two words: Societal norms. You are making my point. Arbitrary lines for socially acceptable behavior exist everywhere including in law. The push for SSM is not a push to remedy discrimination, it is a push to change social norms. If it were about discrimination all non traditional ideas of marriage would be in play, not just ssm.
Calling it a sick lifestyle is just a matter of opinion. Don't like it? Oh well. That is not disparaging, its called an opinion. The rest you would have to have some real thin skin to get to the level of even alittle insulted about.
And I find the gay life style of little value. But I am not disparaging any particular individual. Like I said, if you are looking to get offended. Good job, you did it.
Well for one, pushing for marriage. That is part of the agenda that contributes to the "lifestyle". I didn't know I had to explain that. It seems pretty self explanatory.
So it don't exist. So why get married?
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.
I could say that about people that want to marry their pets.
Encouraging people in grave immorality is harmful to them, as such impedes their fulfillment of their telos.
clear yes wow worthy no the pore dammed souls on hear who go for that slippery slope bitch about the inevitability of such horrible things as bestiality and pedophilia and that the 2 of those must be involved in legal marriage if we have gay marriage
but they have to then pretend that there's something wrong with those things to squish any objections sane people point out
its like those people cant see the difference between 1 things they consider evil/yucky and another
also if other forms of marriage could become legal you don't need gay marriage to be legal 1st
as all the gay mage arguments boil down to how there equivalent to marriages we allow already
what's immoral about gay marriage?
Does it (the term marriage) belong to polygamists? Does it belong to straight males who want to marry one another for monetary benefit? Does it really belong to everyone for any reason?
My "socially unacceptable" comment was not directed at ssm only. I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that there are arbitrary limits to what is acceptable as marriage. It is no more discriminatory to exclude gay marriage than it is to exclude polygamy, or any other arrangement that people could consent to. Therefore allowing SSM does NOTHING to remedy discrimination, it only moves the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
Poor example. children cannot legally consent therefore there is no basis to charge discrimination. try again.
Is it your position that only those statements of fact which can be empirically measured or tested, are true?
Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.
The government has traditionally deferred to the judgement of the church in social matters finding that the church should be a nontaxed entity because of the "important state interest" in allowing the church to serve the people as it sees fit.
Where in the constitution does it address marriage?
Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
The government has traditionally deferred to the judgement of the church in social matters finding that the church should be a nontaxed entity because of the "important state interest" in allowing the church to serve the people as it sees fit.
1. The reason for the criteria is that human judges cannot use the supernatural to decide the law. That which humans cannot observe, the law cannot dictate. And America is built upon a foundation of individual liberty. My personal, moral disapproval of someone else's actions is not enough reason to restrict their freedom to that action. Our government is hamstrung by the constitution. It is not allowed to restrict our freedom without sufficient justification. It is not allowed to classify its citizens differently without sufficient justification. Such justifications have to come from something identifiable. To restrict someone's freedom, you need to demonstrate why. I don't approve of Scientologists. Their beliefs are reprehensible. In my opinion, it's a cult that tricks people to get their money. But my disapproval is not enough to prevent Bob from joining them, or believing what they believe.
I want tighter gun control. But the government can't do that without a good enough reason. And because gun ownership is a right stipulated in the constitution, the bar for this is quite high. The need must be great, and the measure must be the least restrictive measure possible. Well, marriage is also a fundamental right. Marriage is a basic component of the family unit, which is the building block of a society. The right is so fundamental that we cannot even deny it to a criminal. Someone currently in jail still must be allowed to get married, and those are people who have undergone due process, those are people who have had the most basic rights imaginable stripped from them. Any restriction on who can marry who has to be met with a powerful justification.
While you might personally believe that this family unit must be based on a man and a woman, the government doesn't have the luxury of leaning on belief alone. If the legal contract exists, any private citizen must be allowed to enter into it barring a sufficient state interest in preventing it. Because the government is hamstrung by our constitution, and we made it that way to preserve individual freedom. Under the 14th amendment, a distinction of gender must be justified by an "important state interest" that the measure is "substantially related" to furthering. That's it. That's the test. Marriage contract, business contract, speed limits, doesn't matter. That's the test you need to pass for the state to sanction a distinction of gender.
2. As for your question, I believe that if it's not measurable, or empirical, "truth" will always be subjective to some degree. Your belief in God's will may be absolute, and that a particular reading of his word is absolute. Thing is, there's another guy who has a different reading of the same words, and he believes that to be absolute. A while back, people said similar things about Zeus. A mortal court system can't judge these things. Robbery causes specific, measurable harm to the victim. A wiccan casting a blood curse upon you does not. So the wiccan gets to chant their words over a bowl of newts, or whatever it is they do.
I'm curious about this. My brother is gay, and so far as I can see he has three options.
1) Live a life alone
2) Pretend to be straight and live a lie
3) Be gay, hopefully spend his life with someone he loves.
Now you're saying the third option is the one that would result in his life being 'unfulfilled?' I don't understand how you'd believe that. Maybe you think there is a fourth option, become straight? It's the only thing that might sense in this context, but of course it's not an actual option.
Who or what does SSM negatively affect?
Is it your position that opinions based on faith or philosophy (that do not directly infringe on the rights of others) should be made law and/or forced on people who do not believe the same?
what's immoral about gay marriage?
That is what objectivity requires. Unless it can be empirically measured and/or tested, it is subjective.
Option 1, except that it doesn't mean he is "alone", as he can have familial and platonic relationships. I see no reason why it would be impossible for him to lead a fulfilling life as a celibate.
1) Horse****. You appeal to the word of God constantly. This thread is not the only argument you've ever made. As for "human nature," that's just an attempt to justify your desire for biblical law retroactively. Problem is, you just came up with a different unmeasurable, subjective basis. You can't prove "human nature." There's no particular reason to say same-sex marriage goes against human nature, any more than space travel does. How is human nature contradicted if two men marry each other? Because you say so?1. I haven't made any appeals to the supernatural, my arguments on this thread are based on human nature.
2. Then your position, since it can not be empirically verified, is self-refuting.
1. I haven't made any appeals to the supernatural, my arguments on this thread are based on human nature.
2. Then your position, since it can not be empirically verified, is self-refuting.
Option 1, except that it doesn't mean he is "alone", as he can have familial and platonic relationships. I see no reason why it would be impossible for him to lead a fulfilling life as a celibate.
Already explained.
Yes, truth is truth and law is law.
Sodomy is immoral, as already explained.
Self-refuting.
But the same inherent desire to love and be loved felt by almost every heterosexual also exists for homosexuals. You're substituting your beliefs and imposing them on others. I have a feeling you'd object if I decided what kind of life you'd find "possible" to live and make fulfilling. Your life is yours to live. I can't possibly know what it might take for yours to be fulfilling, so why would you presume the arrogance to make that determination for MILLIONS of others.
1) Horse****. You appeal to the word of God constantly. This thread is not the only argument you've ever made. As for "human nature," that's just an attempt to justify your desire for biblical law retroactively. Problem is, you just came up with a different unmeasurable, subjective basis. You can't prove "human nature." There's no particular reason to say same-sex marriage goes against human nature, any more than space travel does. How is human nature contradicted if two men marry each other? Because you say so?
2) Subjective doesn't mean wrong. It means subjective. The Supreme Court cannot make rulings based on something you can't define.
There is nothing new about the issue. Gays want to get married and are using the courts to get their way. And be damned if you object.
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?