In our scociety they say that it is unconstitutional, unchristian, and immoral to be for gay marrage. But in our own constitution it says plain as day that every man/woman has the right to the pursiut of happieness. And in my oppinion, being denied the right to marry my loved one is far from the pursiut of happieness. If America is so free, if it is so liberating to all, then why do we have to abide by hating laws? Why do we have to suffer? I will tell you why, it is because the human race always likes to feel superior over one another. And when they see us protesting and getting angry then we have fellen into thier trap. Although it is human nature to want to react to these things with rage, fury, and even homicidail outbreaks or thoughts, we have to show them that we are a step above them. Use your brain, and follow your heart. If you do, then possibly we can beat these sick people who follow a book that was wrote by people just like us. People that lied, cheated, stealed, and most definetely sined. And now we have to deal with these crooked politician that will stop at nothing to stop us. Ergo we must do just the same. And those of you who dont band together in this dark time, well lets just say, it will be harder for us all. We need all the people we can get. So lets show them what we can do.
You make it sound like it's a war. I don't think it is. I'm no activist, that's true, and I don't believe in marriage. It's something religion invented, and societies adopted, and it implies something that by nature is not real. Human beings are not meant to choose a partner for life. There are creatures in this world that do so, like penguins, but not humans. It's true, in america there are the so called sodomy laws (if I'm not mistaken) in some states... and I think that is an outrage, and an abuse of power, and that we should all unite, gay and straight!, to avoid such abuse. It's not figthing for gay rights, it's fighting for human rights! why on earth do they think they have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do or how I can or cannot live, AS LONG AS I DON'T VIOLATE SOMEONE ELSE'S FREEDOM? I don't know, and we, humans, must all unite under one banner and fight that. However, humanity will never unit under one banner, it's not in our nature. It's darwin's law of evolution, survival of the fittest... And the fittest will survive, and others will perish... and that is life. We can only work to be so fit that we are among the ones that survive, and don't get dragged into oblivion with the rest of humanity. I know what I said above seems a little like religios rubbish, but if you read past the words you'll understand what I mean... I'm just feeling a little poetic today, thus the enigma in my words... Ok, I'll go play tetris or something
While I can't contribute to discussions about American Government and law (on acount of I'm not american ), it's an interesting point you've made there, goratrix. I'm curious as to the logic behind your theory that marrage is 'unnatural'. Surely, when one finds love, the most obvious action is marrage. Why? So that they can make an official promise to one another to love each other forever. Now love does not depend on marrage, obviously. But I fail to see it as unnatural. Dave
HAHAHAHA! Funny thing is that Goratrix isn't American either... (well, American as in from the USA ) But yeah, marriage of some kind does seem like a natural step. I think people do want someone to grow old with and to take care of them while they're sick, etc and vice-versa. I think that's only natural... whether that means that you have to get a little piece of paper from the government that says so... hell no you don't (but it would be nice :icon_mrgr ) -CK
Because love doesn't last forever... that is why it's not natural to force it by promissing something to someone else. I know the poetical, romatic visio says that love lasts forever, but the truth is that the chemical impulses and reactions that we interpret as love last only for so long, and then they disappear. Anyway, it's just a matter of opinion and interpretation... Oh, and CK, not being american does not prevent me from 'putting my nose where it does not belong'... I love to do that
lol, Dave isnt even in the US. marriage doesnt seem to me to be just a piece of paper (for same sex marriages), its more of a recognisment of same sex love. Truth about the constitution is that it was written and ratified by extreem catholics. This country wasnt started by a bunch of openly accepting people, it was started by people who wanted to live there own way and with there own set of extreem morals. Now, after the mid 1900s, we are moving back into a religious government that wants to put their morals into law. I just dont get why the polititians cant separate beliefs from the government. after 230 years, we should have had plenty of time to realize that even the constitution states that the government shouldnt impose religion on the people. Also, eligh, dont get on people's case for not coming out. The idea stings every person here who has trouble accepting themselves and believes that others won't accept them. We are here for support, not to push each other into coming out.
Because everyone's nature is different, what's natural for me is not necessarily going to be what's natural for someone else. In that sense, I think it's impossible to define marriage as natural or unnatural on a general, conceptual level. Having said that, let me say that I do believe it's possible to be involved in a completely committed relationship without getting married.
It's funny you should say that, hawkeye, given that I think of the two American political parties, the Republicans are much more pro the integration of church and state (for instance, school prayer, opposing abortion because it's ostensibly against God's will). And in fact it's pretty much predominantly the Republicans who oppose gay marriage from a "moral" (read: religious) standpoint. Not to say that all the Democrats are like "hooray gay marriage" but they're much less likely to use a "it's unnatural/against the Bible" argument.
I think it's impossible to define ANYTHING as objectively natural or unnatural. Overall it's not a very useful way to consider things given that we don't know everything there is to know about the world. Marriage is about a "natural" as any human institution can be considered to be. It's a useful contract between two people and in terms of the whole "gay/same-sex marriage" debate, it's about power and privilege, that is, it's about who has access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. One group of people have access to its benefits and they essentially don't want to share. Except in Canada and three other countries. *grin* And Massachusetts. I think marriage the institution is more about entwining your life (and finances) with someone else's than it is about love. The whole notion of marrying out of romantic love is actually quite a recent, Renaissance concept. Before that point, most marriages were very much arranged and much more economic than romantic in nature.
Yea, the republicans are more for the combination of religion with the law, but who's to say you have to set your beliefs to what a political party says. I just happen to be more conservitive and republican than liberal and democrat.
Well, no one says so but if you vote A, and A endorses b, c, and d because A is in party Z, then you've tacitly endorsed b, c, and d, and the rest of Party Z's positions by voting for A. At least, in Canadian and US politics you have. And like I said either here or elsewhere, I personally find a lot of the Republicans' current key positions horrible enough to vastly override any affinity I feel for some of their other positions which are perhaps good in theory.
ahh, there's too much politics heer, i had pointed out my reasons for backing the republicans in "acting out" I'd summarize it, but i think i'd have to repeat almost everything.
