Do you support marriage for gay and transgender people?

[Ethel2]

“ Obedient” sounds submissive...which sounds weak..I think a better approach would be that God wants us know the truth and that only the strong and those less prone to submissiveness can carry that weight...submissiveness surrounds us at all times and usually not to God. I’m not up to it , but I hope others are.

So if someone asked you (or told you) to do something that was, in fact, a reasonable request is that being submissive? Where do you draw the line between thinking through the merits of every request or order and considering obeying that order to be "submissive".
To me, all request and orders are the same: you consider the merits and the penalties of disobeying them and make a decision. There is no need to attach the word "submissive" to any order. You either comply or don't comply.

 

[Ethel2]

A marriage is between and man and a woman. Find another terminology.

Not according to the SCOTUS.
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean its not real.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I hope this is not above you guys, I hope you understand what I’m saying because I have my doubts..

well for most of us who don't feel it necessary for our sense of manhood to demean someone else with comments like that, there is no need for a rebuttal.

 

[COTO]

If a gay couple in your neighborhood gets married (and I am pretty sure there are married gay couples living near you) how exactly are you harmed?

The same way I'm harmed if a man in my neighbourhood cheats on his taxes, or if a woman in my neighbourhood brings home an invasive species of fish in defiance of federal ordinance and releases it into a distant lake. It causes harm and creates serious problem in greater society, and I have to live and function in society.

As to the specific harm caused by same-sex "marriage": in addition to perverting the very concept of marriage and subverting public understanding of nuclear family as the bedrock of society, it perpetuates the myth that homosexuality is normal, healthy, and free of serious risks and consequences. It disguises a sexual sin--and typically an accompanying lifestyle--no less immoral than adultery or incest in a cloak of legitimacy.

I'm aware you don't share this moral viewpoint, but to understand my position it suffices that you ask yourself what your reaction would be to persons demanding "rights" on the basis of something you consider morally perverse. Forced child marriages, for example, or incestuous marriages, or marriages requiring female circumcision. Your reaction certainly wouldn't be "Oh well. Whatever goes on in their bedroom is their business. We can't deny them their 'rights'." And if it were, you'd be guilty of moral cowardice.

 

[COTO]

The bigger government part would be CHANGING that and now making NEW and MORE laws, and different rules for different people, excluding them and changing their rights and or special rights for certain groups. No thanks.

The laws that recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman predate the nation itself. State recognition of same-sex unions is the legal extension of ancient laws to "NEW and MORE" kinds of unions--exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Society would have continued perfectly well under the ancient laws without any need whatsoever for "NEW and MORE laws".

 

[AGENT J]

The laws that recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman predate the nation itself.

Whatever you are referring to is 100% meaningless to this topic lol

State recognition of same-sex unions is the legal extension of ancient laws to "NEW and MORE" kinds of unions--exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Society would have continued perfectly well under the ancient laws without any need whatsoever for "NEW and MORE laws".

factually wrong again . . the NEW and MORE laws that were written were BANNING people, those laws were taken to court and challenged as unconstitutional and they were REMOVED AKA LESS government
Maybe stick to your own country since you just proved you factually don't understand this topic when it comes to America's rights and laws

Let me know if there are any other factually wrong claims I can help you with and in the future try to actually know what you are posting about so your spots don't fail so hard. You're welcome!

 

[AGENT J]

They can't do that, they want to hijack the meaning of "marriage".

LMAO hijack from who? who are you claiming owns it?

 

[roguenuke]

Certainly for our current LGBTQ version of marriage that has been declared to be unrelated to procreation.

Before same sex marriage was legal people did not consider procreation a legal part of marriage. 20% of opposite sex married couples either didn't want or couldn't have children, couldn't/didn't procreate. Many, many more would have remained married if they couldn't procreate. You are trying to project your ideal of marriage onto others.

 

[roguenuke]

Not sure how purposeful discrimination between the married and unmarried can be considered an advance of civil rights.

There has always been purposeful discrimination between any family compared to nonfamily.

 

[roguenuke]

Of course they had to eat the fruit. How else would they have perpetuated the human race?

They didn't do any such thing. They didn't exist. It is a myth. Cavemen perpetuated the human race through sex, that thing that other animals were doing for several hundred thousand, if not millions of years before.

 

[Ethel2]

The same way I'm harmed if a man in my neighbourhood cheats on his taxes, or if a woman in my neighbourhood brings home an invasive species of fish in defiance of federal ordinance and releases it into a distant lake. It causes harm and creates serious problem in greater society, and I have to live and function in society.

As to the specific harm caused by same-sex "marriage": in addition to perverting the very concept of marriage and subverting public understanding of nuclear family as the bedrock of society, it perpetuates the myth that homosexuality is normal, healthy, and free of serious risks and consequences. It disguises a sexual sin--and typically an accompanying lifestyle--no less immoral than adultery or incest in a cloak of legitimacy.

I'm aware you don't share this moral viewpoint, but to understand my position it suffices that you ask yourself what your reaction would be to persons demanding "rights" on the basis of something you consider morally perverse. Forced child marriages, for example, or incestuous marriages, or marriages requiring female circumcision. Your reaction certainly wouldn't be "Oh well. Whatever goes on in their bedroom is their business. We can't deny them their 'rights'." And if it were, you'd be guilty of moral cowardice.

Here is what I think: discrimination against gay people is unadulterated bigotry. When you say you think being gay is perverse or that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry I suggest you substitute “people of color” for “gay”.
I make it a point to call out bigotry wherever I see it. I have zero tolerance for bigots. Zero

 

[roguenuke]

And that's the rub, isn't it? I've already lived through two flu epidemics each responsible for more deaths than COVID and I did it because we had adults in charge, not power hungry politicians who can't keep their stories straight and their sycophants.

And I don't believe you are a doctor.

This is most definitely not true. Because there hasn't been any flu epidemics that killed as many as Covid since about 100 years ago, so you absolutely could not have lived through 2 of them.

List of epidemics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[roguenuke]

Am I the only person who thinks both sides are being silly about this.

An argument about if its called a marriage or a civil union is just dumb.

Then call them all marriage so I don't have to pay more to duplicate paperwork and laws just to appease assholes. Oh, that's right, we're good.

 

[roguenuke]

For a time California had both same sex civil unions AND same sex marriages. They were identical in treatment by the government. Still, the Supreme court of California declared simply using a different word to label the relationship was a violation of the constitutional rights of the homosexuals because "civil unions" wouldnt confer the same "respect and dignity" of the word marriage. Absurd.

It wouldn't confer the same rights when marriages for same sex couples were recognized throughout the US because most laws regarding marriage are either federal or reciprocal and not everyone had civil unions and civil unions were not recognized as legal marriages in other states.

 

[roguenuke]

No, this hijacking of the meaning of words must end...marriage does not include gay or trans people...

Words should not be defined by what tiny minorities want of them , they should have real meaning ( ie , what most think they mean at any given time and what has been provably useful )...or they are without value ...as all tiny minority things are until they prove their worth. If minorities dominate the narrative and twist the meaning of words...that is an affront to truth.

As an example ”One” means “1” or it has no meaning...defining things with words that have transitory changing meaning infers that those things have no objective meaning or purpose...”one” becoming to mean ”three” would totally undermine faith in what “ one” meant.

I hope this is not above you guys, I hope you understand what I’m saying because I have my doubts...

You don't own the word marriage. So too bad, others get to use it.

 

[Ethel2]

Before same sex marriage was legal people did not consider procreation a legal part of marriage. 20% of opposite sex married couples either didn't want or couldn't have children, couldn't/didn't procreate. Many, many more would have remained married if they couldn't procreate. You are trying to project your ideal of marriage onto others.

The SCOTUS has decided that gay people are a protected minority, a minority that is guaranteed equal protection under the law.
Lets call this anti-gay rhetoric what it is: pure unadulterated bigotry. Its not a “difference of opinion “
Its bigotry, pure and simple

 

[roguenuke]

The same way I'm harmed if a man in my neighbourhood cheats on his taxes, or if a woman in my neighbourhood brings home an invasive species of fish in defiance of federal ordinance and releases it into a distant lake. It causes harm and creates serious problem in greater society, and I have to live and function in society.

As to the specific harm caused by same-sex "marriage": in addition to perverting the very concept of marriage and subverting public understanding of nuclear family as the bedrock of society, it perpetuates the myth that homosexuality is normal, healthy, and free of serious risks and consequences. It disguises a sexual sin--and typically an accompanying lifestyle--no less immoral than adultery or incest in a cloak of legitimacy.

I'm aware you don't share this moral viewpoint, but to understand my position it suffices that you ask yourself what your reaction would be to persons demanding "rights" on the basis of something you consider morally perverse. Forced child marriages, for example, or incestuous marriages, or marriages requiring female circumcision. Your reaction certainly wouldn't be "Oh well. Whatever goes on in their bedroom is their business. We can't deny them their 'rights'." And if it were, you'd be guilty of moral cowardice.

No. Those things you mentioned actually cause demonstrable, measurable harm to society. Same sex couples getting married do not. You believing they do simply because you don't like them marrying is not at all objective evidence of harm.

 

[roguenuke]

They can't do that, they want to hijack the meaning of "marriage".

You can't "hijack" the meaning of a word that is not owned by those who believe/claim it is being hijacked. You don't own the word or its meaning.

 

[aociswundumho]

Marriage is a private affair, the state should have no say in it whatsoever. The fact that this debate exists shows the totalitarian nature of democracy.

 

[trouble13]

Then call them all marriage so I don't have to pay more to duplicate paperwork and laws just to appease assholes. Oh, that's right, we're good.

I dont object to that. Its a dumb thing to fight about.

 

[roguenuke]

I dont object to that. Its a dumb thing to fight about.

It's worth fighting for equality, especially against those who want different only because they believe they are better than others, deserve a distinction.

 

[roguenuke]

Marriage is a private affair, the state should have no say in it whatsoever. The fact that this debate exists shows the totalitarian nature of democracy.

As long as the state recognizes legal family, legal kinship, it will recognize spouses, which requires recognition of marriages.

 

[aociswundumho]

As long as the state recognizes legal family, legal kinship, it will recognize spouses, which requires recognition of marriages.

At one time the same state recognized that black people were the legal property of white people.

This is a moral argument, not a legal one. You can't use existing law to argue for or against a moral issue.

 

[roguenuke]

At one time the same state recognized that black people were the legal property of white people.

This is a moral argument, not a legal one. You can't use existing law to argue for or against a moral issue.

This is both a legal argument and a moral argument. But morals are subjective so it doesn't matter since that is a matter of belief and opinion. There is nothing wrong with same sex marriage. That is the most reasonable moral position but some will still think that they are right, that the beliefs instilled in them by their religion or parents or other sources are correct, just as those who are against interracial or interfaith marriages or those who think that anyone without a religion is bad people.

 

[dixon01767]

That is incorrect.
Civil unions were the same as marriages in CA according to the state, but to the federal government they are not the same. Married couples enjoy federal benefits unavailable to those in a civil union. Same sex marriages deserve EXACTLY the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

No, the federal government treated California same sex marriages the same way they treated California same sex unions. They didnt recognize either one.