Constitutional Amendments To Define Marriage Male and Female

[AnimatedDirt]

I stand on the side of and in support of the civil ability for homosexuals to marry.

[jduster]

It is not the role of the federal government to define marraige.  Nowhere is it implied or explicitly stated that the federal government has the power to define "marraige".  Therefore, it is an issue for the states to handle.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is not the role of the federal government to define marraige.  Nowhere is it implied or explicitly stated that the federal government has the power to define "marraige".  Therefore, it is an issue for the states to handle.

It is, however, the job of the federal government to ensure that all citizens receive equal protection under the law, via the 5th and 14th amendments, which means that if a state denies gays the right to marry, the federal govt ought to step in.  One day, they will, and rightfully so.

[AnimatedDirt]

It is not the role of the federal government to define marraige.  Nowhere is it implied or explicitly stated that the federal government has the power to define "marraige".  Therefore, it is an issue for the states to handle.

I disagree.  If the feds tag on civil "rights or perks" into to a term, "marriage", an institution, then the feds have the right to determine what that institution is, what it's called and who can partake of the rights therein or through what parameters the rights are afforded.  The state cannot override the Federal, nor can the Federal override the State (when there is no clear Federal law contrary to a State law)  If the Fed Gov choose to later change its law or add a law, that is its perogative and once done, the State must comply.  IMHO.

As a Christian, I would agree that marriage is between a male and female.  This belief is biblical in nature and if one want the Church to condone the union, of course it must be between M & F.  The Church, however, does not hand out the tax benefits or whatever else civil law affords a married couple under civil law.  (did that make sense? heh)  It is not necessarily the job of the Christian to create or bitterly fight for a CIVIL law to enforce biblical law especially when the Christian is living in a secular society and not a theocracy.  One can argue that a few biblical laws are also civil laws (murder, stealing, lying...), but I think we can agree that these types of laws would come naturally into a society wishing to be civil...as we (society) determine what civil is.  Once upon a time it was "civil" to shoot a person over a dispute by dual, but things have changed to become "more" civil.

As I mentioned to one forum member concerning this topic, it is my opinion that Christians that make it their sole purpose (and so get caught up in using methods beyond the scope of true Christianity) to enforce their opinion on what civil is, should instead make their fight against what they see as wrong, not in law, but in their own respective children or immediate circle of influence.  If all Christians practiced teaching their child what (we believe) is right, specifically here in regard to homosexuality, then the correct method is to start from the ground up.

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

If we Christians kept to this, we wouldn't need to fight and bicker these points, make signs that read, "God hates Fags" and so remove all doubt from unbelievers that God is some fear monger that shoots bolts of lightning down at every human that goes against Him.

When society as a majority decides that homosexuality is illegal, THEN and only then can it then move to or support the removal of their ability to LEGALLY marry.  As long as it remains legal to be homosexual, it should be legal for homosexuals to "marry" or be in a legal union where the civil rights within the institution is equally spread among all citizens.  I have a feeling the homosexual community doesn't care whether it is called a marriage or a union or whatever as long as the rights afforded remain equal across the board, nor do I believe the homosexual community is seeking the Church's stamp of approval.  I could be wrong.  If so, let me know.

IMHO.  

Needless to say, this is not a very popular position in my belief system, but it's more popular than the average might think.

[DropLogic]

Proverbs 22:6 wrote:
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Great advice, as long as fairy tales are not presented as fact.  How can you honestly tell a kid, "Oh heh, yeah, Santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are fake." ...and then go on and on about the glory of god?  Just think about that...

[AnimatedDirt]

Proverbs 22:6 wrote:
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Great advice, as long as fairy tales are not presented as fact.  How can you honestly tell a kid, "Oh heh, yeah, Santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are fake." ...and then go on and on about the glory of god?  Just think about that...

I think this is fair.

[Inevitable Droid]

Imagine the day when robots achieve self-awareness, if that day ever comes.  These robots may decide they want to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling in a wedding ceremony.  Procreation and gender will of course be irrelevant.  Will some Christians try to prevent such weddings on the grounds that only humans are made in the image of God, therefore God will only consecrate the weddings of humans?  Of course some Christians will.  For my part, I look forward to the day that robots develop a desire to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling.  So now - do you have any doubt where I stand on gay marriage?

[The Magic Pudding]

Imagine the day when robots achieve self-awareness, if that day ever comes.  These robots may decide they want to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling in a wedding ceremony.  Procreation and gender will of course be irrelevant.  Will some Christians try to prevent such weddings on the grounds that only humans are made in the image of God, therefore God will only consecrate the weddings of humans?  Of course some Christians will.  For my part, I look forward to the day that robots develop a desire to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling.  So now - do you have any doubt where I stand on gay marriage?

Many humans see through these formalities, do you foresee irrational robots in our future?

[DropLogic]

Imagine the day when robots achieve self-awareness, if that day ever comes.  These robots may decide they want to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling in a wedding ceremony.  Procreation and gender will of course be irrelevant.  Will some Christians try to prevent such weddings on the grounds that only humans are made in the image of God, therefore God will only consecrate the weddings of humans?  Of course some Christians will.  For my part, I look forward to the day that robots develop a desire to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling.  So now - do you have any doubt where I stand on gay marriage?

Many humans see through these formalities, do you foresee irrational robots in our future?

I don't think its out of the range of possibility that self-aware robots might try to emulate us.

[Inevitable Droid]

Many humans see through these formalities, do you foresee irrational robots in our future?

Is it irrational to marry?  Why so?

Sapients with compatible hopes and congenial styles might deem it the most rational thing in the world to mingle their destinies, and might likewise deem it the height of rationality to consecrate that mingling in a manner meaningful to them.
 
Obviously the mentality of self-aware robots, if such ever emerges, must remain for now an enigma, all speculation groundless, indulged for the fun of it.

[Byronazriel]

Yes, but could a human marry a robot?

I think I'd have a good chance at attracting the fancy of a robot, we'd have ever so many things in common!

[Inevitable Droid]

Yes, but could a human marry a robot?

I think I'd have a good chance at attracting the fancy of a robot, we'd have ever so many things in common!

I say go for it!  I'd be delighted to officiate at your wedding!

[wildfire_emissary]

Good for you guys you still have a chance at fighting it. The Family Code of the Philippines explicitly says that marriage can only be had by a male and a female. No one is proposing to amend it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Good for you guys you still have a chance at fighting it. The Family Code of the Philippines explicitly says that marriage can only be had by a male and a female. No one is proposing to amend it.

Change will come.

[Sophus]

Good for you guys you still have a chance at fighting it. The Family Code of the Philippines explicitly says that marriage can only be had by a male and a female. No one is proposing to amend it.

Change will come.

December 6th could be a big day for the LGBT community.