- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,828
- Reaction score
- 30,089
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The OP seems to assume that allowing gay marriage is the default, which I don't understand. We don't allow it now. We've never allowed it in the past. Marriage has, until very recently, been defined as an entirely heterosexual institution. Logically, the burden of proof should fall on those who are lobbying to allow gay marriage, because they are the people arguing for a change. And as much as I am in favor of gay marriage, I see very few people actually making arguments for why it should be allowed--how it would benefit society if it were allowed, how allowing gay marriage would bolster and promote the institution of marriage. Certainly, such arguments would be more compelling than empty appeals to "equal rights" and accusations of bigotry.
(I know that all of you against gay marriage hate this reference, but too bad) Again, much of the country was against interracial marriages as well. Not all, but many believed it was a sin against God to marry outside your race (this was true, despite the whole white supremacy thing, even today some feel this way, especially in the South). They had state constitutional amendments to limit marriage to one man and one woman of the same race. The arguments were very much the same. So was the SCOTUS right in their ruling that interracial marriage is a right, even if it went against a what the majority believed?
And I know this will bring the whole race is not the same as sexuality argument, but I contend you are wrong. If you put any other trait in their, including religion, the argument would still be sound. And religion is definitely more of a choice than sexuality. Even if you put some other feature up there with a caveat that said that artificial change is acceptable, the same outcome would be achieved. If the law said that blondes could only marry other blondes, but having your hair dyed blonde is acceptable to achieve this marriage, then would the law really be discriminating? Is it right?
You can contend all day and it will not change the fact that it is not race and is completely unrelated.
You can contend all day and it will not change the fact that it is not race and is completely unrelated.
In one case race was discriminated against in the other case gender is being discriminated aggainst hence the relationship btwn the two.
Sexual preference is not race.
Same goes for post above.
They are not the same and it is looking like scientifically speaking ain't going to change.
Race is not the only thing protected against discrimination. You seem to think it is. Religion is also protected against discrimination. And religion is a choice. It most certainly has nothing to do with genetics, not that can be proven anyway.
Well there's not proof that says sexuality is a choice
It’s the government poking around that I do not like.so then whats the argument then?Im lost
Government pokes around but people dont and even the ones that "try" are still wrong and its still none of their business
You really are fixated on the OP, aren’t you…Im missing what the debate is about and how any of this has to do with the OP
Your marriage is none of my business, nor should it be anyone else’s, including the government’s.bottom line is your marriage is still none of my business, you seem to agree so I’m lost to how anything else is relevant?
I’ve gotta say, Korimyr…While I may not always agree with you, your statements still make me think.Why not? That's exactly what you are doing. You want the law to reflect your views and force your views on others. You try to dress it up as something else, pretending that your moral values-- your opinions-- are self-evident facts that everyone else should automatically accept. Unlike others who have given good reasons, reasons that appeal to others' consciences, why gay marriage should be allowed, you've done nothing but stamp your foot and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of shoving their values down everyone else's throat-- oblivious to the fact that you are doing the exact same thing and less politely to boot.
And that is where your problem lies. Please point out where I said this?
As for the bolded part, if you use your morals as a basis for law, and your morals come from your religion then yes you are using your religion as the basis for laws. You can't spin your way out of that one.
Oh I see. So if peoples morals are based in nothing it's OK. If peoples morals are based on religion, they should not be allowed to vote etc. Pot, meet kettle.
Hows that for spin?
An incorrect conclusion can be drawn from logic, but you knew this.
No one can say for certain but it is thought that it was to keep the tribes of Israel separate from the pagan neighbors who dressed in garish multi fabric clothing. For the Israelites modesty was a big deal.
For the Jewish people they have a name for it, I don't remember what it was. It means something literally like "we have no idea, but it is the law." It does have a long explanation, but you can look up the Jewish interpretation yourself.
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.
The discrimination is in the sexuality of the couple. Most evidence points to a person's sexuality being beyond a conscience choice. Not that it really should matter, because as I've stated before, we protect people from religious discrimination.
i was answering an earlier post stating that the opposition to gay marriage was gender bias. It's not. It is not, however, just the religious who are against gay marriage and that means it's not religious discrimination either. The majority of American society is opposed to gay marriage as evidenced by the overwhealming failure of legislation allowing gay marriage in many states.
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.
These have been argued already, and overlooked.
Civil marriage (which is what we are discussing), is a social contract between two people that the government endorses for its own benefits.
From the way that the government treats heterosexual marriages, it is obvious that it is not necessary that all or even most need to apply to all marriages. Some of these same benefits could be gained from having homosexual marriages.
Not evey heterosexual couple is even able by law to have children, so the argument that heterosexual marriage's main purpose is procreation is completely down the toilet. There are at least a couple of states where first cousins can marry only if at least one of them is medically or naturally sterile.
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.
The discrimination is in the sexuality of the couple. Most evidence points to a person's sexuality being beyond a conscience choice. Not that it really should matter, because as I've stated before, we protect people from religious discrimination.
It might be illegal, but just as women and blacks used to be discriminated against, it isn't right and will eventually be made legal since it is an illegal law.
I think you're missing the point. The main argument against homosexuality is that it is not a genetic trait or that it is a choice, and therefore, it cannot be considered to have the same discrimination protection as race. This is the big argument when anyone on my side brings up interracial marriage. And I pointed out that the logic is wrong when saying that only things that aren't a person's choice are protected against discrimination. A person's religion is protected against discriminination and it is definitely a choice.
Also, most of the opposition is in fact due to religion. There are a lot of religious people in this country. However, most polls show that there is not a large gap in the difference of those who support gay marriage and those who don't, especially if you were to factor in those willing to give them the same rights, while calling it something else. The general gap between pro-gm and anti-gm is within 10%, or about 54% against, 46% for, and about a 2% don't care/don't know/undecided. The support for gay marriage is actually growing.
I think you're missing the point. The main argument against homosexuality is that it is not a genetic trait or that it is a choice, and therefore, it cannot be considered to have the same discrimination protection as race. This is the big argument when anyone on my side brings up interracial marriage. And I pointed out that the logic is wrong when saying that only things that aren't a person's choice are protected against discrimination. A person's religion is protected against discriminination and it is definitely a choice.
Also, most of the opposition is in fact due to religion. There are a lot of religious people in this country. However, most polls show that there is not a large gap in the difference of those who support gay marriage and those who don't, especially if you were to factor in those willing to give them the same rights, while calling it something else. The general gap between pro-gm and anti-gm is within 10%, or about 54% against, 46% for, and about a 2% don't care/don't know/undecided. The support for gay marriage is actually growing.
American society sets it's own standards and laws. At present, American society has overwhelming stated, time and time again, that it doesn't and won't recognize gay "marriage". Simply put, there need not be any other reason than that.
I'm not missing the point, homosexuality is a choice and doesn't deserve extra rights any more so than choosing any other unnatural or unsavory behavior does.
I stopped reading after this comment. When I see statements like this, I understand that I am listening to someone who has no intention of hearing facts nor someone who has much understanding on this issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?