How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[donavannj]

It's a chain reaction, where you keep pushing the binderies of what is right or wrong.

Note: This is an attack on your argument and not you. Do not take it personally.

I'm going to reverse your chain reaction argument with one of my own: Presently, we don't let homosexuals get married under law. What's next? Are we gonna take away the rights of women to vote? How about we remove the child-labor laws that kept you from being sent to work the factories when you were 8? How about removing our civil-rights laws that protect all minorities? Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? Government is there to protect the personal freedoms individuals have to perform actions that are not harming another individual, while restricting their actions that harm another individual. I don't see how homosexuality harms another individual.

Summarizing what I've said, my definition of "right" varies from your definition of "right". I think something should be able to be done if it isn't harming other people, especially without their consent. In what way does homosexuality harm you or others? You need to provide proof besides "damaging morals".

Also killing people has no relevance in a discussion about homosexuality, unless you can provide another link besides your "morals".

 

[Sanguinius]

The United States Constitution speaks of your philosophy in now way at all.

Quoted from the Preamble to the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How does 'protecting the rights of citizens' differ so greatly from the document's stated purpose? Liberty, welfare, tranquility, safety, and justice - those are the stated values which the American government exists to protect.

Call them values, rights, qualities, whatever you'd like. It doesn't change the fact that the illegalization of homosexual marriage in no way falls under the stated purposes of American government.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Quoted from the Preamble to the United States Constitution:



How does 'protecting the rights of citizens' differ so greatly from the document's stated purpose? Liberty, welfare, tranquility, safety, and justice - those are the stated values which the American government exists to protect.

Call them values, rights, qualities, whatever you'd like. It doesn't change the fact that the illegalization of homosexual marriage in no way falls under the stated purposes of American government.

The Preamble you quoted makes no mention of rights. Re-read it, please.

This topic; however, would warrant its own thread. Let's leave it at that.

 

[NarutoActor]

Note: This is an attack on your argument and not you. Do not take it personally.

I'm going to reverse your chain reaction argument with one of my own: Presently, we don't let homosexuals get married under law. What's next? Are we gonna take away the rights of women to vote? How about we remove the child-labor laws that kept you from being sent to work the factories when you were 8? How about removing our civil-rights laws that protect all minorities? Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? Government is there to protect the personal freedoms individuals have to perform actions that are not harming another individual, while restricting their actions that harm another individual. I don't see how homosexuality harms another individual.

Summarizing what I've said, my definition of "right" varies from your definition of "right". I think something should be able to be done if it isn't harming other people, especially without their consent. In what way does homosexuality harm you or others? You need to provide proof besides "damaging morals".

Also killing people has no relevance in a discussion about homosexuality, unless you can provide another link besides your "morals".

Hmm never thought of it that way before. But my basic belief still remains in tact. People are created equal so everyone should be allowed to vote. That is right, there is right and there is wrong. No matter how you try to mask it, it is not subjective, they are clear. It is your choice to accept it, or rebel against it.

(btw I am not an easily offended person, so I take nothing to heart. Homosexuality dosent affect me, I am just an advocate for the truth. Also I love tales of symphonia, its the best game ever. )

 

[Sanguinius]

The Preamble you quoted makes no mention of rights. Re-read it, please.

Your response makes no reference to what I clearly stated in my previous post. Re-read it, please.

Furthermore, your posting reveals quite clearly your ignorance of the ideas and theories which informed the founding fathers when they authored said document. What would the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have looked like, say, without Locke? No one can say, for Locke's philosophy is far too deeply ingrained in the collective works of the founding fathers to envision them without it.

One must always consider law with respect to the context in which it was formulated.

 

[Steven]

Hmm never thought of it that way before. But my basic belief still remains in tact. People are created equal so everyone should be allowed to vote. That is right, there is right and there is wrong. No matter how you try to mask it, it is not subjective, they are clear. It is your choice to accept it, or rebel against it.

Do you believe that straight people have the right to marry other races? Until the late 60's, that was illegal. Many people didn't view that as a right. Now, many people do, and many people who don't view gay marriage as a right view that as a right.

If gay marriage isn't a right, neither is interracial marriage. You can't say one is a right and one isn't. Just want to know your opinion on it to know whether or not you carry your opinion fully or you're just being extremely bias.

 

[Livewire]

*ahem*

None of this is on topic. Let's change that, or this thread will be locked as well.

 

[Dr. Montague]

People are created equal so everyone should be allowed to vote. That is right, there is right and there is wrong. No matter how you try to mask it, it is not subjective, they are clear. It is your choice to accept it, or rebel against it.

If everyone is created equal, why should certain people not be allowed to marry?

I honestly don't see why homosexual marriage is "wrong".

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Do you believe that straight people have the right to marry other races? Until the late 60's, that was illegal. Many people didn't view that as a right. Now, many people do, and many people who don't view gay marriage as a right view that as a right.

If gay marriage isn't a right, neither is interracial marriage. You can't say one is a right and one isn't. Just want to know your opinion on it to know whether or not you carry your opinion fully or you're just being extremely bias.

This, my friends, is called an equivocation fallacy.

I personally have no opposition to the doctrine of same-sex marriage, but I do have my views on how it should be applied. I believe it should be applied on a state-by-state basis in order to respect our federal system of government.

Interracial marriage is a different issue, and legal precedent agrees with me on this. Race is a suspect class under federal Equal Protection analysis. Race discrimination attempts by the states; however, must be examined under the strictest level of scrutiny. Sexual orientation only enjoys rational basis analysis (the lowest level of scrutiny). This is justifiable because race meets the three-prong test for obtaining strict scrutiny protection, while sexual orientation does not.

 

[champagnepapi]

Wrong. The legislative branch determines what is right or wrong. The judicial branch interprets the law.

That's an extremely vague description of the Legislative Branch you've got there. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is based on opinion, better yet, the opinion of the majority. There's no such thing as a "right" law or a "wrong" law, the correct terms would be "just" and "unjust". If Same-sex marriage isn't allowed throughout the US, then are you implying that it's "wrong"? If so, that's a shame you have such a narrow-minded opinion. Anyhow, I may as well get to the point and say that the pros of Same-Sex marriage far outweigh the cons. So yes, I support it.

 

[Mika]

Just because people do kill, doesn't make it right. That is a scary thing if what is right or wrong, is subjective. There are fine lines that can easily say what is right or wrong. Theses basic morals are what the country was founded on. (USA)

The morals that included women and slaves being property...? Those morals? I thought we agreed those weren't good. :<

Morals are subjective. They are subject to change at any given time.

It used to be illegal in some states for anything other than Vanilla hankypanky. Immoral for anything other than child bearing! That's what this country was FOUNDED ON!

It used to be legal to beat children. Spare the rod, spoil the child! The more welts the better the child! IMMORAL to use things like time outs!

Things change people change cultures evolve. That's why gay marriage is a reasonable step with the next generation or two. People who oppose it will start to lessen in number and soon, it's just an annoying squabble you can put out of your mind. It was the same as with the interracial marriage issue. History repeats itself etc.

 

[Blue Nocturne]

*Peeks head into discussion*

I'm in a gay relationship at the moment with a great guy. I'd say I'm unlikely to get married to a guy or a girl because I have a personal dislike for Marriage, but if I was the kind the get married, who are you to tell me I can't? In the same vein, who are you to tell me I shouldn't be in such a relationship in the first place?

 

[Aether★]

I'll just ask the OP question.
I do have nothing against it. If 2 people love each other, even though they're both same sex, then let them live like that! Of course always government :F. Poland does ban those relationships.

 

[Polizard]

Im not gay i have been dating my girlfriend for about 4 years but i think marriage is just a piece of paper and what truly matters is the love to people share but i do think it is wrong that people are not allowed to express there feeling for some one else because some government officials do not approve of there life style.

 

[Kim Do-yeon]

When people say being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender is a decease, well it is not because some great people in history and entertainment are LGBT including Green Day's Billie Joe Armstrong is Bisexual which is cool, I am happy to be a Bisexual Catholic.

PS. I am not Marriage Material as I bat for both teams.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

When people say being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender is a decease, well it is not because some great people in history and entertainment are LGBT including Green Day's Billie Joe Armstrong is Bisexual which is cool, I am happy to be a Bisexual Catholic.

PS. I am not Marriage Material as I bat for both teams.

I support repealing Prop 8 through another ballot initiative, since that would be a democratic means of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. I don't think that it's a priority until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed or stricken down by the courts. Until that happens, repealing Prop 8 grants no additional rights to same-sex couples that domestic partnerships don't already grant.

I don't believe that being homosexual is a disease, but some studies are claiming that homosexuality is caused by a hormone imbalance in the womb. If that were true, that would make it a disorder. It takes more than a few isolate tests to establish a scientific consensus, however. So, I don't agree with that study.

 

[Shining Raichu]

PS. I am not Marriage Material as I bat for both teams.

I don't see how that makes you not marriage material. Saying that also kind of contradicts your whole argument for gay rights lol

I support repealing Prop 8 through another ballot initiative, since that would be a democratic means of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. I don't think that it's a priority until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed or stricken down by the courts. Until that happens, repealing Prop 8 grants no additional rights to same-sex couples that domestic partnerships don't already grant.

I don't believe that being homosexual is a disease, but some studies are claiming that homosexuality is caused by a hormone imbalance in the womb. If that were true, that would make it a disorder. It takes more than a few isolate tests to establish a scientific consensus, however. So, I don't agree with that study.

My only issue with letting the public repeal it is that they got it wrong the first time. Clearly, even looking at this debate, there are those for and those against gay marriage. If we keep leaving it to the public and to democracy, it will take far longer to actually happen. I think the court case that's currently going on is a far better avenue to take, because the airing of both sides of the argument in a court of law (and to the public in the media) sheds light on the fact that the stripping away of rights via public majority is unconstitutional and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and sends that message strongly to the public and to the government.

Also, even if the studies were to prove that homosexuality is a hormonal 'disorder', it should only ever be seen that way biologically and scientifically. If that were to become mainstream knowledge in the social arena, it would open the gay community up to even more discrimination than they already face.

 

[lx_theo]

My only issue with letting the public repeal it is that they got it wrong the first time. Clearly, even looking at this debate, there are those for and those against gay marriage. If we keep leaving it to the public and to democracy, it will take far longer to actually happen. I think the court case that's currently going on is a far better avenue to take, because the airing of both sides of the argument in a court of law (and to the public in the media) sheds light on the fact that the stripping away of rights via public majority is unconstitutional and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and sends that message strongly to the public and to the government.

Also, even if the studies were to prove that homosexuality is a hormonal 'disorder', it should only ever be seen that way biologically and scientifically. If that were to become mainstream knowledge in the social arena, it would open the gay community up to even more discrimination than they already face.

I agree. Other than just that, look at the civil rights movement. You think that letting the public decide would have resulted in any progress? No. There would have been some northern states that gave fair treatment, and most African Americans that could would have tried to move there. While some would obviously stay back and try to change things in other parts of the country. The country would become largely segregated again. The thing that has stopped the gay rights movement from being as extreme as that would have been is that the hate and protest to it isn't as embedded. If it takes too long, though, time warps minds and generations.

And its as much as a disorder as a the color of your eyes, which is caused by the lack of pigment (brown has all of it, goes down from there), which is a difference of genetics and the norm, in the same way as sexual preference. Both may be disorders, but neither would quality as a detrimental one.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

My only issue with letting the public repeal it is that they got it wrong the first time.

There are no rights and wrongs in politics. There are only opinions. We shouldn't take controversial issues out of the public realm of debate because some interest group is mad they lost an election.

 

[Shining Raichu]

There are no rights and wrongs in politics. There are only opinions. We shouldn't take controversial issues out of the public realm of debate because some interest group is mad they lost an election.

There has to be some right and wrong. The democratic system is flawed, where things that affect the lives of real people are not allowed to pass because people who aren't affected by it at all have ganged up and said no. A message has to be sent that that's not OK anymore.