|
On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
It is, because it's giving heterosexuals an unfair legal boon. Furthermore, the idea that marriage is something the government shouldn't be interfering with is just weird. Marriage has always been a legal issue, even before it was a religious one.
Also, Brown v. Board set the precedent that separate is inherently unequal, so having "civil unions" for homosexuals and "marriage" for heterosexuals probably would never fly.
|
Excellent, finally homosexual couples can be just as miserable as heterosexual couples :D, Jokes aside this is great step towards real equality, nearly 40 years after it stopped being illegal, took a while but society is gradually getting better.
|
Very cool, glad to see it.
|
we found the solution to our economic problems. gay wedding registry
+ Show Spoiler +ok, I read this one on some prop 8 demonstration signs article. lost the link 
|
Live in Seattle and i bet this years gay pride parade will be even more festive. I mean last year the go the space needle to fly a HUGE rainbow flag (a big deal because it is privately owned). But the anti gays have promised to put a repeal attempt on the the ballot next November but i doubt it will pass in a presidential election year. Also you have to remember Washington state still has the more conservative agricultural part on the other side of the mountains and in the sparsely populated south.
|
On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage.
I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
|
On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
While I certainly think that would solve the issue (well maybe), it sounds like a rather sweeping, yet roundabout gesture. Why not just openly say that we are accepting of other people?
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
So you want marriage to no longer be a legal term? And replace every legal usage of marriage with civil union. So everyone would go get a civil union license from the courthouse.
Idn, I would be satisfied with that. But I am a heterosexual with only a cursory legal knowledge so I have no idea if that's a valid solution.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 11:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it. While I certainly think that would solve the issue (well maybe), it sounds like a rather sweeping, yet roundabout gesture. Why not just openly say that we are accepting of other people?
You made me burst out laughing.
I completely agree though, but idn, people can be really stubborn.
|
On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
That's a very inconvenient process. Marriage has always been a legal issue. We shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just because conservative religious folk arbitrarily cry foul with no basis for doing so.
|
On February 10 2012 03:54 sermokala wrote:I'll just do this all in one post and spoiler the quote so they don't' get out of control. I'll do them in order of post date so greater spire is first. + Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:17 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites. Then leave the leading Protestant organisation. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. The fact that there are Church services every Sunday that I disagree with does not mean I am forced to attend. I can "shit on religious people" even without gay marriage - there are many things religious people can be reasonably attacked on - the fact that they are against abortion, the fact that they are against euthanasia, the fact that they are against evolution, the fact that they are against contraception, etc. And furthermore - why are you using words like shit when you are supposedly a Christian? Isn't that rather unChristian? You've had some pretty low quality posts other then this train but I'll ignore them for the sake of coherency. Most of your posts come from this very thread so I really wonder how you came on tl at all. I was making a point and you decide to automatically attack it? you didn't even talk about it in any way just tried to twist it into your narrow arguments. this whole time I've tried to spread out what we are talking about and you refuse to elaborate on any of them other then attacking me. you're not going to get anywhere by attacking someone in a debate and I'm really not going to try anymore if thats all you are going to try and do. its junk posters like you that we can't have religious threads. the fact that you can't see that is saddening but I really hope that if you ever want to talk to someone about this that you care for and don't have the same viewpoint as you that you understand this and try to change that.
Just got out of bed to see that you've replied to one of my posts whilst ignoring the several others I made where I posed questions to you which you have conveniently ignored.
The primary question was - because you think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry since it is special to Christians, and that gays would be shitting on Christian beliefs - then are you also likewise against straight, atheist couples, or straight, Muslim couples, or any straight couples who aren't Christians, from getting married? Because they are no different to a gay couple that do not care for the fact that marriage is special to Christians.
|
On February 10 2012 12:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it. That's a very inconvenient process. Marriage has always been a legal issue. We shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just because conservative religious folk arbitrarily cry foul with no basis for doing so.
By your logic I can say that this whole gay marriage legalization process in too inconvenient. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman before, and we shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just so that 1.5% of the population aren't offended.
The truth is, everybody matters. Any solution that can be the best for everybody involved will be the best solution.
|
I think the religious significance of marriage for Christians will one day fall into the same realm as eating pork for Jews. Perhaps thousands of centuries ago eating pork was illegal due to religious reasons. But now those who do not eat pork are a minority of Jews, and they're free to abstain from eating pork and be laughed at by society. Likewise one day gays will be getting married, and only Churches will not allow for gay marriages, and society will just see it as a ridiculous restriction they set on themselves just as society sees Jews not eating pork as a ridiculous restriction they are setting on themselves.
Edit: I meant thousands of years.
|
Yay a step in the right direction. !!!
Perhaps thousands of centuries ago eating pork was illegal due to religious reasons.
It was first taboo due to cultural reasons, but the way things made an impact in ancient times was to codify it into religion, and it wasn't just the Hebrews, but many other Semitic peoples as well who were against eating pork, especially since these peoples had much association and contact and close languages and other similarities and ties. Back then, people didn't have nice stoves and things, so cooking meat well wasn't something that always happened, and if you don't cook pork well, you have a good chance of getting sick. In response to lots of people getting sick from pork, it became culturally taboo and sooner or later was made law in religions. It still is culturally taboo, as Christian Arabs typically won't eat pork either, even if it is readily available.
I love BBQ pork ribs as much as the next guy, but tbh, pork is really unhealthy meat lol, even when it's cooked well and you don't get worms. It's shitty meat lol, even though it tastes great and I love it. Btw, I eat bacon and eggs when I don't make bagels for breakfast, so yes, I love pork and I'm admitting it's unhealthy meat hehe.
|
On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes?
|
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources.
Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children!
|
On February 10 2012 13:16 RHMVNovus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes?
...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage.
|
On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children!
Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu.
|
On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
Yes, I agree. Tolerance is bad. Fuck all the non-white/christian/rich people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
