Feingold Storms Out of Meeting Over Gay Marriage Ban

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, May 18, 2006.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853948/

    Senate committee approves gay marriage ban
    Feingold storms out of meeting, Specter says, ‘good riddance’

    Updated: 27 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON - — A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him “good riddance.”

    “I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

    “If you want to leave, good riddance,” Specter finished.
     
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all the problems facing the nation and the world, our U.S. Senate is busy arguing with each other about gay marriage. Yep, business as usual.

    On September 10, 2001, the big headlines were about actress Anne Heche's relationship with Ellen DeGeneris and how space aliens were talking to her. The next day we got shocked into reality. Looks like we are back at square one.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you don't think marriage and the family are important issues? The "problems facing the nation and the world" are only being worsened by the erosion of the family unit.

    In spite of the great claims of liberal social engineers, the one man, one woman nuclear family is by far and away the best means for sustaining a society. Corruption of that order creates chaos.

    If our concern is the problems of the world, the best place to start is to support the fundamental foundation of society- the traditional family.

    BTW, as much as I oppose the behavior, I don't believe gov't has a right to tell homosexuals not to enter into various personal contracts with one another. However those relationships should NEVER be recognized as a "family". That's what marriage does- creates a family.
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, once again, you fail to see the forest for the trees. Did I say family is unimportant? NO, because I believe families are important. Do all families look like mine? NO, but that is not what matters.

    Families are a matter of the individuals within them, and from a social contract perspective, they are the domain of the state. Notice, I said "state". The federal government has no business getting into state rights or into someone's familial living arrangements.

    BTW, the "traditional" family is a fairly recent social construct, reinforced by 50s sitcoms like "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver". It rarely existed then, and even more so today. Not much tradition there.
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I didn't. The implication of what you said was that there are bigger problems than recognizing a failed relationship model that represents an erosion of the fundamental building block of a civilized society.
    Not exactly. You implied that protecting the institutions of marriage and family from a dangerous redefining wasn't important. That's why I responded.

    In a purely libertarian society like I would advocate, gov't would not endorse "marriage" at all. The contractual relationship that constitutes marriage between individuals would be just that. A private matter between those individuals alone.

    However, under that same premise of rights and responsibilities, any adoption agency would be within its rights to deny children to homosexuals. There would be absolutely no gov't arm twisting of any kind to force people to accept homosexuals or their relationships. And yes, that is discrimination. But it is discrimination based on chosen behavior, not a benign characteristic like race. And yes, it is chosen behavior. To have sex or not have sex is a choice.

    Since gov't does govern marriage contracts, it should make an objective decision about what is proven successful compared to what has proven to fail. Children coming from families centered on a one man, one woman lifelong marriage commitment are statistically less likely to be social statistics for the whole gamut of maladies.
    If I understand the implications of what you are saying it DOES matter. A family is not just any group that decides it wants to live in commune. It is an ordered structure with a objective definition, purpose, and order.

    Nope. That is a liberal redefinition of "family".
    I don't particularly agree with the concept of "social contract" however in as much as it is reality at this time- The state has an obligation to define marriage by the proven model and disdain attempts by liberal social engineers to define it into nothingness.
    I would actually agree if it weren't for the fact that liberals have forced so many states issues into the federal venue that this probably has to be handled as an interstate issue.

    That is not what I meant by "traditional" family. What I meant was a family centered upon one man and one woman, married to each other and governing the home that might include children or elderly parents.

    And no, that was not exceptional prior to the sexual revolution, it was the rule.

    Notably, the increase in various social ills came along on the heels of the acceptance of liberal attitudes and perversions concerning sexuality, marriage, and family.

    Even non-Christian sociologists recognize that the decline in the fundamental family model will destroy our society if it continues. Allowing these "non-traditional" models will only accelerate the social decay.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,
    Your in depth analysis of the social structure is greatly appreciated. Hopefully, this will give me the inspiration to get from the 29th to the 30th year of marriage.
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again, SN you expose yourself. Feel free to disagree or agree or simply butt out. <edited - LE>

    I have posted here for several years now. I have agreed and disagreed with many people on many topics. We've jousted pretty rough at times. <edited - LE>

    [ May 19, 2006, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]
     
  8. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hardly ever agree with Specter, but I agree with him here wholeheartedly. I hope Feingold will now resign his seat out of protest. :D

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is hard to believe that guy is even considering running for President. We are going to need someone in God's will more than ever next time for this job.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    Homosexual marriage is wrong and sinfull. It does not please God, it was not what God intended for marriage.

    As a Baptist, student of the Bible, and a servant of Christ it is impossible to condone such relationships. Ban them we should.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    If your "family" is composed of a male and a female bonded together in marriage who actually have the physical capability to procreate any children they might have together (barring health problems), then all families should indeed "look like" yours.
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then if the couple doesn't actually have children, they still constitute a family as long as they are physically capable of it, by your definition, but should one of the spouses die or become infertile, then the family no longer counts as such. Infertile couples with adopted children also don't count by your definition.

    Grandparents raising their grandkids are also not families according to your def. I guess adult orphans raising their underage siblings are also disqualified to be a family.

    Is a widow with children more of a family than a never-married woman with hers or a divorcee with hers? Or are they nothing without mom & dad (or step-mom and step-dad) together?
     
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't know about all that, but I can tell you what a family doesn't look like: Homosexual. It is an abomination to God, not a family.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thus the end of Mr Feingold's presidential campaign. The man is a far left wacko.

    Let me amend that statement...

    If Mr Feingold believes, for one second, that the framers of the constitution would have supported "gay marriage" he is even crazier than "a far left wacko".

    I guess that kind of wild behavior should not be a surprise coming from a man who is a member of a political party which believes that saying english should be the national language is racist (Harry Reid, Democrat).

    These people seem to have lost all touch with reality.

    Martin. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the immigration issue, both parties have lost all touch with reality. Democrats want us to be multilingual society or label us racists. The president wants to legalize criminal behavior.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I imagine that Senator Feingold will indeed run for president in 2008. He represents the views of the Far Left in the Democratic Party and will attain the allegiance of that faction of the Democratic Party, which I don't think will be sufficient to attain the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008.
     
  17. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sadly what you say is True :confused:

    Martin
     
  18. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==O, I fully agree. When I said it was the end of his presidential campaign I was only saying that he just lost the election. I was not trying to say that he will not run for president. I am sure he will run. Which shows how out of touch he really is...

    Martin. [​IMG]
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    What families should look like is the one God established "In The Begining".

    18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet F14 for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam F15 to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave F16 names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made F17 he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, F18 because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    There are several denominations around here, but as far as Baptists go we know and believe this without reservation.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Then if the couple doesn't actually have children, they still constitute a family as long as they are physically capable of it, by your definition, but should one of the spouses die or become infertile, then the family no longer counts as such. Infertile couples with adopted children also don't count by your definition.

    </font>[/QUOTE]You're grasping at straws, Daisy. Apparently in a clumsy attempt to justify homosexual "marriage". But maybe not.


    I would naturally consider infertility a healh problem.
     

Share This Page

Loading...