FMA - are you against or for it?


How Do You Feel About The FMA?

  1. For it! Preserve "Traditional Marriage" Values!

  2. Against! Love knows no boundaries!

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I know that the two main topics that shouldn't be discussed among friends are Religion and Politics, but as an active member of the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) and active supporter for all equality issues, I can't keep this in any longer.

    Yesterday, GWB made a press conference to urge his extremist right wing members of senate to pass the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment). He verbally and personally attacked every single GLBT American with a slap in the face.

    How do you feel about the FMA? Do you feel it's right to write in discrimination to the Constitution? Or do you think it's just wrong for GLBT Americans to even co-exist with "breeders" period?

    I trust that the people on this forum to be quite intelligent, civil and well-minded and can back up their opinions really well, so I'm hoping no flame wars should start up. The car forum I'm on tried this topic and it became like a 200 page debate on why it's wrong and blah blah and and lots of fighting/etc.
  2. Before I vote, I'd like to have more information on the FMA. Linkie?
  3. Like Perja, before I vote I would have to know much more about what this Amendment will actually say, etc. I'll try and read some about it and then I'll come back and vote :smile:
  4. I voted against it. I am a firm believer that any two people (whether in love or not) should have the right to the legal protections/benefits that marriage offers.
    And like the wise Forrest Gump once said "That's all I have to say about that"
  5. Agree with twiggers. A marriage is just's a major commitment and responsibility. Gender doesn't matter. Same sex couples deserve the same opportunities and rights that legal marriages offer. JMO
  6. Totally against. Britney Spears marrying a guy in a drunken haze for 1 day is an act of love and commitment because it involves a man and a woman, but two men or two women together for 15 years isn't? Totally insane.
  7. Well, having a gay uncle & second cousin, I am against it. I feel everyone should have equal rights no matter who they choose to love. It's 2 human beings, simple as that;)
  8. Against. Equal rights is equal rights. Actually, my proposal is that "marriage" should actually consist of two parts. First, to get the legal benefits of marriage, everyone would have to enter into a civil union, which would be available to any couple, gay or straight at any courthouse. Then for those who want a religious service, they can do that at their discretion, but the religious service itself is separated from the legal status of marriage. Any couple would have the option to do one or both or neither. See, everybody wins!

    This would be the first constitutional ammendment that actually limits rights rather than expanding them. No one in Washington actually thinks this has a chance of passing; it's a cynical and blatant attempt to energize the fundamentalists and far-right prior to the mid-term elections. With Bush's approval ratings in the toilet, "desparate times call for desparate measures," I guess.
  9. there is nothingmore to ad
  10. Simple and to the point :smile: I agree, and I am also against it.
  11. Well, I still don't know as I don't have a text to read but here's my two-cent on it.

    Many in the GLBT community are more committed without a piece of paper that says they're legally obligated to be so, so opening the possibility of marriage to them makes as much sense as allowing consenting adults to form relationships with each other.
    What one thinks about such relationships doesn't matter. There shouldn't be a "ban" (virtual or legal) on being able to open rights for your significant other. Of course, the problem is that a marriage is not just a commitment of two people, it's also a legal contract that gives legal rights (adoption, among other things) which might still be taboo.

    If that made sense. But I'm of the opinion of "If they want to get married, mazel tov." Then again, one of my close friends is a transsexual, so I would hardly be all "OMG noooo!" :nuts:

    Concerning the amendment, if it's anything like the previous bright intelligent things "inspired by" GWB, it's probably worth using as a piece of toilet paper.

    Edit: And if "traditional marriage values" is Brit/Kev, then perhaps it's time they went the way of the dinosaur :biggrin: (not bashing marriage, just trying to point out that it's ridiculous that sham hetero marriages are allowed whereas meaningful GLBT marriages are not)
  12. I personally have no problem with legally allowing two people to commit themselves. Whether or not we would call it marriage or something else....

    When it comes to this issue, I think a lot of people are concerned about the slippery slope. You know now that gays are allowed a civil union (marriage) will the polygamists demand the same? Equal protection????

    By the way, I do take offense to the wording of the initial post, calling GWB's view 'extremist right wing'. With a two party system in this country, it is very difficult, if not impossible to elect anyone Democrat or Republican with extremist views in the presidential office. I think if you are looking for a debate based on the merit of the question, you should leave out potentially inflaming words as they have a tendency to bias the reader.
  13. ditto-that says it all :roflmfao::roflmfao::roflmfao:
  14. I am against it. One of my closest friends is gay. He and his partner have been in a relationship longer than most marriages last. They are getting "married" this year and I will proudly be part of that wedding :amuse:
  15. Could not have said it better myself :yes:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.