Same-Sex Marriage

1) Marriage is NOT a right. Not even opposite-sex marriage is.
Marriage is a privelege that states extend to their citizens in order to advance a state interest. The states have an interest in people bearing children in a civilized manner and raising them in a safe environment, which is through marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear children without outside assistance so allowing them to marry does not advance the state's interest. Testing people for fertility before marriage would be expensive and therefore wouldn't advance the state's interest.

2) Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it talk about marriage.
I hate people who believe in same-sex marriage, yet want to limit gun ownership (which by the way, IS in the Constitution). Also these liberals claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional when that is also in the text of the Constitution (it defines treason and says its punishable by death).

3) Cases like Loving v. Virginia are irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate. Allowing inter-racial marriage does not interfere with the state interest of civilized child bearing, unlike same-sex marriage. Also, the pro-gay marriage crowd wonders why 70% of African-American voters vited Yes on Proposition 8. It's because you keep degrading their civil rights movement by comparing it to your own movement. Black America sent you a message in 2008: stop comparing us to you!


4) The benefits associated with marriage (i.e. tax, inheritance) are not what is at question.
I am talking about the institution of marriage, not the benefits it comes with. Marriage is an institution that is deeply rooted in religion. American states decided to regulate marriage so that no one church would dominate. Many states have civil unions and domestic partnerships that address the issue of benefits associated with marraige. gay activists don't see them as sufficient. They want the institution of marriage.

In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage.

In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage.

Click to expand...

I'd like you to see this:

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Click to expand...

Alright, it does say "men and women", but, y'know, it's still a right.

I dont really see why people wont allow same sex marriage. :O

Ninja Caterpie said:

I'd like you to see this:

Alright, it does say "men and women", but, y'know, it's still a right.

Click to expand...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights =/= United States Constitution or any state constitution so it is irrelevant.

While you could have chosen some less harsh words for it, you're pretty much right in every regard.

I still think it's kinda silly that gay rights groups are heavily comparing their movement to the African American movement of the last generation. Last I checked, homosexuals aren't being denied service at restaurants, made to attend inferior schools, and ride at the back of metropolitan buses. Hell, in most states, they're not even denied the right to the benefits of civil unions. Nowadays they're just complaining that their civil unions aren't the same as a religious marriage semantically.

Wow, rude much?

Anyway, I think we should let gay people do the same things as straight people. It doesn't hurt anyone, what the hell is the big deal? No one should care if they get married. Marriage is a joke nowadays, anyway.

Went said:

Actually, most states writing a Constitution after 1948 included that Declaration as legally binding. For instance, my own country, Spain.

Click to expand...

The term "state" I used meant one the 50 states in the United States. I am relating the same-sex marriage issue to U.S. constitutional law. Although you are correct that some states have adopted parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's why we have some states that allow same-sex marriage, some that allow only civil unions or domestic partnerships (which is the majority of states) and some that offer no recognition to same-sex couples at all.

The Cynic said:

OK before I say anything I'd like to bring up the US constitution. Being from the UK I find it hard to understand the whole "unconstitutional" thing. In the UK, we amend our constitution almost every year in order to keep up as society changes. I'm not at all getting on at Americans here but, why can't you do the same?

Regardless of same-sex marriage being "unconstitutional" it is a right. Yes governments allow marriage to promote the idioms you stated, but it is also just seen by the public as a recognition of devotion. You should have the right to it regardless of your sexuality.

Click to expand...

Since the U.S. is a federal system, we haven't amended our Constitution since the early 1990's. Individual state constitutions are amended far more often. This is because the states have way more authority over its citizens daily lives than the federal government does. Some states even allow their constitutions to be amended by a simple majority ballot vote while the federal Constitution requires a difficult 2/3 ratification process.

Ninja Caterpie said:

I'd like you to see this:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Click to expand...

Alright, it does say "men and women", but, y'know, it's still a right.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but...
That doesn't seem to mention anything about same-sex marriage. So... yeah.

Nancy Botwin said:

Marriage is a joke nowadays, anyway.

Click to expand...

Woah now. Marriage is what you make of it. I'd appreciate you not stereotyping my parent's marriage and my future marriage.

Timbjerr said:

I still think it's kinda silly that gay rights groups are heavily comparing their movement to the African American movement of the last generation. Last I checked, homosexuals aren't being denied service at restaurants, made to attend inferior schools, and ride at the back of metropolitan buses. Hell, in most states, they're not even denied the right to the benefits of civil unions. Nowadays they're just complaining that their civil unions aren't the same as a religious marriage semantically.

Click to expand...

While I personally am both bisexual and in support of same-sex marriage, I agree that it is being forced upon the nation through the above. I believe this to be wrong. Furthermore I'd like to point out the truth in marriage being a historically religious thing. That being said, it's not a right. It's not something people can just take and force either. That's like playing dirty in sports. You can win, but it'll never be the same or as good as someone who does it fairly.

Like... ever

That being said, I only support same-sex marriage if the privileged is earned fairly, not through forced propaganda and absurd comparisons like is currently being done.

Quiet you. I am going to engage in a same-sex marriage, and there is nothing that you - or anybody for that matter - can do about it. Now, does anybody have any plausible ideas of how to resurrect Abraham Lincoln?

I am gay and I'm a christian, and modern christianity (Church of england anyways) doesn't forbid homosexuality.

God loves you no matter how your chemistry works, and there is no fair reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage.

Besides what harm will it do to anyone? None at all, just let Gay people get on with their lives and you get on with yours.

Incidentally I think the person who tarted this thread is just trying to start an argument and cause offense.

I'll leave you with Wanda Sykes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8&feature=fvw

FreakyLocz14 said:

1) Marriage is NOT a right. Not even opposite-sex marriage is. Marriage is a privelege that states extend to their citizens in order to advance a state interest. The states have an interest in people bearing children in a civilized manner and raising them in a safe environment, which is through marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear children without outside assistance so allowing them to marry does not advance the state's interest. Testing people for fertility before marriage would be expensive and therefore wouldn't advance the state's interest.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. A homosexual couple can have children some how. But, you know, marriage is definitely for children. That's why people who can't bear children and the elderly can't get married.

FreakyLocz14 said:

2) Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it talk about marriage. I hate people who believe in same-sex marriage, yet want to limit gun ownership (which by the way, IS in the Constitution). Also these liberals claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional when that is also in the text of the Constitution (it defines treason and says its punishable by death)

Click to expand...

Okay, and? I don't see how this is even relevant to your point.

FreakyLocz14 said:

3) Cases like Loving v. Virginia are irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate. Allowing inter-racial marriage does not interfere with the state interest of civilized child bearing, unlike same-sex marriage. Also, the pro-gay marriage crowd wonders why 70% of African-American voters vited Yes on Proposition 8. It's because you keep degrading their civil rights movement by comparing it to your own movement. Black America sent you a message in 2008: stop comparing us to you.

Click to expand...

However, before interracial was legalized, most of America was against it.

FreakyLocz14 said:

4) The benefits associated with marriage (i.e. tax, inheritance) are not what is at question. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not the benefits it comes with. Marriage is an institution that is deeply rooted in religion. American states decided to regulate marriage so that no one church would dominate. Many states have civil unions and domestic partnerships that address the issue of benefits associated with marraige. gay activists don't see them as sufficient. They want the institution of marriage.

Click to expand...

Really? Because if the religious roots were at question, why do we have Divorce [Divorce is frowned upon in the Bible - let's not even tackle the subject of remarriage! That's ~adultery~!]? Why do we have interracial marriage? [Deuteronomy 7:3-4 is an example of the Israelites being commanded to not do so] Why are you, as a woman, even posting here? [Women are often given the shorter end of the stick in the Bible - e.g. Genesis 3:12]

FreakyLocz14 said:

In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage.

Click to expand...

In short, your argument is faulty, and relies on circular logic that homosexuality is a choice -> Homosexuality is a sin -> The Bible is Unchanging.

I still think it's kinda silly that gay rights groups are heavily comparing their movement to the African American movement of the last generation. Last I checked, homosexuals aren't being denied service at restaurants, made to attend inferior schools, and ride at the back of metropolitan buses. Hell, in most states, they're not even denied the right to the benefits of civil unions. Nowadays they're just complaining that their civil unions aren't the same as a religious marriage semantically.

Click to expand...

Because they're not the same thing. Most states? Hardly.

Furthermore I'd like to point out the truth in marriage being a historically religious thing.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?
The origins of marriage as an actual sacrament rather than contract date back to Paul in Ephesians [23-32 iirc.]
Marriage had long been around though.
One of the earliest recordings of it is in Hammurabi's code. Wives were essentially sold as property. Dowry, etc.
You can read more about it here.

Porygon-Z said:

I am gay and I'm a christian, and modern christianity (Church of england anyways) doesn't forbid homosexuality.

God loves you no matter how your chemistry works, and there is no fair reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage.

Besides what harm will it do to anyone? None at all, just let Gay people get on with their lives and you get on with yours.

Incidentally I think the person who tarted this thread is just trying to start an argument and cause offense.

I'll leave you with Wanda Sykes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8&feature=fvw

Click to expand...

Okay, first off, the way I saw it, the creator of this thread started this thread to provoke a meaningful discuission in your favor. At least that's how it seems to me. If I am wrong, please, inform me immediately of my mistake. Second, while I am not opposed to gay marriage, I don't see the point in paying in any form, other then rent and/or any bills, to live with someone for the rest of your life. That's just me though. There are plenty of people that put value in this big expensive ceremoney that says to the world "We want to live together for the rest of our lives", apparently, more then actually living together for some odd amount of years. And I am sorry if that last comment offended anyone. That's just how I feel.

Erik Destler said:

Why are you, as a woman, even posting here?

Click to expand...

Because she made the thread? Anyway, how does being a women have anything to do with it?

Erik Destler said:

Homosexuality is a sin -> The Bible is Unchanging.

Click to expand...

So your saying It's worng for two men/women to love each other? Why?

Do some people just look in Other Chat and decide "Oh there's not an active thread on gay marriage so it's my duty to make one?" Seriously? Time and time again we've realized that this thread in particular is a bit controversial for PC and creates general BAW and flames. One thing goes wrong in this thread and it's locked. Just putting that out there. Let's make this a civil discussion.

FreakyLocz14 said:

4) The benefits associated with marriage (i.e. tax, inheritance) are not what is at question.
I am talking about the institution of marriage, not the benefits it comes with. Marriage is an institution that is deeply rooted in religion. American states decided to regulate marriage so that no one church would dominate. Many states have civil unions and domestic partnerships that address the issue of benefits associated with marraige. gay activists don't see them as sufficient. They want the institution of marriage.

In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage.

Click to expand...

Wow. I'm not religious and hope to marry someday, so does that mean I'm not allowed to get married as well?

Marriage is a legal process now, and to say that same sex partners can not get married because its a religious institution is the same as saying non-religious people can't get married. And they can. So whats up with that?

Erik Destler said:

I beg to differ. A homosexual couple can have children some how.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child. Research the biological definitions of male and female. You'll see what I mean. As for two females. Theoretically, I guess it's possible. But we sure as heck don't have that technology, and I question whether anyone would ever bother creating such technology since normally it's a rare thing to find in species as complex as humans or even most mammals. (It's FAR more common in things like single celled organisms.)

Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption.

I don't get what's wrong with Same Sex Marriage. I may be straight but they are people too. People should love who ever they want, and the world should accept it. I'm straight and I think there is nothing wrong with Same Sex Marriage at all. We are all human-beings. I may be 14 but I mean what I say. Look at Ellen Degenerous and Porche.

Porygon-Z said:

I am gay and I'm a christian, and modern christianity (Church of england anyways) doesn't forbid homosexuality.

God loves you no matter how your chemistry works, and there is no fair reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage.

Besides what harm will it do to anyone? None at all, just let Gay people get on with their lives and you get on with yours.

Click to expand...

I don't like posting in these threads. I am anti-gay, and as such know what other people have to say about me. But when you said you were Christian, well...

First off, people are not "just wired that way". From what I see, it's a combination of innate tendencies that seem to emphasize homosexuality, enforced by possible judgement by peers, sexual confusion, and the fact that homosexuality is becoming more of an accepted thing. I'd like to say here that these are not at all universal, and anybody can have any of these signs and others I did not list.

First Corinthians 6:9-11:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I don't bring this up to hate on any given person, but to prove that it's there in the New Testament, and that it's not of God. I don't know what kind of church you go to, but if you really are a Christian, you are supposed to take this seriously. Am I wrong?

I don't hate you for being gay, I promise. I don't hate you for having a different opinion and calling yourself Christian. However, to me, this is literally serious business. You are in no way obligated to, but if you want to continue this, I'll accept a few VMs.