The Marriage Amendment

[Elsa1]

Like I said, your cut and paste reeks of marriage envy due to the falsehoods it contains. If one envies marriage, there are two ways to approach it. One is let anyone claim to be married so they can feel the social status they envy, or neuter it so there is no social status. Homosexuals take one route and you take the other. Both destroy marriage.
Marriage is the seeds of family, and family is the basis of a society. Therefore, society supports marriage (see the non- government ways we treat married people). A non-government organization that would like to support marriage has to know who is married, and that sadly is provided by the state. I’ve never had the piece of paper from my Parish accepted as proof I was married.

Also, what "falsehood"s are you referring to. Please explain.

 

[kgra]

What age do you think it would be OK for a young girl to have sex? It’s legal in Canada if the girl is 14. You surely don’t class that as paedophilia?

What 8th grade girl really wants sex and really understands all that the act of sex encompasses? No - I do not believe a 14 year old is capable of making that decision. Most cases of young girls having sex/becoming pregnant are sex with older men, so it is abuse. (The majority of teens who are pregnant, become pregnant by adult men. 1/2 are 20-24 yrs old and an additional 1/6 are older than 25.)

 

[anilorak13ska]

exhilio, It’s a sad day for orphans the world over when people start to doubt that a PERMANENT home with LOVING and COMMITTED adults is being questioned as being worse for them than essentially living at school and aging out and never having a sense of belonging or a family to call one’s own. You are looking at this in a very sterile, legalistic view, and clearly you are privy to debate premises, which is all well and good, but there are things that cannot be objectively observed, or if they can, do not necessarily outweigh the subjective knowing that comes from intuition, from an inherent sense of compassion. Perhaps it would work to help your argument that indeed, children are better off without a permanent family over a set of gay parents, but the burden of proof would have to be on you to go out and conduct the research to back that claim up, because most thinking, caring people know on a gut level that this is not true.

Growing up in a nuclear family gives one the sense that that is the norm and wanting to impose it on others for better or for worse. That was my point of sharing my experience. In actuality, multi-generational households are what was historically the norm (and still is in many if not most countries) until the modern era in the west. Now people think it’s normal for grandparents to be sent away to nursing homes.

 

[exnihilo]

You are looking at this in a very sterile, legalistic view, and clearly you are privy to debate premises, which is all well and good, but there are things that cannot be objectively observed, or if they can, do not necessarily outweigh the subjective knowing that comes from intuition, from an inherent sense of compassion. Perhaps it would work to help your argument that indeed, children are better off without a permanent family over a set of gay parents, but the burden of proof would have to be on you to go out and conduct the research to back that claim up, because most thinking, caring people know on a gut level that this is not true.

I certainly believe in intuition. But for such a serious matter I think we should actually take the time to reason it out. If gut level beliefs are to be our guide then for most of history the intuition of mankind was that homosexual behavior was disordered. The burden of proof should be on the people who want to make a change. Historically children were not given to gay couples to raise. This is the novel idea and this is the idea that demands reason and proof.

 

[Jake_Parker]

I was actually quoting my friend who got himself in this position. He said He wouldn’t vote No on 8 because look at the mess he’s in. You’re not a christian at all. And only 2% are gay…fact.You have all different opinions going on in one sentence…maybe you should get that checked out? You don’t even know my name, who my friends are or are not…who told me about domestic partnership problems. etc. I am so sick of Liberals degrading the world. It used to be a nice place to live. Now you can’t even let your kids out to play. Are you being ridiculous or do you really believe that people vote privately for what you want because they’re sick of “hearing about it”? How old are you? Have you voted yet? VERY strange. If you are not Catholic or interested in Christian facts, you’re just stirring the pot as liberals love to do. Like I said the ACLU is fighting to protect pedophilia…after all, it IS an orientation…Is it not??? Where do we draw the line?

What is all of this? Are you just trying to insult me now? And since when did God give you the right to tell me that I am not a Christian?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The campaign season in California four years ago was quite ugly on this regard. Not only were people unjustly called bigots, they were subjected to extreme, hateful behavior and vandalism; some of which were treated as hate crimes.

This is from the people who demand tolerance for themselves. They are the most hate-filled, intolerant people in the country. THEIR speech is hate speech, but you’ll never find a court that will agree.

 

[Stephen168]

**Child related Tax credit(s) **are given to people with children regardless of marital status. They are treated the same in this regard.

Where I find many religious people get hung up with this scenario most is on the giving up of all of those financial and legal goodies.

I’ve never met a girl that wanted to get married for the “financial and legal goodies;” even back when a working married couple paid more taxes, she still wanted to be “married” as oppose to not. why?

There is no financial lottery to getting married, in fact** until 2003 a working married couple paid higher taxes just for getting married,** thereby subsidizing single people.

You can google “benfits of marriage” and find numerous articles and resources on this. But here is some info to get you started:…

Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities…

The source is Nolo.com

As I said before; the first one on your list was a government financial penalty until 2003, it is not a gain.

Also, what "falsehood"s are you referring to. Please explain.

I would explain but it is clear to me you do not understand what I’ve said so far.

 

[Stephen168]

But this is where I thnk you are spiritually off kilter. marriage was never designed for material gain via the state nor social status gain. It is INDEED the foundation of family and supports society, but ONLY if the people coming to marriage are doing so for the RIGHT reasons, not becuase they went out a paid the state 80 bucks for piece fo paper signed by a state bureaucrat! And the reasons they and you say they should be married are the wonrg reasons to me married. My way brings marriage back to its pure state. Your way allows it to remain corrupt and to continue corrupting new couples each and every day.

We shoudl not be treating people under the law or socially differently based on an 80 dollar piece of paper they purchase from the State. Rather, as Christians and Americans, we shouls be embracing a more Christ like and Constitutional manner toward people. And in doing this, the Christian marriage would return to the place of prominence in people’s lives that it now no longer has because as you point out, proof of marriage now “sadly is provided by the state.” Sad indeed. But in my system, your church marriage certificate would indeed serve as proof of marriage. However, the question has to be posed, under what situation or for what reasons would you feel it necessary to “prove” that you are married? My guess is that it somehow would revolve areound a legal or financial advantage of some kind over those who are not “married”. In my system, at least under federal and state law, those advantages would go away. The private sector can do what it wishes provided what they do is not outright discriminatory and my system, I suspect what you would be after, would be after, would be.

Here is another point that I make. Let’s assume that the system you love so much is the moral and ethical system you say it is. Then by all measures of ethics and morality, those persons who are “married” and who obtain the financial advantages and others that we are discussing under the law, if they subsequently divorce, which of course is the case for the majority of so-called “marriages” today, then all of the previous fincancial benefits they received, whether via the tax code or otherwise should be, under the law, subject to be refunded to the government upon the issuance of a divorce decree, equally shared by both parties. That would be fair. And again, it something, if that existed, woudl make me less adament about the current corrupted state of marriage today. but of course, we know, it does not. From the social side fo things, I think it only fair that a couple that divorces also refund all material gifts including any money and material goods they received from family and friends upon divorce. They broke the contract therefore they do not deseve to keep the material bounty.

Marriage is not about our egos. It is about serving God by serving one’s spouse.
Let go of the material and social status mindset and embrace pure marriage as God meant it to be.

You have paved the way for the homosexual lobby.

 

[TgirlMaria]

Um, since when does your opinion of marriage in your religion trump my opinion of marriage in my religion? I thought we had freedom of religion and my religion supports same-sex marriage so why should you religion be higher regarded than mine? In support of religious freedom, same-sex marriage must be legalized on a federal level.

 

[BroomWagon]

Um, since when does your opinion of marriage in your religion trump my opinion of marriage in my religion? I thought we had freedom of religion and my religion supports same-sex marriage so why should you religion be higher regarded than mine? In support of religious freedom, same-sex marriage must be legalized on a federal level.

Um, 3000 years of recorded history. In fact, I think there is only one marriage, that of 1 man and 1 woman.

In this case, you are talking about redefining marriage.

 

[TgirlMaria]

My religion is at least 7,000 years older than yours and always supported same-sex marriage. However, you still haven’t answered my question. Marriage has been redefined at least five times in the Bible, nonetheless.

 

[BroomWagon]

My religion is at least 7,000 years older than yours and always supported same-sex marriage. However, you still haven’t answered my question. Marriage has been redefined at least five times in the Bible, nonetheless.

Proof of a same sex marriage 5,000 years ago?? I did not think so.

Marriage, is between 1 man and 1 woman.

That is tradition, there have not been 5 changes.

Polygamous marriages were only with Kings, it’s basically remained between one man and one woman.

 

[TgirlMaria]

Proof of a same sex marriage 5,000 years ago?? I did not think so.

Marriage, is between 1 man and 1 woman.

That is tradition, there have not been 5 changes.

Polygamous marriages were only with Kings, it’s basically remained between one man and one woman.

Lol, first of all 3,000 plus 7,000 is 10,000 not 5,000. Ever heard of the Roman Empire or the Greek Empire. I suppose you havent read the Bible lately then. There is speak of concubines, polygamy and marriage within the same tribe at least 5 times. It is never exactly the same how its described.

 

[BroomWagon]

Lol, first of all 3,000 plus 7,000 is 10,000 not 5,000. Ever heard of the Roman Empire or the Greek Empire. I suppose you havent read the Bible lately then. There is speak of concubines, polygamy and marriage within the same tribe at least 5 times. It is never exactly the same how its described.

But those marriages were not traditional.

Traditional Marriages were still between a man and a woman, you are talking about an exempt upper class of people, royalty and the like.

Again, there may have been some gay unions in the Roman and Greek societies but they were not enough of a norm to be traditional either. In fact, some of them may have been done in a lighthearted way with the case of the Romans.

 

[BroomWagon]

On a related note, the forum rules tell us not to talk politics here… so I won’t, except the very title here is “The Marriage Amendment”, big news in MInnesota has been the stealing and vandalizing of the signs for Marriage ( wdio.com/article/stories/s2792455.shtml , the article refers to this happening in fact to both sides of the argument), 1 man and 1 woman or have you, traditional marriage. So much so, that there is a case of one fellow who is a conservative activist and puts signs in his yard and he made a big deal about this “stealing of signs” and “tolerance”, it’s too bad that this subject can not be discussed.

I mean this is a big issue and it’s a shame that mainly one side has acted in this way, we are a country of free speech and furthermore, just because one person is for Traditional Marriage does not mean they are a homophobe. It does not mean one is against the rights of gays. It may mean that a person supports the traditional definition of marriage.

And in fact, Maggie Gallagher said so and I concur, there really isn’t such a thing as “Traditional Marriage” and “Same Sex Marriage”, there basically is marriage which means one thing in these United States, the union between one man and one woman.

 

[BroomWagon]

My religion is at least 7,000 years older than yours and always supported same-sex marriage. However, you still haven’t answered my question. Marriage has been redefined at least five times in the Bible, nonetheless.

Actually, one is free to get married in Pagan ceremonies or however but just that the government should NOT be redefining marriage.

 

[maryj]

On a related note, the forum rules tell us not to talk politics here… so I won’t, except the very title here is “The Marriage Amendment”, big news in MInnesota has been the stealing and vandalizing of the signs for Marriage ( wdio.com/article/stories/s2792455.shtml , the article refers to this happening in fact to both sides of the argument), 1 man and 1 woman or have you, traditional marriage. So much so, that there is a case of one fellow who is a conservative activist and puts signs in his yard and he made a big deal about this “stealing of signs” and “tolerance”, it’s too bad that this subject can not be discussed.

I mean this is a big issue and it’s a shame that mainly one side has acted in this way, we are a country of free speech and furthermore, just because one person is for Traditional Marriage does not mean they are a homophobe. It does not mean one is against the rights of gays. It may mean that a person supports the traditional definition of marriage.

And in fact, Maggie Gallagher said so and I concur, there really isn’t such a thing as “Traditional Marriage” and “Same Sex Marriage”, there basically is marriage which means one thing in these United States, the union between one man and one woman.

Fr. Peter, our pastor at my parish for 11 years…Good and Holy Priest! I have stated this numerous times that the vote yes signs in my city have been vandalized numerous times, vote no signs are all in place. I can neither confirm nor deny that there is a motion activated infared camera pointed at the vote yes signs in my yard…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I am also a resident of Minnesota. I am SO happy to see the orange signs everywhere.

Here is a great article from the Star Tribune (a Minneapolis/St.Paul newspaper):

"Here, for your reading pleasure, is what a yes vote and passage of the amendment will not do:
• It will not stop people from being gay. Nope. There is no such thing as antifairy dust

Well gosh, if voting ‘yes’ is irrelevant to you and the world renown Star Tribune, why are you and it having such a snit about those who will vote ‘yes?’

 

[TgirlMaria]

Actually, one is free to get married in Pagan ceremonies or however but just that the government should NOT be redefining marriage.

The government should recognize Pagan marriages just like they recognize Christian marriages. The government shouldn’t define marriage but the Bible should? Last time I checked we had freedom of religion in this country.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But those marriages were not traditional.

You can see how people who differ with you on this matter aren’t going to put much stock in that argument. It’s like me saying that the waitress always gets my order right if I discount the times that she got it wrong. It’s accurate, but tries to hide the fact that in the past the waitress has made a mistake.

If you take away all of the marraiges that have involved something other than 1 man and 1 woman, it doesn’t remove the fact that they existed. Abritrarily saying ‘those don’t count’ on anything that disagrees with your position will not support said position.