And also, why would we ban gays from having it?

This is from the Constitution Party of Idaho

This was an interesting read. I came across it while finding sources to show the trend, pertaining to the perception of marriage and sexuality, that all major civilizations have shown before their downfall. After reading it, I decided, instead, to do a topic debating the ideas in here.

Before people turn away from it thinking that it is just anti-gay propaganda, I would like them to read this:
That is something that I learned from reading this article, and after thinking on it, have found that I agree with. Then how does the author think that moral codes should be enforced?

What does this mean for me? It means that we shouldn't have laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. Previously, I thought the only way to fight fire was with fire. By this I mean that, because homosexuals were using the courts to legally impose on religion, I felt justified in using the congress to stop them. Now I see a better route. Moving on...

This article explains what makes marriage necessary. It also touches on the fact that, in previous civilizations like Greece and Rome, as the institution of marriage weakened, so did the civilization. The argument is that, while not being the only factor in the downfall of the civilization, it was at least a contributing element to weaken the society. It also draws the natural parallel to our society.

The institution of marriage provides the glue to any society. In true marriage (no adultery), children that result are accounted for and everyone knows. Also, disease usually doesn't exist, or is minimal. Once this institution starts to crumble, you see more and more sexual promiscuity, resulting in more illegitimate children, disease, and a larger burden on society.

The article also talks about infanticide in Rome and Greece and draws the proper analogy, in my opinion, to abortion. I would suggest reading the article. Then let's debate it's points.

Oh lawd, the U.S. political forum is becoming the gay rights debate forum.

That was an interesting article though. I still support the DOMA though, I really doubt ostracization will deter these wackos.

I would like to bring the forum's attention to the rest of this site as well, please.



Get the whole thing here

In addition to:



Read all of these principles

here

And I believe that you can find the rest of these links.

Please explain what DOMA is. You are right; we can't ostracize everyone out of the US. But, if it was up to the states, or smaller communities, I think it would work. Not sure though.

Grizzly:
Thanks, I guess, for the post. What does it have to do with marriage though?

You're welcome! No comment, as of yet, to the marriage subject.

I read that article that you proposed, and after investigating the source of it I thought that I would like to know more about what this party believes in.

I just thought that I would like to share with other members of this forum -- concerning the information that I found. I believe that there are others here that would be interested in reading it too.

That whole site has some interesting reading to it! Thanks for sharing it!

I suspect the author would completely disagree. Doesnt make much sense to ostracize someone while the government officially condones, encourages and recognizes the relationship with its approval in the form of a license.
Seems to me exactly the opposite of what you percieve is taking place. Instead of ostracizing those who are intolerant of different lifestyles, you seek laws to prevent them from violating your moral code of tolerance. MARK

Dixon:

I suspect one of us is confused here. I think it is you. The author of this article is anti-gay marriage. However, he thinks passing laws to ban gay marriage are immoral because gays aren't violent. Thus, he would be opposed to a law that indirectly bans gay marriage by defining it as only between one man and one woman.

He suggests that gays, and other individuals who break society's moral code, should be ostracized from the community. Get back to me on this.

I do not see why people who are non violent should be able to get what they want in the world. Most drug users are not violent, but should drugs be allowed. Most Johns are not violent, but should prostitution be legal. Maybe it should be, and perhaps gay marriage also. I feel however that there is other options. The government can recognize civil union as an institution having the same legalities as m/w marriage. The gays can have their 'marriage' ceremony, etc. The problem with gays is they want, want, want, and will not take no for an answer. Here is where indoctrination takes over, and the lets all get along attitude gives them what they want, as with AIDS, the ONLY disease calssified as a disability with special rights and privledges.

Marriage is a Religious process of faith. That the government is involved in it in anyway whatsoever is simply stupid.

However as long as the government is involved in it, I think Gays should have the right to apply for and recieve a governmental marriage.

Ok then, you do not like the term civil union, but 'governmental marriage'. So be it. Let there be 'governmental marriage' and 'sanctified marriage', but then some churches will sanctify a gay marriage, and some will not. I just think the lets all get along attitude is ruining the country. IMHO

??? Tortured interpretation of the below. The author would clearly support a ban on gay marriage AND a societal campaign to ostracize them for their homosexual behavior. MARK

"homosexual marriage is ludicrous and should not be legalized or formalized in any manner whatsoever. The fact that religious and/or civil officials are willing to conduct a marriage ceremony for homosexuals is a frightening spectacle of ignorance about the purpose of marriage. Even more disturbing is failure of
the people to chastize such errant behavior of such officials by throwing them out of office."
"... it is easy to see that homosexual marriage is simply a barbaric mockery of the civilized institution of bi-sexual marriage. "
"Thus homosexuality is contrary to the plans of the Creator of the universe. Social acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle sets a bad example for young immature minds and encourages its spread. Therefore homosexuality should
be discouraged by ostracizing those who practice it. "

Arguably the government has an interest in encouraging men and women who may produce children to assume certain obligations. I cant think of any interest the government would have in encouraging John and Billy to assume the same obligations. MARK

Marriage is, in reality, a part of a personal belief system. Whether people can be married or not under different circumstances would depend on the peoples individual belief system.

The question becomes a debate when it involves legal issues. There are legal issues because certain 'extra' rights have been afforded people who are married. Mostly, but not exculsively, in the arena if Federal Income Tax benefits. If marriage is allowed to anyone at anytime then the exclusive benefits are non existent, as they probably should be anyway, as there is no longer a discerning factor that seperates those entitled to the benefits. In other words it would have nothing to do with emotional attachment and a desire to share ones life exclusively with another, but more with the ability to have more government benefits whether one wishes to actually have a relationship or not. It becomes a financial matter rather than a result of ones spiritual belief system. This of course cvould be easily exploited by people for these, not negligable, financial reasons.

Personally I don't have a problem with whoever wants to get married for their own personal reasons. I don't want to be left open to bear the extra burden of the people who would be able to avoid their share of the burden by taking advantage of this loophole. A legal marriage is little more than a piece of paper that has the value of the paper used to wipe ones butt.

Sure. DOMA stands for the Defense of Marriage Act, it was signed into law by Clinton, one of the very few good things that bum did during his Presidency.

dixon:

Apparently I am confused as to what your point is. In the quote that you gave, you ended with:
This is what the author wants. Now combine that with this:

Clearly, the author thinks that passing laws against homosexuals is immoral.

Yes, the author is clearly against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. However, he thinks DOMA is immoral.

ft.niagara:
You and I are in agreement that. Just because an action is non-violent, it doesn't mean that society can't punish it. This author's contention is the method of punishment. He says that instead of using laws, we should ostracize, or banish, these people. This is the idea that we shouldn’t' take away their freedom (prison), or their wealth (fines), just because we disagree with them. However, we can tell them that they can no longer live with us. I think this is a good idea.

Thousands of teen suicides occur every year.
A large percentage of these are gay teens whose families have or would reject them because of their gay orientation.
That is where ostracism can lead, it can lead to psychological murder.

Eh, you think everything is murder TQ (except abortion). Ostracism is ostracism, not murder. Gene tampering is gene tampering, not murder. (That you would call gene tampering murder and not abortion is insane).

I would suggest not ostracizing anyone under 18.

This is called being prejudiced.

I thought that the world was trying to phase this sort of thing out.

Oh well. Maybe its making a comeback. I wonder what group is next?

I think it is high time that people were allowed to DISCRIMINATE. Too bad political correctness has tried to make DISCRIMINATION a bad thing.

I'm not trying to support violence or bigotry, only discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Everyday. Might as well stop trying to run from the fact.

Tell me why many folks, like myself, get uncomfortable around a large group of people with a thug appearance? These people may not be thugs. They may be the nicest people in the world, but we discriminate based on their clothing.

Also, tell me why racial profiling is a bad thing? If an Iranian is coming through an airport terminal, I would hope he/she is given more scrutiny then a Brit. If a broadcast goes out that "a black man in a white SUV" has just robbed somebody, why is it wrong for a squad car to pull over a black man in a white SUV?

Finally, if society has a problem with a certain action, what is wrong with banishing those who continue to do it, especially if they are on their third offense? We aren't even punishing them with fines/prison. We are simply saying "not in our society." These people can go live anywhere else, just not with us.

Grizzly:
As I have told TQ, anyone can use the argument you just used. You are "prejudiced" against many people and actions. You can call my resistance to homosexuality prejudiced, but then so is your opposition to NAMBLA (National American Man Boy Love Association), polygamy, or bestiality. (I, of course, am only assuming that you have these objections, but you see where I'm going).

We are all prejudiced against hundreds of things. Like discrimination, political correctness has made prejudice a bad word.

What made you think 'the world' was trying to phase this sort of thing out? Shunning, or prejudice, is a natural thing, true in every human being. YOU naturally shun, avoid, those areas, or people who you do not want to associate with. Frankly, your comment is sort of juvenile.

These guys aren't discriminating.
They are not prejudiced.
They are bleeding BIGOTS.
And gays are the last socially acceptable group (OK, probably Arabs also) that such cretins are allowed to be openly hostile to.

I think discrimination against any race is disgusting. Discrimination against actions and behavior: perfectly fine.

Stop trying to put people on your team. "Arabs" don't like homosexuality either.

Hmmm, they may not "like" it but it is rampant there, probably because of the strict restriction against heterosexual premarital sex.
I had an old friend who lived in Beirut for some years, and oh, the stories he had to tell!
I am Jewish and am often taken for Arab. This I find very funny because I do indeed get more attention at airports. I thought about wearing a star of David, but figured they would think it was a bluff.

If by actions of homosexuals, you mean the action to try to be happy in life with a love partner, oh, that is so horrible!

They'd commit suicide whether or not there's Gay marriage...
Lots of herto suicides too, btw.

A lot of them would not if they had loving and supportive parents and community.
The statistics do show a disproportionate percentage of teen suicides are gay, much greater than their you would expect by their numbers.

Imagine yourself as a straight parent who's son or daughter was completely out of the closet. Dress, voice, manerisms etc. What would your reaction be?

BTW - welcome back!

Thanks Boon, but what you just presented is a stereotype.
Most gay teens you couldn't pick out in a crowd, and many of them are nerdy.
You notice the flamers.
Most homosexuals young and old pretty much look like everyone else.

In Thailand, they have all these lady boys, and that is different.
It is really amazing, I am sure you have noticed.
I have seen groups of pre teen Thai boys hanging out, and they are clearly already total lady boys wth no other possible direction.
It just proves that culture is a factor.

Cm on Niagara, you know how this thing began just as much as I did.

I know that we have a primitive instinct to not associate with certain people.

What is being talked about here is banishing people from the country just because they live a different lifestyle than you do.

If I see a group of unscrupulous characters standing on a corner (ruffians) that may or may not mug me, I will try to take a different route in order to avoid a confrontation.

I will not go to the FBI and demand that they be removed from society on the basis that I think they were going to do something wrong, immoral, or illegal!

Furthermore, I do not feel bad about associating the words, ostracism; discrimination; and banishment as being prejudiced. Neither is it juvenile for me thinking that way.

Whatever, I think your desparation to find validation is clouding your perception. I cant fathom how any rational mind could read the article and percieve it to express opposition to DOMA. And what violence do you percieve as being created by DOMA? The author would support DOMA AND go even further and have any state or local official who marries same sex couples thrown out of office.
Here's the passages again I think your missing. MARK


"homosexual marriage is ludicrous and should not be legalized or formalized in any manner whatsoever. The fact that religious and/or civil officials are willing to conduct a marriage ceremony for homosexuals is a frightening spectacle of ignorance about the purpose of marriage. Even more disturbing is failure of
the people to chastize such errant behavior of such officials by throwing them out of office."
"... it is easy to see that homosexual marriage is simply a barbaric mockery of the civilized institution of bi-sexual marriage. "
"Thus homosexuality is contrary to the plans of the Creator of the universe. Social acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle sets a bad example for young immature minds and encourages its spread. Therefore homosexuality should
be discouraged by ostracizing those who practice it. "

I must admit I didn't read the article. From the snippett it seems to say "Homosexuality is OK in our schools as long as one can't help it, but as soon as it becomes a matter of choice it is taboo". Did I get that right G?

dixon:

I'm not searching for validation. I haven't decided whether DOMA is the way to go or not; I just presented the points from this article. One of those points is that passing laws against non-violent people is wrong. Another is that legalizing gay marriage is wrong.

Take from that what you will.

I am opposed to gay marriage, but thought those two points created an interesting dynamic. Here is what I took from it: On the one hand, homosexuality must be shunned. On the other hand, the shunning must occur through a collective agreement by the people to banish offenders, as opposed to passing laws.

I think I see what you are saying. Since DOMA doesn’t say that there is a penalty (or threat of violence), then the author would think it is acceptable. If that is your contention, then I think you are right, and thank you for bringing it up. However, I would still conclude that other possible laws that might punish gays would be shunned by the writer.

I would appreciate it if anyone else could weigh in on what you think the author is saying. Would he be for DOMA or against it?

(BBY, read the article )

Feel however you wish, however the words:

strike me as juvenile, as if spoken by someone like my 12 year old daughter, as in someone who likes to hear (see) himself talk. BTW, over eighty posts in a week or two must be close to a record.

Doma punishes gays no more than it punishes minors, those already married or anyone else prohibited by law from marrying. And DOMA doesnt even prevent states from marrying gay couples. It merely negates their effects when dealing with Federal law and allows individual states to not recognize gay marriages from other states.
MARK

Sorry wrong Thread.

Thanks for the clarification dixon. You are most definitely right. The author would support it. I was confusing DOMA with the type of laws he was talking about in his piece. These are the type that would imprison or fine homosexuals.

Sorry for the confusion.

I do other things than stay on the computer all of the time; its called a LIFE!

BTW, shouldn't you help your daughter rake up the grass that she just mowed?

Added note: *bold text added by Grizzly*

Could you please elaborate on that statement? I'm a tad bit confused.