Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto

[michel]

Because I think Gay marriage would be a disaster.

Well Theodore

I can't quite understand why 'Gay marriage' would be a disaster, according to you. Do you get a pleasure out of seeing a whole sector of society denied the opportunity of sharing their lives with loved ones ( whilst having the knowledge that they are protected by the law, and can receive the same benefits as heterosexuals) ?

 

[Theodore]

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a man and a woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a man and a woman.

The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Gay people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official homosexual relationships.

I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

Legitimizing homosexual relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate homosexual relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.

 

[BUDDY]

Because some things should transcend the tyranny of the majority.

Why, and who is to say? It goes against the whole idea of a constitutional republic based on representation, to say such a thing.

You know, I've never seen any homosexual here post an article about Christians or any other theist group being denied rights or being killed in some hostile nation and putting happy emoticons after the link.

An appeal to emotions does nothing in the debate, and no one ever said anything about killing homosexuals.

 

[Jaymes]

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a man and a woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a man and a woman.

The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Gay people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official homosexual relationships.

I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

Legitimizing homosexual relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate homosexual relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.

I neither need nor want anyone's approval for my relationship. I'd just like the rights allotted to any heterosexual couple that can take a day and a bit of cash to go down to the courthouse and get married.

I have someone I love. I want to marry her at some point in the future. I do not see how this is wrong or 'weakening' the institution of marriage.

Look at other nations that have legalized it! They're not falling apart at the seams! Do you honestly think we are so special and the exception that we will just collapse if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why, and who is to say? It goes against the whole idea of a constitutional republic based on representation, to say such a thing.

Nonsense. Our republic was carefully structured to constrain the tyranny of the majority - hence the electoral college, the difference between the House and the Senate, and the original mechanism for 'electing' Senators.

 

[michel]

I neither need nor want anyone's approval for my relationship. I'd just like the rights allotted to any heterosexual couple that can take a day and a bit of cash to go down to the courthouse and get married.

I have someone I love. I want to marry her at some point in the future. I do not see how this is wrong or 'weakening' the institution of marriage.

Look at other nations that have legalized it! They're not falling apart at the seams! Do you honestly think we are so special and the exception that we will just collapse if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide?

And I, for one, see no reasons why you shouldn't be able to do what you want; you are not hurting anyone.

I really cannot see what all the fuss is about.

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a man and a woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a man and a woman.

The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Gay people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official homosexual relationships.

I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

Legitimizing homosexual relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate homosexual relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.

"I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant."

Morally repugnant ? how can two people sharing love be repugnant?

I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

You dont think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children ? what evidence have you to prove that such a relationship will be detrimental to the child?
I know many heterosexuals unions which are the least conducive of relationships in which to bring up children; will you target those as well ?

Legitimizing homosexual relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate homosexual relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.

Ah, so it's not so much the union that bothers you? - you feel you can 'tolerate homosexuals living together' but you want to deny the legitilization ? I wonder why.......

 

[jamaesi]

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a man and a woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a man and a woman.

The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Gay people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official homosexual relationships.

I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

Legitimizing homosexual relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate homosexual relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a white man and a white woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a white man and awhite woman.

The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Interracial people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official interracial relationships.

I also don’t think that a interracial relationship is conducive to raising children. A interracial couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father of the same race. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

Legitimizing interracial relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate interracial relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.


And that was only how many years ago?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Does Schwarzenegger's veto kill the legislation?

To answer a question asked on page 1.....no. His veto will send the legislation back to the legislature, where it must recieve a 2/3 majority vote in order to override the veto. If it doesn't get a 2/3 majority, it fails.

Why, and who is to say? It goes against the whole idea of a constitutional republic based on representation, to say such a thing.

Nonsense. Our republic was carefully structured to constrain the tyranny of the majority - hence the electoral college, the difference between the House and the Senate, and the original mechanism for 'electing' Senators.

Deut is right, EEWRED. Our government derives its power from the Constitution, which derives its power from the people--that is true. But we are not a direct democracy, and the majority does not always rule, nor should it always rule. A majority which wields absolute power can be as oppressive as one tyrannical dictator.

 

[Green Gaia]

[]Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a man and a woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a man and a woman.[/b]

b]The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Gay people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official homosexual relationships.[/b]

[]I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible. [/b]

b]Legitimizing homosexual relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate homosexual relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons. [/b]

That's all fine and well in your religion. But we live in a secular nation and should not have to live by the rules of the majority's religion. You dislike homosexuals? Fine. No one can make you love your neighbor, but you have NO RIGHT to deny others rights simply because you dislike them or don't understand them.

morally repugnant....morally corrupt....repulsive

Your words, but I can say the same thing about those who choose to breed hate and contempt for anyone different than themselves.

 

[Theodore]

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a white man and a white woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a white man and awhite woman.

The institution of marriage has been trivialized and weakened in our society enough already. I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant. Interracial people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official interracial relationships.

I also don’t think that a interracial relationship is conducive to raising children. A interracial couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father of the same race. This should be emphasized as strongly as possible.

Legitimizing interracial relationships is quite different than tolerating them. Most people will tolerate interracial relationships, even though they find them repulsive. But most people will also draw a line when it comes to officially approving these liaisons.


And that was only how many years ago?

I have nothing against interracial marriage.
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between interracial marriage between a man and a woman, and a gay marriage. It's apples and oranges.

 

[Green Gaia]

Theodore, do you even care that denying same sex couples equal rights hurts them and their families? Do you even care that when you use words like "morally repugnant, morally corrupt, repulsive" that you're hurting people, good people? Does that make you feel good?

 

[Green Gaia]

I have nothing against interracial marriage.
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between interracial marriage between a man and a woman, and a gay marriage. It's apples and oranges.

Which are both fruit. Just because they look different and taste different does not make one any less of a fruit than the other.

 

[michel]

I have nothing against interracial marriage.
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between interracial marriage between a man and a woman, and a gay marriage. It's apples and oranges.

You quote your religion as 'SRF' - forgive me, I don't know what that stands for. What I do understand is that Religion ought to be about tollerance and Love, and care for life.

You'll forgive me if I say that you don't seem to dispaly any of those qualities.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Theodore--

Marriage is a sacrament. It is a union of a man and a woman who, ideally , become spiritually one. It is a divine union made by God between a man and a woman.

In that case, our disagreement is merely semantical. The government has no business in "a divine union made by God" (as I'm sure you'll agree), and therefore when I say I support "gay marriage" I mean I support the government allowing same-sex couples to form a contract which entails all the legal rights as contracts between heterosexual couples. I agree with you, however, that our government should not pretend to authorize divine unions made by God.

I don’t want to see the state sanctify a relationship that I find morally repugnant.

I don't think anyone is arguing for the state to "sanctify" anything, so you don't have anything to worry about.

Gay people can live together and do whatever else they choose to do. But as far as a society goes, the majority of us do not want to condone, approve or make official homosexual relationships.

Would you condone, approve or make official the denial of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? If not, does that mean you think tax-exempt status should be taken away from all Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist organizations?

I also don’t think that a homosexual relationship is conducive to raising children. A homosexual couple provides a morally corrupt example to the child and therefore should not encouraged. The best situation for a child is to be raised with their mother and father.

You've made two claims, but you haven't provided support for either of them. Can you show us any studies which demonstrate that children are happier, better cared for, etc. by heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples?

Also, do you think that if two people will make bad parents, that is a good reason for the government to deny them marriage? I think children raised by fat people are at a severe disadvantage....maybe we shouldn't let fat people marry, either?

 

[Theodore]

I neither need nor want anyone's approval for my relationship. I'd just like the rights allotted to any heterosexual couple that can take a day and a bit of cash to go down to the courthouse and get married.

You have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. You can marry any man you choose.

I have someone I love. I want to marry her at some point in the future. I do not see how this is wrong or 'weakening' the institution of marriage.

I’m sure you don’t see it as wrong. However, just because you want to do something and can’t see the harm in it doesn’t mean you automatically get your way.

The constitution does not guarantee the right of homosexual marriage. So until the majority of people in this country say it’s OK, it isn’t.

Look at other nations that have legalized it! They're not falling apart at the seams! Do you honestly think we are so special and the exception that we will just collapse if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide?[/QUOTE] Gay marriage would be a further erosion of the moral fabric of this nation.

Many people feel that homosexuality is a perversion in the natural order of things. The western nations are generally tolerant enough to realize that homosexuality, while being socially undesirable, is not going away. So they tolerate it. But that’s as far as most people want to go.

You do what you want to in the privacy of your own home, but don’t ask me to publicly condone what I feel is morally wrong. And that’s what is being demanded by people pushing this marriage bill.

 

[jamaesi]

I have nothing against interracial marriage.
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between interracial marriage between a man and a woman, and a gay marriage. It's apples and oranges.

I never said you did, but it's funny how that same "arugment" you made against gays was used against blacks.




Please answer me this: Why don't I deserve human rights?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's interesting. As a young civil rights activist I was called '******-lover' as a matter of course, but it was particularly hostile when I was with an African American female. The idea that interracial marriage would become so open, so common, and so accepted would have been inconceivable to me back then.

From today's vantage point, those bigots that cursed and spat at us seem little more than small, fearful and pathetic fools.

My children view the opposition to same-sex marriage with a combination of amazement and disgust. I'll bet that way before they reach my age, the homophobic bigots of today will appear to them as equally pathetic and ineffectual.

 

[Green Gaia]

Theodore, can you give us just one legal reason, backed up by facts and research that validates ANY of the claims you've made against same sex marriage and homosexuals raising children. (Just in case you were wondering, "because they make me go "ewww" " does not count)

 

[jamaesi]

You have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. You can marry any man you choose.

That has got to be, easily, the most insensitive and digusting comment I have seen on here and I've seen plenty of mud-slinging recently.


I and Jensa and all the other homosexuals of America do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple- we can not marry the one we love.

 

[Green Gaia]

Gay marriage would be a further erosion of the moral fabric of this nation.

Prove it.