T Nation

Did You Vote Against Gay Marriage?

If so, why?

nope.

No, I didn’t. Here’s why.

I am against gay marriage. But where I live, the language of the amendment was worded in such a way that, in my mind, precluded the ‘bedside visitation’ issue from being fixed.

I think a seriously sick or dying person should be allowed whomever they want at their bedside. I completely understand the problems that accompany that - families that disagree with the lifestyle having to deal with that along with the failing health of their loved one - but as long as homosexuals are prepared to deal with an imperfect solution, I believe the interests of the person lying in the bed trump everyone else’s - and they should get what they want.

Had the language not foreclosed on that opportunity, I would have voted for the amendment.

We didn’t have the chance; Lawsuits in ever forward thinking Louisiana made sure the voters couldn’t decide.

Nope. Issue 1 passed anyway.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, I didn’t. Here’s why.

I am against gay marriage. But where I live, the language of the amendment was worded in such a way that, in my mind, precluded the ‘bedside visitation’ issue from being fixed.

I think a seriously sick or dying person should be allowed whomever they want at their bedside. I completely understand the problems that accompany that - families that disagree with the lifestyle having to deal with that along with the failing health of their loved one - but as long as homosexuals are prepared to deal with an imperfect solution, I believe the interests of the person lying in the bed trump everyone else’s - and they should get what they want.

Had the language not foreclosed on that opportunity, I would have voted for the amendment.[/quote]

I agree completely!

It wasn’t on the ballot in Virginia, so I couldn’t vote one way or the other.

Referenda were on the ballots in 11 states. In 8 of them (I believe – going from memory), the language of the referenda were said by opponents to preclude civil unions, although that will be open to interpretation in many of the cases. In 3 of them, the language specifically allowed for civil unions.

It wasn’t on the ballot here, but I wouldn’t have opposed gay marriage. I’d much rather they be in committed relationships than getting arrested every night on the six pm news for humping random strangers in the local parks.

I did not vote “against” gay marriage, but rather I cast my YES vote to clarify that marriage (here in MI) would be defined as the union of one man to one woman.

Looking at these ballot proposals as “anti-gay” is myopic - “One Man / One Woman” precludes a multitude of “new marriage” types that, back when the state constitution of MI was written, were inconceivable by almost everyone. It wasn?t necessary (back then) to define the term “marriage” because it was a known, given, term; just as universally understood as the terms “sun”, “life”, or “sky”.

Hmmm. Here’s an analysis that holds the gay marriage initiatives didn’t really have much of an effect on the Presidential election:

I certainly wouldn’t ever expect the government to have the right to mandate what churches do, just like I don’t want the church deciding on federal policy. So on the question of marriage, I say, whatever the particular church permits, that is up to them. But as to the amendment, I voted against it. I don’t think that it is place of the state to say whether two consenting adults choose to have a legal civil union. I can’t believe it is even a voting issue. Clearly a smokescreen to keep all the good god-fearing people of america distracted the REAL issues (like a stagnant economy, sending their children off to war, no health care, etc). I am happily married and fortunately heterosexual, but it doesn’t threaten my marriage if two adults who love each other want to legalize their commitment. It is not my right to control other people and their choices. If you don’t believe in it, don’t marry a gay person. Why do you feel like you have to impose your beliefs on others?

Roy- You continue to ignore the fact that there is a civil morality in America, that, like it your not, comes from the bible. Many laws legislate morality. The bible teaching on homosexuality is that it is a perversion of nature. There is no legitimate science to back up the idea that homosexuality is genetically determined. I think most people in America agree with this, although many are too afraid to admit it because they have been brow beaten by the media.

I’ll add something else that should flip you out. If I were a property owner, I would want the right to refuse to rent an apartment (my own property) to a prostitute, drug dealer, or a homo. None is any worse than the other in my book.

Let me ask you guys something? If there was a friend of yours or a guy at your gym who used steroids and who was much stronger, leaner, and more musclular than you, would it degrade your own gains? Would you feel that lifting weights would be meaningless because they were able to use these drugs. And also, would you support a ban of prohormones because you didn’t want to use them and therefore didnt want anyone else to?

I honestly think that this is a good metaphor for gay marriage. I think that people should be allowed to do what they want in these regards and that it should have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Once you start opposing your religious beliefs on others…then it just aint America. If Im not wrong, people can ger married by judges, it is a legal binding…hopefully between to people that love each other.

I love women, but I dont feel threatened if one man loves another the way that some would feel threatened by someone using ephedra and prohormones. It doesnt affect me because I am confident in myself.

(Sorry for typos, its 4:30 in the morning)
-Matt

[quote]great421 wrote:
I did not vote “against” gay marriage, but rather I cast my YES vote to clarify that marriage (here in MI) would be defined as the union of one man to one woman.

Looking at these ballot proposals as “anti-gay” is myopic - “One Man / One Woman” precludes a multitude of “new marriage” types that, back when the state constitution of MI was written, were inconceivable by almost everyone. It wasn?t necessary (back then) to define the term “marriage” because it was a known, given, term; just as universally understood as the terms “sun”, “life”, or “sky”.[/quote]

I’ve heard this, or similar arguments a number of times. . . and no offense, but that’s total BS.

What you’re trying to do is redefine marriage to a limited definition that makes you happy while discriminating against other people.

Let’s just go to the dictionary, shall we?

Marriage \Mar"riage, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See {Marry},
v. t.]
1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal
union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife;
wedlock; matrimony.
2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.]
3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
4. Any intimate or close union.

Hrm, that first definition matches what you like. . . but, wait, there’s more! Here’s three more definitions which don’t exactly meet with what you want the definition to be. And in fact, the fourth definition pretty clearly matches what you are trying to ban. Interesting, no?

And before you say something like, “Oh, well that’s a modern dictionary, and it was changed to be non-discriminatory”, I’ll point out that this is Webster’s 1913 dictionary, so it’s almost 100 years old.

However, if you’d prefer a modern dictionary:

marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce); “a long and happy marriage”;
“God bless this union” [syn: {matrimony}, {union},
{spousal relationship}, {wedlock}]
2: two people who are married to each other; “his second
marriage was happier than the first”; “a married couple
without love” [syn: {married couple}, {man and wife}]
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; “their marriage
was conducted in the chapel” [syn: {wedding}, {marriage
ceremony}]
4: a close and intimate union; “the marriage of music and
dance”; “a marriage of ideas”

Hrm. Coincidentally, there’s definition #4 there again, which doesn’t fit with what you’re trying to do.

Don’t try to justify your discrimination with “defending a definition”, because that’s not true. Admit that you’re trying to change the definition of a word to fit what you think it should be.

(And this is without even getting into the fact that there is a difference between the religious definition of marriage, and the legal definition, and without getting into the fact that the government should be involved in marriage any more than the absolute minimal amount necessary anyway.)

I see a lot of folks see a ban on gay marriage as an imposition of specific religious beliefs - read Christian - on others in society.

Not only do I think that incorrect, if I thought it were true, I could probably make the case that most laws are ‘morals legislation’ and claim that they are imposing religion on me.

There is and always has been ‘civic morality’ or ‘public morality’ - laws that condemn behavior the community won’t tolerate in the name of morality. Two that I can think of are prostitution and having sex in public.

Marriage is a cultural institution partly based in religion but partly based in public morality. Bigamy is not permitted, nor is polygamy or polyandry. Are gay marriage enthusiasts willing to extend marriage rights to polygamists?

The state has always declared who can get married and who can’t - there never has been this utopian fantasyland where people were ‘free’ to be in any kind of relationship with state sanction. We could change the laws to create that, but to argue that the state has taken something away by banning gay marriage is ludicrous.

Here’s what I think went wrong - gay marriage advocates went for the home run when they should have hitting singles. In order to get people on board with gay marriage, there should have been a democratic movement to get a majority of states to accept civil union, then after establishing comfort with that, offer up gay marriage. Instead, they went for a top down - ie, court decision - approach that compels people to accept the fullest form of union - marriage. Mistake.

The main problem i think will come of gay marraiges is the fact that if they adopt a kid, that kid is gonna live one F-ed up life. How would you guys like to grow up seeing two dads hug and kiss all the time? And what would your friends say if they came over and saw your “dads” cuddling watching TV together or something?

I voted against the ammendment proposal in Georgia. I feel that it is not the place of government to regulate moral issues. Who you or I choose to call mate should be our choice without governmental interference. What if the proposal was to restrict “marriage” to persons of like race or nationality? That could easily be the next step.

I guess I’m just unclear on the “EVIL” that gays do. I’m not sure how their existence or their ability to marry affects you. Could someone explain? To me, if you need the government to “defend” your marriage, you’re too much of a pussy ass bitch to hold on to your spouse normally.
“Oh no honey! Rosie O’Donnell just got married?? Now our own marriage is meaningless! Goodbye forever!”

Holy shit. My innocence bubble has been broken to actually hear someone like Mr. Chen speak…well, it had to happen sometime…

[quote]topher wrote:
great421 wrote:
I did not vote “against” gay marriage, but rather I cast my YES vote to clarify that marriage (here in MI) would be defined as the union of one man to one woman.

Looking at these ballot proposals as “anti-gay” is myopic - “One Man / One Woman” precludes a multitude of “new marriage” types that, back when the state constitution of MI was written, were inconceivable by almost everyone. It wasn?t necessary (back then) to define the term “marriage” because it was a known, given, term; just as universally understood as the terms “sun”, “life”, or “sky”.

I’ve heard this, or similar arguments a number of times. . . and no offense, but that’s total BS.

What you’re trying to do is redefine marriage to a limited definition that makes you happy while discriminating against other people.

Let’s just go to the dictionary, shall we?

Marriage \Mar"riage, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See {Marry},
v. t.]
1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal
union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife;
wedlock; matrimony.
2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.]
3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
4. Any intimate or close union.

Hrm, that first definition matches what you like. . . but, wait, there’s more! Here’s three more definitions which don’t exactly meet with what you want the definition to be. And in fact, the fourth definition pretty clearly matches what you are trying to ban. Interesting, no?

And before you say something like, “Oh, well that’s a modern dictionary, and it was changed to be non-discriminatory”, I’ll point out that this is Webster’s 1913 dictionary, so it’s almost 100 years old.

However, if you’d prefer a modern dictionary:

marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce); “a long and happy marriage”;
“God bless this union” [syn: {matrimony}, {union},
{spousal relationship}, {wedlock}]
2: two people who are married to each other; “his second
marriage was happier than the first”; “a married couple
without love” [syn: {married couple}, {man and wife}]
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; “their marriage
was conducted in the chapel” [syn: {wedding}, {marriage
ceremony}]
4: a close and intimate union; “the marriage of music and
dance”; “a marriage of ideas”

Hrm. Coincidentally, there’s definition #4 there again, which doesn’t fit with what you’re trying to do.

Don’t try to justify your discrimination with “defending a definition”, because that’s not true. Admit that you’re trying to change the definition of a word to fit what you think it should be.

(And this is without even getting into the fact that there is a difference between the religious definition of marriage, and the legal definition, and without getting into the fact that the government should be involved in marriage any more than the absolute minimal amount necessary anyway.)[/quote]

I usually refrain from having anything to do with the politics board, but the 4th definition that you speak of is clearly not relating to people. It gives the example of “the marriage of music and dance,” and is the definition that most often is used with inanimate objects. I.e. “Marrying roasted lamb with fresh mint gives this sandwich a unique flavor”

I guess you can choose to interpret it the way you did, but anyone with a high school education can see that your interpretation is not the intended usage of the 4th definition.

RIT Jared