Same-Sex Marriage

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

I completly think gays should not be allowd to marry in a church or outside. The bible says between a man and a women not the same sex.

K, what if gays for their own church and conduct the weddings there? The Bible is not the governing document of this nation, the Constitution is. The Constitution says government can't establish or recognize an official religion. If the government establishes that only a biblical definition of marriage is to be used then it has recognized an official religion.

Quote:

Like someone else said if we allow this then there will be other issues that come up (incest and animals).

I remember a similar argument being made about roving wiretap powers in the Patriot Act. . . that it would open the door to comprehensive surveillance of US citizens. So far we have lived with the Patriot Act for over 7 years and this has not happened. Similarly, I suspect that the legal rationales behind bans on incest and bestiality will remain. After all, neither the inability of animals to give consent nor the incredible risks of chromosomal abnormalities are diminished if we give formal legal recognition to same-sex marriages.

Quote:

You can say all you want about that not happening but, it will.

Or. . . it won't. Until you can tell me what brand of crystal ball you've been using we have to accept that the future is essentially unwritten.

Quote:

I also do not believe kids should be brought into this situation.

You have little to no say in that, especially not with a lesbian couple. Lesbian couples have, for years, been having children by means of artificial insemination and mutual arrangement with willing male donors for conception by more standard means. Whether you like it or not, kids are already in this situation.

Quote:

I do not have an issue if a same sex couple want to be together as long as there are no kids, they do not have the same rights as married couples and I do not want to see them together.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say you have no issue if a same sex couple wants to be together, then you say you don't want to see them together, indicating you do. Which is it? You have an issue or you don't? Furthermore, there is a world of difference between saying same-sex couples don't have the same legal rights, and that they shouldn't have the same legal rights. Fait accompli has little bearing on what we're discussing here, and a statement of "should" certainly necessitates more justification than simply an end unto itself.  

[Latopazora]

Ok, I'm really on the fence when it comes to gay marriage, but I would like to say this. Gay marriage was looked at by the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia (I believe) made a statement that 'marriage' wasn't a constitutional right, in the matter of government- it's really more of an advanced civial union.
The U.S. is a democracy and I believe that gay marriage should be voted on. If the American people say 'yes, lets allow gay marriage' then by all means, allow gay marriage, the people have voted! If they 'no' then there shouldn't be gay marriage. The Constitution is "For the People by the People" Let democracy decide, eventually the people will allow 'gay marriage' but it shouldn't be shoved down their throats when they don't want it.  

[Pumona]

Quote:

Or. . . it won't. Until you can tell me what brand of crystal ball you've been using we have to accept that the future is essentially unwritten.

Quote:

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say you have no issue if a same sex couple wants to be together, then you say you don't want to see them together, indicating you do. Which is it? You have an issue or you don't? Furthermore, there is a world of difference between saying same-sex couples don't have the same legal rights, and that they shouldn't have the same legal rights. Fait accompli has little bearing on what we're discussing here, and a statement of "should" certainly necessitates more justification than simply an end unto itself.

You give an inch and liberals want more and more. In other words to what I was saying I do not approve same sex relationships but, if I know some one is in one I would not harrase them about it. Anyway that is my decision not anyone elses.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

The U.S. is a democracy and I believe that gay marriage should be voted on. If the American people say 'yes, lets allow gay marriage' then by all means, allow gay marriage, the people have voted! If they 'no' then there shouldn't be gay marriage. The Constitution is "For the People by the People" Let democracy decide, eventually the people will allow 'gay marriage' but it shouldn't be shoved down their throats when they don't want it.

And I couldn't agree more. I think this should be an issue for the voters and the courts shouldn't make many pronouncements on this. I do maintain that this is a change, and the burden to convince society to undertake this change is on the advocates of this change.

Quote:

You give an inch and liberals want more and more.

That fails as a policy rationale, mostly because it can get served up to both sides and would lead to stasis. Imagine if the patriot act were shot down along the lines of "give an inch and conservatives want more and more." Or how about if the 1964 Civil Rights Act was met with "give an inch and blacks want more and more." It's a spurious charge and easily beaten on the merits of any other issue advanced.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Pumona

I completly think gays should not be allowd to marry in a church or outside. The bible says between a man and a women not the same sex.

The Bible == Constitution? Hm, in that case I suppose we should burn witches... or kill children that disobey their parents?

Quote:

Like someone else said if we allow this then there will be other issues that come up (incest and animals). You can say all you want about that not happening but, it will.

The issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with what some farmer decides to do with his horse... zoophilia is another issue in itself! [slippery slope - logical fallacy]

Quote:

I also do not believe kids should be brought into this situation. I do not have an issue if a same sex couple want to be together as long as there are no kids, they do not have the same rights as married couples and I do not want to see them together.

The American Psychological Association, along with the American Sociological Association(?) both confirmed that children raised with same-sex couples will not have any different effects than if raised with opposite-sex couples.  

[Gene Karabiner]

homosexuality is wrong let alone same sex marriage. love should be between a man and a woman thats how God inteneded it to be. its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

homosexuality is wrong let alone same sex marriage. love should be between a man and a woman thats how God inteneded it to be.

Who's God? Your God? Since when did we draft a Constitution that said your God gets to be everybody's God?  

[xxTyeTye]

Kysaara

RenFlower

If god doesn't like homosexuals, then why the hell did he make them? Please don't give me that free-will crap. People have no control over those hormones at all. Is is really a sin to love? A sin to be attracted to someone? If that someone happens to be of the same sex? Don't say Satan did it, either. That would mean that love is evil. And that goes against the whole frickin' bible. obviously i'm an athiest, but i don't mean to piss anyone off.

God doesn't like the sin of homosexuality, he loves all his children so he hates to see them fall in sin. God doesn't make humans doomed to sin, i believe in free will and the power of choice. ^_^ And just like there is radical islam, there are some radical christianity. That was the motto of the group that was going to protest Jer's funeral, we had a christian biker gang and we made a human wall to protect his funeral so the service could continue...but yeah anyway there are different factions with different beliefs that i'm not going into.

I am excatly what you are talking about
i am a proud republican Catholic guy
and i swear that if homosexuality was a choose i would not choose 2 live this life but it is not and i believe god loves me and understands this and i am not going 2 hell and civil unions are fine instead of marriage but if a certin church will bless the civil union, they should be allowed 2 but no chruch should be forced to bless my marriage as like no body should be able to vote on my right to get married.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

and i believe god loves me and understands this and i am not going 2 hell

And my point precisely is that the issue of gay spiritual salvation is a matter between the individual, God, and his church. Spiritual considerations and the moral obligations of established religion or its texts have no role in determining secular policy in the United States. We stipulated as much in the 1st Amendment, and so pronouncements of secular policy on what are exclusively Christian texts cannot govern our policy towards our nation's gay population.  

[dealing with it 123]

Okay, I'm not against same-sex marriage really, but do I think it is right: no. But I guess it is there choice to do it. But here's the thing that bugs me, gays (most of them) want rights, but they get things that other people don't get. And it's the same with people of color. I want everyone tojust be treated equal, I forgot what it is called but there is a law, or a bill or something that was passed that says that if five men want a job, four of them are white and one of them is black, that no matter what the black man gets the job, just because he is black. How is this being treated equal???

Please correct me if I was wrong, and I would also like to know what that is that makes this happen  

[Lord Bitememan]

Right or wrong? Multiple:

Quote:

gays (most of them) want rights, but they get things that other people don't get.

Actually, there's nothing gays get that other groups don't get. You're thinking affirmative action, and sexual orientation has not been included in the list of classes benefiting from those preferences. It would be a nightmare to enforce, too, since colleges and workplaces have no way of validly checking into this. It's one thing to check the box as a racial minority, all they need to do is see a picture of you. Checking to see if someone is really gay or not would involve far too much personal intrusion on people's lives (i.e., you could fake it for the interview/application, get the preference, and no one could figure out you lied).

Quote:

And it's the same with people of color.

Here you're on much firmer ground with your claims.

Quote:

that if five men want a job, four of them are white and one of them is black, that no matter what the black man gets the job, just because he is black.

What you reference here is Affirmative Action. And, actually, what you described is illegal under Regents v. Bakke as it constitutes a set-aside quota. Functionally, weighing race in hiring decisions will lead to situations similar to this, where positions are, in theory, competed for, but the terms of competition have been designed in such way as to favor a certain outcome.  

[dealing with it 123]

Okay, thanks!  

[blondforeva]

I'm against same sex marriage. Here r reasons y:
1.) It's against GOD's will, he does not want homosexuality in this world, and as a Christian, I will follow that. But, I also have no desire 2 like someone who is the same sex as me.
2.) It's just grose
3.) It's not right, or healthy  

[blondforeva]

Lord Bitememan

Quote:

homosexuality is wrong let alone same sex marriage. love should be between a man and a woman thats how God inteneded it to be.

Who's God? Your God? Since when did we draft a Constitution that said your God gets to be everybody's God?

BECAUSE THAT IT THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD!  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

I'm against same sex marriage.

Then you're more than welcome not to have one. Dictating what other people can and can't do is where your opinion starts to become a problem for other members of society.

Quote:

It's against GOD's will, he does not want homosexuality in this world, and as a Christian, I will follow that.

Again, as that is YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion, YOU are more than welcome to refrain from same-sex marriage all you like. I would very much oppose any law telling you that you had to have a same-sex marriage. Here's the kicker, though, you're telling other people what they can and can't do based on YOUR religion, which causes a big problem since Congress is forbidden from establishing any one religion or collection thereof as the official religion of the United States. Adopting a social policy based on YOUR religion does just that.

Quote:

It's just grose

So is straight sex. Trust me, I can tell you at length about the many not pleasant features of that.

Quote:

It's not right,

By all means, explain to us, at length, what the "right" way to have sex is. I'm sure there's a host of things you haven't considered that a man and a woman can do together that probably wouldn't pass church muster. So, how far do you regulate two people having sex? Do you put out a manual spelling out, well, the very intimate details and mechanics of it based on what is "right?" Believe it or not, certain churches used to do this. They actually put out pronouncements dictating things as intimate as frequency, position, and other fairly intimate details. Do we really want to, as a nation, go that far in determining what two people can do with each other.

Quote:

or healthy

There is zero reputable medical evidence indicating that homosexual sex is any less healthy than heterosexual sex.

Quote:

BECAUSE THAT IT THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD!

Check out this link:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

That is the US Constitution. Not once does the word "God" appear in it. It does, however, have this provision: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This was because the Founding Fathers were aware of the fact that more than one religion existed in their nation. Charleston, SC actually had a fairly large Jewish population, and even Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran. Rather than get into the quagmire of legislating from holy books, the Founders held that everyone could practice their own religion, and that the Government wouldn't make an official one.

Now, the whole secular vs. ecclesiastical policy matter settled, are you prepared to go and tell every Buddhist and Hindu in the US that their Gods are false and yours is the only real one? Or what if it is the other way around? What if theirs are real and yours is the made up one? Or what if they're all made up? What should public policy be if God does not exist? Or if there's multiple? Till God himself comes in to settle the matter, we in the US legislate from the legitimacy of the Constitution, and it does not make the same pronouncements you have on God.