The Federal Marriage Amendment

[GalvestonDuck]

Oh, I see.

So, it's better if gays just keep having sex outside of...whatever you call it...and not be monogamous and faithful to one special partner? So, it's okay when gays (and straights) are out having crazy, one-nighters and orgies and no sense of commitment or loyalty. But gay weddings are sick?

Now, ya wanna talk about twisted -- When it comes to adopting, I am strongly opposed to gay couples adopting if and because they are not in legally committed relationships. Too much torture on the child if the couple splits up because, as it stands right now, I don't think family courts decide custody in those cases, do they? I mean, there's no "divorce" so how can there be a custody dispute? Yes, I would like for people to be able to adopt if they want to raise children. But when it's not a stable, two-person family, I'm a bit leery of the whole situation. I'm not saying single people aren't capable of raising children. I'm simply saying that it would prevent a lot of stress on the child if the couple went through lots of counseling and planning before adopting AND if they were committed to staying together.

Well, I guess I know what I'll be doing this weekend. I need to get in gear and start living up those high expectations of being a sick perv. Gosh, is there a handbook out there or something?

[Aslkahuna]

With the high number of single parent families around nowadays and the fact that single parents (such as Angelina Jolie) can have adopted children, what's wrong with two persons of the same sex who ARE in a stable relationship having adopted children? Heaven knows there are enough children out there needing some kind of parent. I think also that Child Psychologists will tell you that since sexual preference is NOT an acquired tendency, that even in a same sex environment that no harm will come to the child if the environment is nurturing. After all, if you have a teenaged girl living with her mother who is divorced and the girl has a child, is that not a same sex environment? I'm nowhere near Gay but if a gay couple wants to do their thing, so be it. To me that's not perversion, what's perverted is something like a recent case here in AZ where an Adult Male impregnated a NINE YEAR OLD Girl, who because of her Family's religion, will have to carry the child to full term-not THAT'S perverted.

Steve

[GalvestonDuck]

what's wrong with two persons of the same sex who ARE in a stable relationship having adopted children?

Yup, my point exactly -- "stable" being the key word.

[Skywatch_NC]

With the high number of single parent families around nowadays and the fact that single parents (such as Angelina Jolie) can have adopted children, what's wrong with two persons of the same sex who ARE in a stable relationship having adopted children? Heaven knows there are enough children out there needing some kind of parent. I think also that Child Psychologists will tell you that since sexual preference is NOT an acquired tendency, that even in a same sex environment that no harm will come to the child if the environment is nurturing. After all, if you have a teenaged girl living with her mother who is divorced and the girl has a child, is that not a same sex environment? I'm nowhere near Gay but if a gay couple wants to do their thing, so be it. To me that's not perversion, what's perverted is something like a recent case here in AZ where an Adult Male impregnated a NINE YEAR OLD Girl, who because of her Family's religion, will have to carry the child to full term-not THAT'S perverted.

Steve

The guy will have others in the prison population slam him around...may not survive and will ultimately receive his Judgement!

That poor 9 yr-old girl!

[GalvestonDuck]

With the high number of single parent families around nowadays and the fact that single parents (such as Angelina Jolie) can have adopted children, what's wrong with two persons of the same sex who ARE in a stable relationship having adopted children? Heaven knows there are enough children out there needing some kind of parent. I think also that Child Psychologists will tell you that since sexual preference is NOT an acquired tendency, that even in a same sex environment that no harm will come to the child if the environment is nurturing. After all, if you have a teenaged girl living with her mother who is divorced and the girl has a child, is that not a same sex environment? I'm nowhere near Gay but if a gay couple wants to do their thing, so be it. To me that's not perversion, what's perverted is something like a recent case here in AZ where an Adult Male impregnated a NINE YEAR OLD Girl, who because of her Family's religion, will have to carry the child to full term-not THAT'S perverted.

Steve

Wait...back up twenty. I had to re-read. So, you're not saying that his raping her was perverted. You're saying that her having to carry the baby to full term and not aborting it is perverted?

[Skywatch_NC]

With the high number of single parent families around nowadays and the fact that single parents (such as Angelina Jolie) can have adopted children, what's wrong with two persons of the same sex who ARE in a stable relationship having adopted children? Heaven knows there are enough children out there needing some kind of parent. I think also that Child Psychologists will tell you that since sexual preference is NOT an acquired tendency, that even in a same sex environment that no harm will come to the child if the environment is nurturing. After all, if you have a teenaged girl living with her mother who is divorced and the girl has a child, is that not a same sex environment? I'm nowhere near Gay but if a gay couple wants to do their thing, so be it. To me that's not perversion, what's perverted is something like a recent case here in AZ where an Adult Male impregnated a NINE YEAR OLD Girl, who because of her Family's religion, will have to carry the child to full term-not THAT'S perverted.

Steve

His term-not...means given the child's age...it's not likely that her body will be able to handle the fetus to full-term.

[Skywatch_NC]

With the high number of single parent families around nowadays and the fact that single parents (such as Angelina Jolie) can have adopted children, what's wrong with two persons of the same sex who ARE in a stable relationship having adopted children? Heaven knows there are enough children out there needing some kind of parent. I think also that Child Psychologists will tell you that since sexual preference is NOT an acquired tendency, that even in a same sex environment that no harm will come to the child if the environment is nurturing. After all, if you have a teenaged girl living with her mother who is divorced and the girl has a child, is that not a same sex environment? I'm nowhere near Gay but if a gay couple wants to do their thing, so be it. To me that's not perversion, what's perverted is something like a recent case here in AZ where an Adult Male impregnated a NINE YEAR OLD Girl, who because of her Family's religion, will have to carry the child to full term-not THAT'S perverted.

Steve

Wait...back up twenty. I had to re-read. So, you're not saying that his raping her was perverted. You're saying that her having to carry the baby to full term and not aborting it is perverted?

Okay Shawn,

I just realized that term-not is a typo from Steve...he meant now

[dryline22]

Wait...back up twenty. I had to re-read. So, you're not saying that his raping her was perverted. You're saying that her having to carry the baby to full term and not aborting it is perverted?

I believe so, and could not agree more. We are talking about an excruciating and psychologically damaging experience for the innocent girl vs. aborting a fetus from the get-go that is in its earliest stages of development. How anyone could possibly NOT favor amending the situation for the LIVING being is something I may never understand.

[opera ghost]

Wait...back up twenty. I had to re-read. So, you're not saying that his raping her was perverted. You're saying that her having to carry the baby to full term and not aborting it is perverted?

I believe so, and could not agree more. We are talking about an excruciating and psychologically damaging experience for the innocent girl vs. aborting a fetus from the get-go that is in its earliest stages of development. How anyone could possibly NOT favor amending the situation for the LIVING being is something I may never understand.

While I agree completly with you- there are a number of people who would say that the fetus is living as well and has the right to live.

It is not for us to understand obi-wan.
It's a difference in core beliefs.

[dryline22]

Wait...back up twenty. I had to re-read. So, you're not saying that his raping her was perverted. You're saying that her having to carry the baby to full term and not aborting it is perverted?

I believe so, and could not agree more. We are talking about an excruciating and psychologically damaging experience for the innocent girl vs. aborting a fetus from the get-go that is in its earliest stages of development. How anyone could possibly NOT favor amending the situation for the LIVING being is something I may never understand.

While I agree completly with you- there are a number of people who would say that the fetus is living as well and has the right to live.

It is not for us to understand obi-wan.
It's a difference in core beliefs.

Good point, as it is always easy to lose sight of the other point of view. In this case it is particularly hard for me to see because of the implications for the child... ie, how could it possibly be worse to terminate an early-stage fetus than to scar the undebatably living child psychologically for life.

[JQ Public]

I am against it for the simple fact that once you start putting in the constitution things you CAN'T do (beyond our basic rights, of course) then it becomes a limitless list of amendments that people can argue that "since it doesn't say I can't...".

It is dangerous ground to be treading as well in an election year. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds either way.

Great post! I totally agree

[Josephine96]

This is a thread about the marriage amendment.. How did it turn into abortion!

STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE!

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, I misworded what I meant to say. I meant that the man getting the girl pregnant was perverted. The fact that the girl will have to carry the baby full term is very unfortunate because neither she nor the baby may be physically able to handle it and certainly not psychologically in the case of the girl. But her family is Hispanic and most likely Catholic so that ends that debate. But back to a Gay issue. Insofar as I know there haven't been any Psychological findings that show that children in a same sex environment are harmed by being there. When it comes to the political issue, I just don't think the issue is worthy of an Amendment. When the VP's wife thinks the same way, it would appear that the Adminstration is way off base on this issue. Time is running out on this session of Congress and I think that there are more important things to do than to amend the Constitution for the sole purpose of punishing a
segment of the population who are what they are by chance and not choice.

Steve

[dryline22]

Actually, I misworded what I meant to say. I meant that the man getting the girl pregnant was perverted. The fact that the girl will have to carry the baby full term is very unfortunate because neither she nor the baby may be physically able to handle it and certainly not psychologically in the case of the girl. But her family is Hispanic and most likely Catholic so that ends that debate. But back to a Gay issue. Insofar as I know there haven't been any Psychological findings that show that children in a same sex environment are harmed by being there. When it comes to the political issue, I just don't think the issue is worthy of an Amendment. When the VP's wife thinks the same way, it would appear that the Adminstration is way off base on this issue. Time is running out on this session of Congress and I think that there are more important things to do than to amend the Constitution for the sole purpose of punishing a
segment of the population who are what they are by chance and not choice.

Steve

Awesome post... could not agree more, especially the last sentence. It's the combination of the of immorality/bigotry and wasting critical time and resources that makes this whole idea so laughable.

[coriolis]

It's been said that you can't legislate morality. Any amendment could be reversed if the popular tide swells enough.

Traditionally morality (what's proper and improper) is taught by the churches and traditon. Some people are tossing aside morality and tradition. Without morality and tradition we are going the way of the Romans. Terrorists = Huns

So if gays are allowed to marry, then what about cousins or siblings? How about gay cousins or gay siblings? Why not a gay father and his adult gay son? Why not a father and his adult daughter? DNA concerns, you say? OK, a sterilized father and his adult daughter. Oops, that's a rule. Can't have that, can we?

Why have any limits at all? Maybe the moslems are right - We are infidels and deserve to die. What are we living for, and what is worth defending? Tolerance, you say? Well if we were REALLY tolerant, we'd tolerate the barbarians coming in and taking over. After all, what good are our traditions anyway?

[wx247]

It's been said that you can't legislate morality. Any amendment could be reversed if the popular tide swells enough.

Traditionally morality (what's proper and improper) is taught by the churches and traditon. Some people are tossing aside morality and tradition. Without morality and tradition we are going the way of the Romans. Terrorists = Huns

So if gays are allowed to marry, then what about cousins or siblings? How about gay cousins or gay siblings? Why not a gay father and his adult gay son? Why not a father and his adult daughter? DNA concerns, you say? OK, a sterilized father and his adult daughter. Oops, that's a rule. Can't have that, can we?

Why have any limits at all? Maybe the moslems are right - We are infidels and deserve to die. What are we living for, and what is worth defending? Tolerance, you say? Well if we were REALLY tolerant, we'd tolerate the barbarians coming in and taking over. After all, what good are our traditions anyway?

Ed,Ed,Ed. I realize that you have been very vocal in your opposition to this topic. I also realize that you are entitled to your opinions. But I don't see how NOT passing this amendment leads to what you claim.

You hit it right on the head... you can't legislate morality. Which is exactly what this amendment would do. It would set a dangerous precedent. Then you have the dreaded slippery slope theory.

In all fairness, however, I understand why many people have this opinion. Do you notice the homosexual couples that they choose to put on the news when discussing this issue? They aren't like any of them that I know.

[GalvestonDuck]

By all means, we need to go back to our earliest traditions. Black should not marry whites. Christians should not marry non-Christians. Races shall not mix sexually.

And hey, if we're going back to traditions, let's not forget -- in some parts of the country, it once was a tradition for cousins to marry because the families were so small and secluded. Should we go back to that also?

I think I'll start checking out slave auctions. We could get that tradition cooking again and I'll never have to...well, cook again.

[wx247]

By all means, we need to go back to our earliest traditions. Black should not marry whites. Christians should not marry non-Christians. Races shall not mix sexually.

And hey, if we're going back to traditions, let's not forget -- in some parts of the country, it once was a tradition for cousins to marry because the families were so small and secluded. Should we go back to that also?

I think I'll start checking out slave auctions. We could get that tradition cooking again and I'll never have to...well, cook again.

Yes, you would. Because you are a woman and that is where your place is -- in the kitchen helping the slaves. And forget voting.

[coriolis]

Exactly - the slippery slope. Once you start allowing this and allowing that, pretty soon there's nothing left but anarchy. It's not just this one issue. If we accept this, then there will be another battle later, then another, and another. It only leads in one direction: more and more "freedom" and less structure. It's the triumph of the individual. This kind of "freedom" comes with a price, though: The eventual collapse of the civilization. These changes take time, even generations. Rome wasn't built in a day and it didn't fall in a day either.

[GalvestonDuck]

Nah, I'd be dead.