Gays Wed...Are we losing our Marbles?

[3SoldierDad]

Questions: Can we turn our culture around? Is it too late? Have we gone beyond the pale? Our conservative leaders have proven to be too weak and too hypocritical to significantly impact our culture. Now comes the blow-back - We're slipping into zaniness. We need to prepare ourselves for some truly challenging days ahead. Indeed, we're heading into some new territory.

Democracy only works with moral restraint. IMO, we could be losing it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California gay couples rush to wed as vote looms
Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:34pm EDT

Back in Oakland, former soldier Cal Gilbert-McNeal, who was first in line for a license with husband-to-be Greg McNeal-Smith, gave Obama tentative praise for his support of nationwide same-sex partnerships.

"Domestic partnership on a national level is a place to start," he said.

Both candidates have said states should make their own decisions on gay marriage, with Obama supporting nationwide civil unions and McCain arguing marriage is only for opposite-sex couples.

Across California there was less urgency and lighter crowds than in San Francisco in 2004, given the court ruling. While there was a sure sense of political purpose, many couples were taking their time to tie the knot, planning a larger event.

The University of California expects same-sex weddings will drive $684 million into the economy over three years.

Full Article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...36038220080617


Posted by: Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

[Sweetbriar]

No. Yes. Yes.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sweetbriar

No. Yes. Yes.

Concur.

If marriage can include same sex couples, then a man and several women, or a man and his pet goat cannot be far away.

TR

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by Sweetbriar

No. Yes. Yes.

I take it you're not an optimist...

Here is my view - Pain is good. I'm a pessimistic optimist. When things get real crappy - We might just wake-up and shed our zaniness. Better days could be on the other side of the "Valley-of-the-Shadow-of-Death."

There seems to be a dark, dangerous valley ahead of us - a valley of testing.

Pain is good...And, perhaps, we're about to get a lot of it - LOTS, and LOTS, and LOTS. When my sons, we're little boys, after a good spanking, they were as sweet as candy. Far on the horizon 2040 or so, I see candy in America's future.

Meanwhile, the crazies are having a field day - We're sowing to the wind and we're about to reap a whirlwind.

I believe America may have a bright new morning - But, there is going to be some pain between now and then; maybe, a lot of it.

My $.02...

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

[Red Flag 1]

Lets hope this is a pendulum that will soon swing back!

RF 1

[Pete]

Sharia law will bring things back on track.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

.... but, really, what is the big deal? So gays can marry? Who cares? As long as it's two consenting adults, I don't think it's a problem.....

There is a difference between marriage "church" and marriage "state". I would assume most don't care what gays do with themselves. It is the reactionary forcing of the "gay norm" onto society that has people upset.

It's that pesky "slippery slope" thing and the slope is getting pretty slippery.

So the question for you is "As long as two people love each other it should be OK?"

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I don't think government should have any authority to tell people whom they can and cannot marry as long as it's two consenting adults.

Got to agree with this one though probably not for any reason you would be comfortable with. Morality cannot be legislated, it must be an inate part of the society and observed by mutual consent/restraint or it has no value. I would argue that passing unenforceable laws does far more damage to a society than any act those laws seek to control. We already have too much tyranny in this country. Whatever happened to the distinction between "malum in se" and malum prohibidum"? And what is our obligation to respect malum prohibidum? (Observe does NOT mean respect.)

FWIW - I disagree with gay marriage but it's because I believe marriage is a societal contract intended to bribe women into raising families. Anything that dilutes that contract is cause for concern and should be opposed. The goal of an enlightened humanist should be to preserve/promote the family as a functional unit because it has proven to be the most effective way to ensure the success of future generations. I didn't claim it was perfect - but I do stand by my contention that it's better than any of the alternatives. (Village my ass!)

[GratefulCitizen]

The PR offensive to expand gay marriage into other "rights" is in full swing.

On the "Oprah" show today, there was a "plural marriage" family from Centennial Park.

They showed what a "good" plural marriage was as opposed to the "bad" ones which occur 1 mile north of them in Colorado City and Hildale.

They kept dropping all of the code words: choice, freedom, family, and kept saying how they hoped for legal recognition.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

FWIW - I disagree with gay marriage but it's because I believe marriage is a societal contract intended to bribe women into raising families. Anything that dilutes that contract is cause for concern and should be opposed. The goal of an enlightened humanist should be to preserve/promote the family as a functional unit because it has proven to be the most effective way to ensure the success of future generations. I didn't claim it was perfect - but I do stand by my contention that it's better than any of the alternatives. (Village my ass!)

So do you propose a Constitutional ban on divorce?

Over half of all marriages end in divorce.... I would argue that this trend is much more damaging to the family than the prospect of gay marriage could ever be.

I am in the minority here, but I think that any 2 consenting adults should be able to marry. Animals cannot legally form consent, and cannot legally enter a contract, so I think we are relatively safe on that end... Whatever 2 people want to do in their own bedroom, I couldn't care less. I also couldn't care less if they have a piece of paper saying that they are married. But that's just me.

I just find it -odd- that people are so intent on banning gay marriage out of fear that it will somehow destroy the American family. Marriages are disposable in our country, infidelity is through the roof, you can get married in Vegas to a perfect stranger, have it annulled 12 hours later, but 2 gay dudes getting hitched will destroy this sacred institution. I don't buy it.

I had a Sgt that was married four times, and had kids all over the country. It was like he was setting up franchises. But to hear him tell it, if the gay couple down the street from me (who have been together for over a decade) gets a marriage license, the world will fall apart. Makes no sense to me, but I guess we each have our own moral hot button issues......

But I know I am in the minority here, so ..........

[Red Flag 1]

To the next big step boys. So two consenting adults of the same sex can be married in accordance with the "law", can two adult brothers of the same family be wed under the same law??

If not why not??

Good idea or a bad idea??

RF 1

[Penn]

I agree with Peregrino and Broadswoard; with one additional thought: Societies are organic, they evolve. Gay lifestyle is outside the main stream of every society. Gay marriage is an attempt to join (no pun intended) society, or be included. I don’t see the great dysfunction in that. Exclusion is prejudice and produces a divide, which untimely destroys. It is morally inappropriate in my view, but it is here, it doesn’t mean it has to be respected as a marriage. It is a union for legal protection in the transfer of property and estates rights.

[Peregrino]

OK - Enough of the "woe is me - minority of one" stuff. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own domicile either. My opposition to gay marriage is based on the fact that marriage is a legally priviledged contract entered into between consenting adults of opposite sexes for the ostensible purpose of cohabitation, procreation, and raising children. (The only part of that that applies to gays is cohabitation - and you don't need to be married to live together.) That contract is encouraged and enforced by society as a whole. It offers sanctioned inducements - physical and monetary security guarantees - to entice women to "sacrifice" the most productive years of their lives to raise another generation. Joint tax returns, dependent deductions, inclusion on employer health care plans, inheritance, joint property, etc., etc. Society has decided WIVES deserve special protections. (And it's not enough - have you looked at birth rates for the most desireable females [intelligent, attractive, and productive] in the developed world lately? It's falling below replacement requirements.) Why do you think divorce is so expensive for the guy? All of the benefits married couples derive from their legal status COST society in lost revenue/productivity and social investment in any eventual children. Why should society grant gays the same benefits they afford male/female couples? Where is the benefit to society?

And no - I'm not advocating outlawing divorce either. I've got one myself - for good and sufficient reason. I've enough personal and observational experience to believe children are better off in a broken home than a poisoned one. Besides, the Irish already tried that. It's that malum prohibidum thing again.

I like Penn's argument but what's there that isn't already protected by a good will? Pete's argument seems to include civil unions, what's the problem there? Keep marriage for the women - they're the one it's designed for anyway.

[GratefulCitizen]

A big part of the problem with gay marriage is Article IV., Section 1. of the Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


If some states want gay marriage (nevermind the judicial fiats ), fine.

What about all of the other states that don't want it?

[Kyobanim]

What about all of the other states that don't want it?

Then they don't have to take it.

Besides, californie is doing it for the money,

As gay marriage becomes legal in California, hundreds of couples from across the U.S. are flocking there, triggering celebrations, protests and a new cottage industry that could be worth millions.