Is it me? Am I hearing this right?

Question

What is up with a constitutional amendment to define same sex marriage? The very purpose of the constitution is to clearly define and protect our rights as human beings. What sense does it make to write a constituional amendment to deny a right.

Can you imagine saying to two men: "It is my constitutional right for you two to NOT get married."

What is wrong with people!!!!!

Answer 1

It is so strangely telling that when the issue of gay marriage comes up, the very first thing that homophobes bring up is beastiality. I am old enough to remember when it was against the law for Blacks and Whites to intermarry. Don't believe me? Check the local laws in the Southern US around the 1950s and 60s.

Yep, bestial stuff. Right out of their mouths. "Might as well let them have sex with animals and children," these frothing homophobes say. Excuse me, but seems that most of the molestation seems to come from the so-called religious folk and the heterosexuals out there. Rape and incest? Care to look harder at that? And how does a monogamous commitment serve to stir up that? It does not.

Again, it is not about marriage, it is about hating the 8% or so of our children who are homosexuals. I made up the percent figure. Sorry. Have read higher numbers and lower. Wonder if Dick Cheney hates his daughter? Hope not.

Anyway, if you do not want to get married to a homosexual, do not.

I prefer civil unions to be given all the rights as marriages are now, anyway. You go to get a divorce and you find out pretty quickly that marriage is not about church, it is about lawyers and judges. Right?

This constitutional amendment is a smoke screen, just like the flagburning one. It covers the lack of moral integrity this administration has. It covers the depravity and utter waste.

One other thought comes to mind. If there are those who wish to preserve marriages are really so hot to do this, I mean that is what THEY SAY this is all about - preserving marriages, then I have a much more effective solution: make divorce illegal. Furthermore, make it much much harder to get married. Require couples to go through long periods of couple's councilling. Screen them. Test them. I mean we do that for driving a car or being a contractor. You want to get married (and assumedly have a family), prove to us you are stable and sane. Then once you do that, you are stuck FOR LIFE.

Now, I am not truly advocating that position. Nor am I saying that we should not let people past reproductive age marry. What? Well, if marriage is all about having children (as some religious righties would have you believe), then women past childbearing years should not get married. I am just saying that these so-called reasons are just BS to cover their homophobia.

And the one woman with one man bit, excuse me. How many wives did the Biblical Patriarchs have? How many did Solomon? Again, smoke screens.

Marrying my couch? Hmmm. Nope. Marrying my cousin? I can do that in some states. Think I will avoid marriage again.

Answer 2

No, the purpose of the Constitution is not to clearly define and protect our rights. The purpose of the Constitution is to remind the government that people have rights that pre-date the country and supersede the government, such that they don't pass laws infringing on those rights.

And, sorry, but we already determine who can and cannot get married. Every state has laws as to what relations can and cannot marry. If we're going to say that yes, two males or two females can marry, can we really sit there and say that two cousins cannot marry? Or that one person cannot marry more than one other person? Nobody seems to want to "discriminate" against homosexuals, but we can against the polygamist? Seems some people want to be able to pick and choose who to grant rights to and who not to, but when you open the door, you want to be the new bouncer to determine who gets in and who doesn't.

Answer 3

The amendment simply defines what the term marriage means. That is the union between one man and one woman who are not immediate relatives. That is the definition that has existed since the dawn of civilization until a few years ago when some leftist countries and liberal activists judges decided to change it and create a special right for gays.

Answer 4

you know what? ive changed my mind! lets allow same sex marriages and marry as many people as we want. lets legalize sex with minors and animal sex. no sense making restrictions on anyone! lets spread diseases thru uncontrolled sex throughout the world. hell,we got a pretty good start! and while were at it,lets drop silly laws that penalize people for rape,murder,things like that. lets start getting rid of whoever doesnt think like we do. the world will be smaller for us and we can rule the roost! sexy just for you babe!

Answer 5

Agreed. This debate has no place in our constitution. It is akin to proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict interracial marriages - ridiculous!

Answer 6

I think that people should marry whom ever they want. That the government shouldn't say that they don't want a man & a man or woman & woman to marry. It's there life not everyone elses life so u should be able to marry whom ever u want.

Answer 7

yeh, even the President. I wonder if any of these people running for office know how many gay voters there are. Along with supportive families, it could add up to a lot.

Answer 8

You can't just define any thing... if same sex marriage is allowed now, later on will be same family member marriage (incest) or man and animal marriage...

Answer 9

Agreed, I think everyone should be allowed tolove whom they please. If they love the person enough to remain by thier side forever, why not get married.