Petition For Traditional Marriage

[ILUV2SHOP]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

if you support the traditional marriage you may want to check this out and add your name to this petition

[3tbear]

I think anyone who is in love should be able to get married, there shouldn't be any rules as to who can and who can't. In America people are supposed to have their freedom. Who are we to say what is wrong, what is right? Put yourself in their shoes, if it were you, wouldn't you want the same rights as heterosexuals pertaining to marriage? To reiterate what I have said previously in another post, a person can't pick and choose how they are born, whether they are hetero or homosexual or bi-sexual. Just my 2 cents FWIW.

[whitequeen96]

Good for you, 3tbear; I agree! I just don't understand why heterosexual marriage needs "protection" against gay people getting married. Gay marriage does not affect traditional marriage at all. While some people find it "distasteful," it is certainly NOT something we need an amendment to outlaw. I thought we were supposed to have less government interferance in our private lives, not more!

[AndersonGal]

I think luv2shop just wanted to present this for those interested and maybe to remind us that there are 2 sides to every issue.

Nobody has to sign if they don't want to.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by 3tbear

I think anyone who is in love should be able to get married, there shouldn't be any rules as to who can and who can't.

Okay, I'm not attacking you or trying to re-hash the whole argument, but I've heard this statement before and I guess my question would be: What are your thoughts, then, on bigamy and polygamy? If three or more people say they are in love with each other, should they also be able to marry?

[freesurfer]

bigamy and polygamy? If three or more people say they are in love with each other, should they also be able to marry


Yeah, not that I'm for it or for gays marrying or any of it...but if gays need equality won't these groups also step forward??

[Rockabillie]

Originally Posted by freesurfer

bigamy and polygamy? If three or more people say they are in love with each other, should they also be able to marry

Well according to the founder of the Morman church, yes.
So, we see, traditional ways of doing things are not always the best.

Moreover, I don't see how one jumps from allowing 2 people to marry each other to allowing polygamy.

...it's just a scare tactic.

I don't care what other people do in their marriage, I would NEVER let that affect choices, decisions, and actions I make about my own behavior, life and marriage. If someone says gay marriage ruins their own hetero marriage, I wonder about the weak foundation their marriage is based on, it probably would have failed anyway. My marriage is strong and long lasting because my husband and I work on it, respect each other, compromise, etc. Not because we're heteros. Sex has so so little to do with a successful marriage. Any 2 people can 'go at it'. It takes something much much more to make a marriage work. Reducing it to sex is pretty tacky. Typical of republicans to publically criticize any frank discussion of sexual activity but to actually be obsessed with it to the degree of wanting the federal government to control what sexual activity you can have. I think they're a little obsessed with 'the dirty deed' myself, wanting to know what every citizen is doing and control it. grow up boys and get your head out of the gutter. Marriage is about cooperation, not sex.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

Well according to the founder of the Morman church, yes.
So, we see, traditional ways of doing things are not always the best.

Moreover, I don't see how one jumps from allowing 2 people to marry each other to allowing polygamy.

...it's just a scare tactic.

I don't care what other people do in their marriage, I would NEVER let that affect choices, decisions, and actions I make about my own behavior, life and marriage. If someone says gay marriage ruins their own hetero marriage, I wonder about the weak foundation their marriage is based on, it probably would have failed anyway. My marriage is strong and long lasting because my husband and I work on it, respect each other, compromise, etc. Not because we're heteros. Sex has so so little to do with a successful marriage. Any 2 people can 'go at it'. It takes something much much more to make a marriage work. Reducing it to sex is pretty tacky. Typical of republicans to publically criticize any frank discussion of sexual activity but to actually be obsessed with it to the degree of wanting the federal government to control what sexual activity you can have. I think they're a little obsessed with 'the dirty deed' myself, wanting to know what every citizen is doing and control it. grow up boys and get your head out of the gutter. Marriage is about cooperation, not sex.

Well, the question wasn't necessarily directed at the founder of the Mormon church, so I don't see what that has to do with the argument.

As for it being a "scare tactic", I don't think so. The statement was that anyone who is in love should be able to marry. There are people out there today who believe they should be able to marry more than one person. So should they have that right?

[twonky]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

Moreover, I don't see how one jumps from allowing 2 people to marry each other to allowing polygamy.

...it's just a scare tactic.

It's a slightly extreme jump. Not quite as extreme as people saying that the next thing people will want to do is marry their pets.

It's all about morality and whether it should be legislated.

Some peoples morals say it's not ok for same sex couples to marry.
Some peoples morals say it's ok for you to marry multiple partners.

Where do we draw the line? Either way, someone is going to be upset that their morals aren't the one's being supported.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by twonky

Where do we draw the line? Either way, someone is going to be upset that their morals aren't the one's being supported.

That was exactly my point, twonky, and perhaps you stated it better than I did. Where do we draw the line? We simply can't please everyone, so how far should we go?

[pandybat]

Why does there need to be a line drawn at all? Let others do what they want and forget about how they live their lives and what they do in their own homes. Take care of your own. Just because two people of the same sex get married does not mean it jeopardizes your sexual preferences or makes your marriage any less meaningful. This is more of a religious issue and not a moral one. Everyone has different morals and you can't please everyone all of the time.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Why does there need to be a line drawn at all?

If you don't draw a line somewhere, the extreme situations will start becoming a reality.

Without a line, you could:

Marry your sister (or brother)
Marry more than one person
Marry a child
Marry your pet (I know, scary leap.)

Now, since you feel like you should:

Let others do what they want and forget about how they live their lives and what they do in their own homes.

Would you be OK with allowing those things to happen?

This is more of a religious issue and not a moral one.

How so?

Everyone has different morals and you can't please everyone all of the time.

Which is exactly what I said above. Now, are you OK with allowing everyone free exercise of their own morals or do you feel that there needs to be at least some basic laws in place?

[monkee]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Why does there need to be a line drawn at all? Let others do what they want and forget about how they live their lives and what they do in their own homes. Take care of your own. Just because two people of the same sex get married does not mean it jeopardizes your sexual preferences or makes your marriage any less meaningful. This is more of a religious issue and not a moral one. Everyone has different morals and you can't please everyone all of the time.

I agree that what other people do doesn't have an affect on my marriage. I've never believed that it did. But don't you think that if we don't a draw a line somewhere (and again, I'm talking about the idea that people could conceivably marry more than one person), this could have major affects on society in general. For example, say Joe marries Flo, Mary and Gina. Joe dies. Suddenly, Flo, Mary and Gina are collecting social security survivor's benefits, which then puts even more strain on the system. I'm not saying that this is the result of gay marriage, but what I'm trying to say is if we say okay to gay marriage, it's conceivable that the next thing would be polygamists saying, "hey, where's our right to get married?" So then could we deny them? Then what about people who want to marry their cousins (you'd be surprised how many calls we've gotten at the law office where I work from people asking if it's legal in this state). Do we deny them? Or does that violate their right to marry whomever they want? I'm just trying to point out that the question is bigger than just gay marriage. And if it does go beyond gay marriage into these scenarios, are homosexual couples going to stand up for the polygamists and those who want to marry family members? Or are they going to say "well, we got what we wanted, so these others don't matter." There's more here than one single issue.

[pandybat]

I thought we were talking about gay marriage, not brothers marrying sisters, weirdos marrying their pets or bigamists. We can deal with those issues later. It's obvious that most of those are covered by some sort of laws already. I don't think we need to change the Constitution making it illegal for one certain group to get married. Bush wants to the change the Constitution based on his religious beliefs and that's not right.

[monkee]

Well, we were talking about gay marriage, but then statements were made to the effect that who anyone marries is nobody else's business. I'm just trying to point out that in some cases it has to be, and where should we draw that line? Why should gays have "more" rights than anyone else who wants to marry outside the "norm"?