For or Against Gay Marriage

Well, we can debate whther rulings were right or wrong. However, since it was in Loving v. Virginia where the justices ruled that marriage was a fundamental human right, I am not going to object to it (there may have been another case where they said the same thing, but I cannot remember).




Well, tell that to the people in Massachusetts ... or Canada ... or Belgium ... or the NetherlanRAB ... and soon to be Spain.



Non sequitor. Marriage was a contract long before religion (Christianity in particular) incorporated it. And then it was between man and several women (or as many as he could "afford") or, more accurately, man and property (since women were considered property back then.




No right or privilege, "natural" or othewise, can be denied without due process.



Supreme court decisions can be, and have been, reversed, but until they are, their rulings set precedent.



The definition of marriage has changed, as well as the "roles" of the people involved. You do not want to accept that.



Never said that you did.



But you think there is going to be an issue with the definition of a biological father or mother. My question is with the definition angle you are harping on.



I agree.



Irrelevent. The book of Genesis is definitely not an accurate historical reference for marriage, especially considering that marriage was incorporated into the religious sphere - in relation to christianity - AFTER the advent of christianity.



That may be, but smae-sex couples are asking for GOVERNMENT recognition, not religious sanctification. We already have that in our own churches.



Well, until the Supreme Court overrules Loving v. Virginia, then, you are incorrect.
 
JPSartre12 said:
My mother is the most independent person I know. And I have noticed that the need to "kick the fledgeling out of the nest" seems to be an American construct. And I've seen mothers do it.



And I would argue that male children emulate more than just their fathers. Since very few (if any) families live in a vacuum, I would argue that many children are influenced by society. Role models rarely come from the home.

In fact, I would argue that most children, be they male or female, are influenced mostly by their peers.
Click to expand...
 
Oy, if you are using the bible as your only historical reference, then there is really nothing more for me to say ...

Or maybe just one more thing.

Tradition, or appeal to tradition has never been justification for denial of rights and privileges.

Oh, and another thing.

We live in a secular country. Unless a religious law has a secular purpose, it cannot be use to justify discrimination.
 
Wait so people should be denied rights because of who they chose to love? Even though its not hurting anyone and is between two legal adults?

I don't get it :confused: How is this negatively impacting anyone in any way? Who cares if they get married its not like if allowed to get married marriage will erode into some monster and destroy the world after all.

XD

Nothing is an absolute right...except death. And we all know how much people want that :D
 
In my mind when it comes to social issues there is another document that takes precedence over the Constitution..Its called the Holy Bible..........



Not sure, some Mass. poll......
 
I'm not familiar with this tale. But it seems irrelevant for our purposes. There is evidence that same gender bonding takes place across a variety of species.



I never said it "must be" genetic, or that this was my "proof". I said that it made sense to me. I also said it made little difference to me because, for whatever reasons two men (for example) fall in love, gay marriage is about living in a democratic society.

I don't believe in dictating other people's marital decisions (assuming they're adults).



I have no idea. There is some evidence that criminality has a genetic base, and is not entirely shaped by environment.

You of course though are trying to shape this conversation as implying that gay people are sick criminals, and because you're a bigot.

I wonder if that is genetic?



I don't see dwarfism as a "deformity". Secondly, let's remember (if you can), that I was responding to your query as to how two straight parents could have a gay child. I said, "the same way two dwarfs can have a child of average height."

I could very well have also said, "the same way two adults with brown eyes can a child with blue eyes."
 
Because marrying your sister is illegal, just like gay marriage. :rolleyes:

I've yet to hear one gay marriage advocate explain why gay marriage should be allowed but marrying your sister shouldn't. I challenge you to make one argument for gay marriage that doesn't also apply to an incestuous marriage.
The economic reasons are the same. The "Constitutional" issues are the same. So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 
How is it a red herring, exactly? Gay people just want their marriages recognized. Would it be wrong if I as a gay person, were accepted for who I am? If so, tell me why.
 
When the first molestations took place, how many girls which altar girls ? Had there been altar girls, as active as altar boys were in the church, I have no doubt they would have also been victims.

We are talking about two different things here; pedophilia, a crime. And homosexuality, which is not against the law.
 
You know, Hydra, I'm getting a little tired of your insults. I've been trying to have a civil discussion about this issue and you have done nothing but acuse me of speaking against your mother and now, gay bashing. I've been on the forum for quite a while now and have debated the issue of gay marriage civilly with many others. Since you appear to NOT have looked at my past posts on the topic, I'll enlighten you with the Reader's Digest version of my position.
1. I'm in favor of giving gays all of the perks associated with marriage sans one, the term "marriage". This will take care of all of the legal issues with inheritance, survivor's benefits, yadda, yadda, yadda, but will still preserve the term "marriage" for those who view it as more than just another piece of paper. In my religion, Catholicism, it is a Holy Sacrament shared between a man and a woman. Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face about separation of church and state but we both know that it doesn't really matter whose morality the laws are based on, the law is the law. And today, the law of the land is NO FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGES. If gays want to change the law, I welcome their attempt. I have nothing against gays, but I'm willing to fight to keep the word "marriage" out of the term "gay marriage".
I'm also against late-term abortions, beating dogs and Federal Nannyism. Maybe you'd like to address those beliefs some time as well?
 
Having sex with them.......I don't believe the word homosexual or gay was around then......In fact the word gay you to mean happy until the militant gay agenda hijacked it back in the sixties........
 
No one is taking a whack at anything. No one is coming into your religious institution and telling its officials who to marry. Marriage is just as important to those religions which marry gay couples.
 
And sickle cell anemia is still highest among African Americans...TB is running rampant in many native Alaskan villages...

Not allowing responsible adults to form a legal union based on their propensity towarRAB disease/health concerns, seems to be teetering on the brink of running out of legitimate reasoning.

I AM new to this forum, and I don't know everyone's politics. But, I'm a quick learner. :cool:
 
Hmm, according to that list Americans should start prosecuting:

1. Non-jews

2. Catholics

3. People who swear

4. People who work on saturday

5. People accusing their parents of abuse

6. Soldiers, policemen, executioners, doctors, and so on.

7. Adulterers

8. Banks, major corporations, any businesses really.

9. Voice of Reason, for his constant ad hominem attacks on his fellow posters

10. Everyone, especially the Jones's.
 
The Bible is the oldest historical reference I know of regarding marriage. I can't seem to locate those Roman Justice of the Peace recorRAB. I have refuted your claim about when marriage became a church thing and when marriage became a man-and-woman thing. I doubt it would be difficult to refute your claims about definitions and the acceptance of same.


This is true. Also true is the fact that changing definitions is not justification for obtaining them. You would likely be able to get diplomatic immunity from all prosecution if you could change the definition of diplomat. Do you feel discriminated against because you can't get away with the crimes that the diplomats get away with?


No law should be used to attempt justification of discrimination. However, the truth is that some laws are discriminating in their own text. Some laws apply only to certain people.

There is a natural difference between male and female. Marriage is defined as a union between male and female partners. It is not discriminating to say that you and your male partner do not qualify.
 
Back
Top