Tanya, the Constitution was written by a bunch of deeply religious Christian men, who took the Old Testament very seriously. America is still a Judeo-Christian society. Otherwise, you will get France or Holland. I don't support the concept of making amendments. However, I support this one. I don't want to raise my kids in a society with ambiguous definitions of family.
And I don't want to raise my kids (ha) in a society where a president finds it acceptable to bluntly stick religion into the constitution, despite the Establishment clause prohibition on same. Regardless of what you or I might wish, the definition of family IS changing. You cannot ban a lesbian woman from having a child, nor can you forbid motherhood to a divorcee or a single girl. And who's to tell me that a woman and a child don't make a family without a father? Single motherhood is far more acceptable now than it was thirty years ago. Bush is trying very hard to streamline the society's mentality into what he's comfortable with (gee, that was an awkward phrase)--a statistical mother-father-2.5 kids-dog-white-picket fence family. But what he's doing is absolutely unconstitutional.
As far as the founding fathers... well, it can be both ways. On the one hand, Constitution IS changing. The definition of "man" is different from what it was in 1776 (namely it includes all races and both sexes, which it did not at the time). I don't think that the founding fathers viewed Constitution as static--they were reasonable thinking men, and I absolutely cannot believe that they would not provide for some changes. On the other hand, even THEN, they put in measures respecting separation of Church and State--regardless of their own faith--for which they have my deepest respect. Not so our president. :(
First of all, Bush is not imposing anything on anyone. There is a difference between trying to influence and imposing. I believe all he did was ask the Congress to vote on the issue. And the Senate voted against it. On the other hand, all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges. All the polls consistently state that the majority of americans are against same-sex marriage.
Second of all, part of growing up is recognizing that the world is not the perfect place that we would like it to be. We are forced to choose our battles. The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians.
To your point, various lifestyles have become acceptable these days. However, they were not proven good for the kids. Yes, it is acceptable for parents to get divorced or place their sexual desires above the welfare of their children. It is even acceptable to talk about it on day-time TV.
I couldn't get over my parents' divorce until recently. Nor could my husband or my friend's wife.
Well, divorce is a necessary evil, I suppose (though I don't view it as evil at all, for personal reasons). But you are making it about personal issues, and if so, I can tell you that I LOVED the fact that my parents got divorced. I found it absolutely a blessing. What follows? Absolutely nothing. It's a personal view, you cannot craft the entire country in a particular way because you were scarred as a child (though I can bet you a body part--most likely, had your parents stayed together "for the kids", like mine did, you, too, would have something to get over. Divorce does not break up a GOOD marriage, in most cases).
As to relative importance of issues. "The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians." FOR YOU! TO YOU! I could not give a flying fuck about protecting someone else's children (not to mention that as your child's parent, you can limit her exposure to gay-ness in this society by, for one, not letting her watch the TV). I care a lot more when a fundamental right is being denied to someone. I don't like it. I don't even know what galls me about it, but I don't like it at all.
What Bush is trying to do is to influence a definition of a fundamental right, which would then officially deny that fundamental right to a group of people, thus precluding the courts from ever allowing gay marriages.
"all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges"--Well, courts have been at the forefront of the social change in this country, like it or not. They ARE the vehicle for changing the law--in cases of abortion, death penalty, miscegenation laws, etc. I don't see anything wrong with it--I think it was meant that way from the beginning.
Я считаю что в стране должно править большинство. Страна в которой меньшинство насаживает свои законы на большинство является тиранией. Если 5% населения еяляется геями, то я хочу слышать про их стиль жизни 5% своего времени. Я не хочу чтобы мой ребенок ходил в государственную школу и читал книжки про детей у которых есть 2 мамы или 2 папы.
I understand that you don't have a flying fuck about other people's children - probably because you have no children of your own. 3 years ago I would be saying the same things you are saying. However, things will change when you become a mother.
Marriage is NOT a fundametal right. It is a lot of fundamental responsibility though. Marriage came into this world as a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I have no problem with gays and lesbians living together and defining their unions however they want.
Courts should not be at the forefront of social change. Voters should be. Otherwise, things will get so out of control that the separation of Church and State will be the least of your concerns.
Tanya, I will respond to the rest of it later at lunch, but right to marry IS fundamental (this is textbook constitutional law). Supreme Court views it this way.
Also, courts have managed rather decently over the past two hundred years, don't you think? More or less, that is. And as for voters... I'm sorry, but i have fairly little faith in the vox populi in this country. How can voters be at the forefront of social change when on average 30% of them turn out for each election?
Being gay is not bad or harmful. Imposing the views of the minority on the majority is extremely dangerous. The majority of Americans is still against the gay marriage.
I don't want to raise my kids in a society with ambiguous definitions of family.
1. If your kids are heterosexual, they will stay this way, don't worry about this. If your kid(s) is homosexual, you won't change that even if same-sexual marriage will be banned.
2. Why would a definition "union between two human beings" be too ambiguous?
So how far would your union of 2 human beings go? 2 men? 2 women? A man and a 6-year-old girl? Can we re-classify apes as human beings? Will the liberals allow Bush to stay married because they don't think he is a human being.
Btw, I don't view homosexuality as a disease. I have had many gay friends and I never had any problems with them. I just don't like the idea of taking one of the oldest and most sacred traditions and twisting it into something else.
I really don't understand why the gay marriage is viewed as a proverbial "slippery slope." Where does it say that gay marriage must necessarily lead to legalization of child molestation or beastiality? Neither children, nor animals are viewed as marriageable on principle because they are NOT COMPETENT HUMAN ADULTS. I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would endanger 6-year-old girls. I think it's a monster-in-the-closet argument. And as for "will the liberals allow Bush to stay married because they don't think he is a human being"--ha. ha. ha. Funny.
"Two adult human beings" -- how does that sound? The 6-year old girl cannot marry, due to quite a simple fact that she, just like the ape, does not realize the repercussions of her actions.
Bush, by far, is a human being, even though in his mental capacity he does sometimes remind me of a 6-year old girl, but that's beyond the point. I appreciate your wit.
"Most sacred traditions"... Could you come down from the tribune and look around? Traditions must accept change. Fifty years ago interracial marriage, for example, was preposterous - would you identify it as a twist of tradition as well?
Bottom line: I do not understand why two adult people who love each other and want to share the rest of their lives together should not be able to marry each other.
tired to explain - when the two people are the same sex it's not a marriage. It's a union of some kind. Marriage is completely different thing no matter what the Supreme Jugdes say or whoever if you will. For me - it's different, that's all. And I explained many times - I don't want to be in the same compartment for that matter with the same-sex people. I am not against them, I am not against their unions, but it's not marriage.
Speaking of trhditions - I don't think a marriage is a tradition, we arguing about a term. That's all.
And if I say it's not, there's, of course, no proof one can offer. What if I say it's a secular humanist society, though giving enough due to Judeo-Christian beginnings.
And, Mrs.Paramon, ask Mr. Paramon to explain to you just exactly how Christian was Mr. Jefferson...
I don't want to raise my kids in a society with ambiguous definitions of family.
Mrs. Paramon, I'd call you a cunt were it for not my deep respect for the term that also, unfortunately, refers to that black hole that, contrary to all laws of gravity, managed to spawn forth supposedly independent beings, whose future, though, is still to be determined by the hole, with all the brains ever located therein.
In one thing, we agree, Mrs. I don't want you to raise your kids. At all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 08:10 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:36 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:46 am (UTC)As far as the founding fathers... well, it can be both ways. On the one hand, Constitution IS changing. The definition of "man" is different from what it was in 1776 (namely it includes all races and both sexes, which it did not at the time). I don't think that the founding fathers viewed Constitution as static--they were reasonable thinking men, and I absolutely cannot believe that they would not provide for some changes. On the other hand, even THEN, they put in measures respecting separation of Church and State--regardless of their own faith--for which they have my deepest respect. Not so our president. :(
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:10 am (UTC)Second of all, part of growing up is recognizing that the world is not the perfect place that we would like it to be. We are forced to choose our battles. The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians.
To your point, various lifestyles have become acceptable these days. However, they were not proven good for the kids. Yes, it is acceptable for parents to get divorced or place their sexual desires above the welfare of their children. It is even acceptable to talk about it on day-time TV.
I couldn't get over my parents' divorce until recently. Nor could my husband or my friend's wife.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:34 am (UTC)As to relative importance of issues. "The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians." FOR YOU! TO YOU! I could not give a flying fuck about protecting someone else's children (not to mention that as your child's parent, you can limit her exposure to gay-ness in this society by, for one, not letting her watch the TV). I care a lot more when a fundamental right is being denied to someone. I don't like it. I don't even know what galls me about it, but I don't like it at all.
What Bush is trying to do is to influence a definition of a fundamental right, which would then officially deny that fundamental right to a group of people, thus precluding the courts from ever allowing gay marriages.
"all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges"--Well, courts have been at the forefront of the social change in this country, like it or not. They ARE the vehicle for changing the law--in cases of abortion, death penalty, miscegenation laws, etc. I don't see anything wrong with it--I think it was meant that way from the beginning.
Re: частично из-за этого
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:44 pm (UTC)I understand that you don't have a flying fuck about other people's children - probably because you have no children of your own. 3 years ago I would be saying the same things you are saying. However, things will change when you become a mother.
Marriage is NOT a fundametal right. It is a lot of fundamental responsibility though. Marriage came into this world as a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I have no problem with gays and lesbians living together and defining their unions however they want.
Courts should not be at the forefront of social change. Voters should be. Otherwise, things will get so out of control that the separation of Church and State will be the least of your concerns.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 04:42 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:13 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:16 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:59 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 03:15 pm (UTC)2. How EXACTLY would gay marriage endanger your children?
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:45 pm (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-19 12:13 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 03:18 pm (UTC)1. If your kids are heterosexual, they will stay this way, don't worry about this. If your kid(s) is homosexual, you won't change that even if same-sexual marriage will be banned.
2. Why would a definition "union between two human beings" be too ambiguous?
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:52 pm (UTC)Btw, I don't view homosexuality as a disease. I have had many gay friends and I never had any problems with them. I just don't like the idea of taking one of the oldest and most sacred traditions and twisting it into something else.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:23 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:31 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-19 12:10 am (UTC)"Two adult human beings" -- how does that sound? The 6-year old girl cannot marry, due to quite a simple fact that she, just like the ape, does not realize the repercussions of her actions.
Bush, by far, is a human being, even though in his mental capacity he does sometimes remind me of a 6-year old girl, but that's beyond the point. I appreciate your wit.
"Most sacred traditions"... Could you come down from the tribune and look around? Traditions must accept change. Fifty years ago interracial marriage, for example, was preposterous - would you identify it as a twist of tradition as well?
Bottom line: I do not understand why two adult people who love each other and want to share the rest of their lives together should not be able to marry each other.
bottom line:
Date: 2004-07-19 04:44 am (UTC)Speaking of trhditions - I don't think a marriage is a tradition, we arguing about a term. That's all.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 03:14 pm (UTC)And if I say it's not, there's, of course, no proof one can offer. What if I say it's a secular humanist society, though
giving enough due to Judeo-Christian beginnings.
And, Mrs.Paramon, ask Mr. Paramon to explain to you just exactly how Christian was Mr. Jefferson...
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 03:18 pm (UTC)Mrs. Paramon, I'd call you a cunt were it for not my deep respect for the term that also, unfortunately, refers to that black hole that, contrary to all laws of gravity, managed to spawn forth supposedly independent beings, whose
future, though, is still to be determined by the hole, with all the brains ever located therein.
In one thing, we agree, Mrs. I don't want you to raise your kids. At all.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:39 pm (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-17 10:44 am (UTC)С каких пор мы с Вами на ты?
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-17 06:18 pm (UTC)