriages. Though I have different reasons. Constitutional amendments should be done only in extreme circumstances.

The slippery slope for me is that the government will start amending the Constitution for any sort of issue. Though I'm opposed to the state recognizing gay marriages, I don't think the Constitution should be amended.

User avatar
Travis
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:46 am
Location: Down State Illinois

Post #5

Post by Travis »

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

No...and I question the motives of those who do wish to amend it.

The problem is that government has interfered with religion. Marriage should not be a legal contract with tax perks. It should be a life-long bond that involves God, man, and women.

Homosexuals should be able to legally bind themselves to one another, and call it whatever that they want.

If government was not involved with religion we would not have this issue...
Though I'm opposed to the state recognizing gay marriages,
From my point of view the state should have no right recognizing any marriage at all.

CanadianBuddhist
Student
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:22 pm

Post #6

Post by CanadianBuddhist »

My feeling is, if you are gay then you would be in favor of gay marraiges
and if you are not gay then you should have no say whatsoever because it doesn't affect you in any way.
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he
Knowing what's right did he let wrong prevail!
-- Buddha

veritas
Student
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 12:00 pm

Post #7

Post by veritas »

CanadianBuddhist wrote:My feeling is, if you are gay then you would be in favor of gay marraiges
and if you are not gay then you should have no say whatsoever because it doesn't affect you in any way.
:blink: Well, that's a novel view. I think I like it.

For my part, I support the rights of gays to marry, but I also support the rights of the state to provide guidelines on what constitutes a valid marriage.

Justin

juber3
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #8

Post by juber3 »

I wrote undecided on this issue only because that is exactly what i am,undecided. I was raised around a "stay away from gay's" theory and "gays shouldn't marry". But i also have a friend that is gay and i hear his stories and he tells me about what he thinks. This got me to think if they should marry. I mean should i follow happiness or religion? This is why i am undecided
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he
hath chosen for his own inheritance." PSALM 33-12

"To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The
fool hath said in his heart, There is no
God..... PSALM 13-1"

adherent
Apprentice
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: Bammer

Post #9

Post by adherent »

juber3 old chap, the way to go is to follow in the foot steps of God. Its a narrow path as all christians should have found out by now. I will pray for your friend as you should too.

User avatar
Piper Plexed
Site Supporter
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:20 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post #10

Post by Piper Plexed »

adherent wrote:juber3 old chap, the way to go is to follow in the foot steps of God. Its a narrow path as all christians should have found out by now. I will pray for your friend as you should too.
Wow, so I guess you are in favor of Gay Marriage and do not advocate an amendment to ban Gay Marriage? I will also pray for his friend, I will pray that man no longer plays God and loves each other equally as it is only Gods place to judge man.
*"I think, therefore I am" (Cogito, ergo sum)-Descartes
** I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that ...

Post Reply