Prop 8 Declared Unconstitutional by Fed. Appeals Court
Replies
-
"Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion."
Based upon this statement, you are saying that the only people who get married are those who believe in God and want to make a religious committment. That is rather hypocritical. I can hear that you are saying that while you feel it should not be banned, you don't beleive that it should take place. So in your mind-frame, while the LBGT community should not be banned from marriage, they should make the decision not to make a committment? Isn't that kind of the same thing as a ban?
The history of marriage is not wholly rooted in religion BTW. History repeatedly shows that marriage was used as a way of transferring property, strengthening political ties, and purifying bloodlines. While the concept of matrimony goes back to Adam and Eve, the formation of Christianity and the puritan mind-set is where "holy matrimony" developed. Prior to that, it was a legal binding contract between a husband and the wife's family. It has not been until the past several hundred years that women have even been given a choice in the decision process.
While "holy matrimony" and the idea of such should be held to the reservations of the religious preference, a legal civil union as performed by the governmental bodies should be open to all regardless of sexual preference.0 -
Just read this:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstituional, though it has a high likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court for a final showdown. This is a big victory for equal-rights folks out there.
Discuss.
You know what, I'm happy that we as a country have gotten to the place where we are truly separating church and state since we are making that proclamation and such. However, I don't necessarily agree, and this is totally because of my own personal view toward marriage, that homosexuals should marry. I think that we should all have the right to marry of course, I just don't think that homosexuals should do so. I think that it is a union that should be reserved for a man and a woman who falls in love. Men that want to spend the rest of their lives with other men should do so, and women who want to spend the rest of their lives with other women should do so. I just don't think that they should go so far as to get married to do so.
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
They only want to get married so they can antagonize religious groups? Are you for effing real??0 -
You know what, I'm happy that we as a country have gotten to the place where we are truly separating church and state since we are making that proclamation and such. However, I don't necessarily agree, and this is totally because of my own personal view toward marriage, that homosexuals should marry. I think that we should all have the right to marry of course, I just don't think that homosexuals should do so. I think that it is a union that should be reserved for a man and a woman who falls in love. Men that want to spend the rest of their lives with other men should do so, and women who want to spend the rest of their lives with other women should do so. I just don't think that they should go so far as to get married to do so.
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
So homosexuals can spend the rest of their lives together and it can be for love BUT, if they want to get married then love has nothing to do with it? Is that what you're saying here? Or do you believe that it is not possible for a man to fall in love with another man or a woman with another woman? In either case, let me please clear this up for you. Homosexuals can and DO fall in love. If they choose to get married it is not to piss someone off. It is for the same reasons that heterosexuals get married, whether that reason is taxes, insurance, convenience, or yes, even love. I commend you for beliveing that it is great that we are slowly becoming a nation of equality. But please do not think for one moment that the homosexual community only wants to get married to anger religous groups instead of the true reason of simply wanting the same rights as those of us who are heterosexual. There is a huge number of people who don't get married in churches or in front of a minister/pastor/religous leader and whose vows did not include the word God (myself included, I went to the JOP). Just because someone puts a religous spin on something does not mean that the fundamental issue is about religion, as is the case with the homosexual population wanting the equal, CONSTITUTIONAL right to be able to marry the person they are in love with.
My argument is not that homosexuals can or can't, should or shouldn't fall in love. I KNOW without a shadow of a fact that they can and do. I have friends that are gay and I love them to death for being themselves and loving the person that they love. (Although I must admit, in some of their cases they are more in love with the sex and are in love with the idea of love more so then the actual person, but that has nothing to do with their sexuality I know heterosexual individuals that do that).
My argument is simply I think that WE (heteros, homos, asexuals, and everything other classification of sexual beings that we can consider ourselves) SHOULD have the LEGAL RIGHT to marry, however I don't think that any two people should marry outside of a male and female that loves each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
In the same manner, I don't think that two 18 years without a clear career path, college degrees, and a healthy financial situation should get married, especially without counseling before hand. They currently have the LEGAL right to do so (as I hope homos get eventually) I just don't think that they should do. No one should deny them the right to though.
And YES, I do think that they should spend the rest of their lives together if they so desire. Why get married? If you want to live outside of the box then do it. No one is making the argument that you shouldn't be gay, be whatever you want, just live outside of the box in every way. Marriage is a social norm, if you want to cast down all social norms by being your own person and doing what you feel is in your heart and being openly gay, do it. I give you my blessing, by all means do it. However, why lay down you out of the box lifestyle to pick up a social/cultural norm such as marriage?? That is why I think that many homosexuals do it to antagonize religious groups.0 -
I think that we should all have the right to marry of course, I just don't think that homosexuals should do so.I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I have to ask - are you serious? You just canceled it out in that first quoted statement.
If so, that's the worst (best?) flatout denial of civil rights to homosexuals I've seen proclaimed here (and yes, I'll take that personally). Like mentioned above, marriage is *not* a religious institution, but one of the states - denying that to one segment of the population is discrimination plain and simple (and if you're basing your discrimination on *your* religious beliefs, then you are definitely not separating church and state).
I really do sincerely apologize for offending you. That was never my intention. I really don't want to offend you or anyone else.
Please understand what I am trying to say. I don't believe that the government or the judicial system have the right to tell anyone black, white, foreign, alien, gay, straight, asexual, disabled, or any other group of people that they can not marry someone. My argument is that as INDIVIDUALS we should make the choice to only marry someone that we love deeply, can see ourselves growing old with, love with an unconditional love that transcends time, and is of the opposite sex.
In a way, my argument is like this; just because you can, it doesn't mean that you should. Like, just because they make muscle shirts in my size, it doesn't mean that I should go get one and wear it in public. Just because it is legal for me to go to the beach topless, it doesn't mean that I should do so, and trust me, I won't do so.
We should have the right to marry whomever we want. But just because we have the right to marry does that mean that we should?0 -
Just read this:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstituional, though it has a high likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court for a final showdown. This is a big victory for equal-rights folks out there.
Discuss.
*I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.*
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
Why else do others get married if not for financial, insurance, legal, and tax purposes? How are they antagonizing religious groups when marriage is sanctioned by the state government NOT by religion?
I must disagree. I think that the sanction of marriage is actually rooted in biblical/religious foundations. While there are several legal advantages to marriage, I think that the basis of marriage was founded in religion. Think about it. Before there were tax breaks or anything else we were getting married to one another.
So because I didn't get married in a church or by a religous leader then I shouldn't be allowed to be married? I'm agnostic. My husband and I got married in the courhouse by a JOP. There was no religous element to our vows. And what about all the people who are married and don't follow the Bible? What about other cultures? What about people who are aethiest or agnostic? This just further proves my earlier point that not everything is religous based no matter what kind of religous spin is put on it. Let's make a bet. Let's poll the entire country. I've got $100 that says there are going to be religous people (I don't care which religion) who say that they got married for some reason other than love or religous beliefs.
Well, I would love to bet you on that but I have to decline that offer. I never said that people ONLY get married because of love. I know that people do get married for other reasons. In my opinion, if you don't love someone unconditional, you shouldn't get married. Regardless of who and what gender either of you are. Love is just as big a component of marriage, in my opinion, as gender is. If one doesn't love the other person for who he/she is, then NO, they shouldn't marry.
A couple could go to the justice of peace to get married. I dare not judge you and your husband's marriage on any basis. I don't care that you're agnostic either, go for what you believe in your heart. I am NOT HERE TO JUDGE anyone. I AM NOT HERE TO INSULT anyone. I am simply saying that everyone should have the right, however, everyone should not do it.0 -
I can think of about 1100 reasons why a gay couple should want to get married. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
You keep asking why they should want to get married. Why shouldn't they? Because society says it's not the norm? So what? 50 years ago it wasn't the norm for women to have a job outside the house. 40 years ago it wasn't the norm for blacks to live in the same neighborhoods as whites. 60 years ago it wasn't the norm for women to wear pants. Society evolves. Always has, always will. As a black man you should be very glad that society evolves and social norms change.
Aside from the fact that society has not completely evolved to accept gay marriage (and lets face it, there will always be some who won't just as there will always be some who think that blacks shouldn't mix with whites and women shouldn't work outside the home) why shouldn't a gay couple get married? I posted 1100 reasons why they should. I'd love to hear some non religious reasons why they shouldn't.
I do give you kudos. The societal norm reason is the first non religious reason I've ever heard. However, I think that's been pretty well countered unless you think that just because you have the right to live wherever you want that doesn't mean you should. It's really not comparable to wearing spandex. Denying gays the right to marry is keeping them as second class citizens the same way that blacks were once denied the opportunity to buy homes in white neighborhoods. When that was deemed unconstitutional would you have said that just because they had the right to live where they want that doesn't mean they should?0 -
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups.
I don't even know how to respond to this, without basically calling you an ignorant ****.
:noway:
Wow, tell me how you really feel. I do apologize for upsetting you to the point of calling me names. That was never my intention. I really do apologize for upsetting you. Please don't harbor any hard feelings toward me for feeling the way I feel/thinking the way I think.0 -
I must disagree. I think that the sanction of marriage is actually rooted in biblical/religious foundations. While there are several legal advantages to marriage, I think that the basis of marriage was founded in religion. Think about it. Before there were tax breaks or anything else we were getting married to one another.
Historically, before any religion attempted to lay claim to it. marriage was mostly a financial transaction to transfer property, which frequently involved women. Personally, I'm glad marriage, as a concept, has evolved...Just sayin'
It doesn't really matter though, does it? Religions don't own words. In like fashion, our government doesn't force churches to marry people. Any religious objection to same-sex marriages don't carry through to the secular world.
Toche, I digress. I bow out of that argument. You have proven me wrong on that.0 -
I must disagree. I think that the sanction of marriage is actually rooted in biblical/religious foundations. While there are several legal advantages to marriage, I think that the basis of marriage was founded in religion. Think about it. Before there were tax breaks or anything else we were getting married to one another.
I understand your point of view, I do. I agree that the roots of marriage are religious. I also think that religious groups should be able to make up whatever rules they want so long as church and state are separate. However I believe that modern day marriage has evolved to a point meaning many things to many different people. For the most part, as a society I think it represents a union and a commitment between two people. For this reason I think same sex marriage needs to be allowed.
Thank you for not calling me an idiot or ignorant.
Like I said before, I have friends that are gay and I love them to death and beyond! Really I do. I have fought along side them plenty of times for different things associated with inequality and injustice, etc. However, if any one of them were to ask me if they should get married, I would lovingly say no. Commit yourself to the person that you love and call it a day. Love on each other. Be with each other. Live with each other. Have a party, exchange commitment rings. Do whatever you want, except for get married. If they were to get married to their partners, oh well, I still love them the same. Nothing will change. I will still fight for/along side them against injustice and all of the morons that think that they are better then them for being who they are. As I know they will fight for/with me for being who I am when some idiot tries to come at me incorrectly.
I like what you said about the evolution of marriage. Let me think on that one for a while.....0 -
Commit yourself to the person that you love and call it a day. Love on each other. Be with each other. Live with each other. Have a party, exchange commitment rings. Do whatever you want, except for get married.
I really don't understand your viewpoint at all. You have no problem with a gay couple essentially being married (permanent commitment, marriage ceremony, etc.), but you don't want them to get any tax breaks, partnership benefits, etc.that is normally afforded married couples? I am really confused...0 -
Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion.
Just to clarify. You support same-sex marriage being legal in that you don't think it should be banned, but you don't think people should do it either?
You hit the nail on the head right there. That is exactly what I am saying.
The choice should be afforded to everyone. To tell anyone that he/she doesn't have a choice is simply wrong and we should rectify that as soon as possible. It should be up to us to make the choice that we feel is appropriate, not the government.0 -
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
By that logic, anyone who's atheist is also just trying to antagonize religious groups by getting married; realistically those same religious groups should also have a problem with atheist marriage if the argument against same-sex marriage is one of sanctity. I think a fundamental flaw with your line of thinking is the assumption that the opinions of outside religious groups, either pro or opposed to same-sex marriage, matter by necessity. They don't. At all.
I'm having a dumb moment right now. I can't even understand exactly what you mean by what you just wrote.
You're making a few assertions based on a few assumptions.
Assertion: Same-sex couples who get married do so for no other reason than either seeking legal benefits or trying to taunt religious groups
Premise: The only possible desire to get married are either spite or the desire for legal benefits.
I was stating that presumably the problem with same-sex marriage from certain religious perspectives is one of sanctity. Well, atheist marriage isn't sanctified by the Church either. Do they get married for no other reason to taunt religious people or for legal benefits?
Additionally, which I didn't post at first. plenty of churches support same-sex marriage. So if we apply the same critique, it's kind of like saying Jews get married just to rub Catholics' noses in it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I LOVE Susan Orman, one day on the show she made a statement about how she and her partner would have to pay some ridiculously high rate of taxes on the other person's inheritance if one of them should die and leave the other person their fortune (both of the women are quite wealthy). She said that it was ridiculous that they helped each other build this life for themselves and there is no way of getting around paying those taxes because it is not legal for them to get married in the state that they live in. That is why I made the comment about taxes and/or financial benefit. I understood where Susan was coming from.
I can't speak on atheist marriage.
I will say this though. Churches that support same-sex marriage is making a choice to do so. They have every right to make that choice. It is not my place to say that they should be condemned to a life time in solitary confinement because of that choice. No one has the right to tell them that they don't have the right to make the choice to support it or not. My argument is that I wouldn't make the choice, and that is simply because I think that marriage should be a certain way. Not saying that the people that think differently then me are wrong for thinking differently then me. For all I know, they are right and I am wrong (I don't think that I am wrong, but hey, neither do the people that think the opposite of what I think!)0 -
What, exactly, is your reason for thinking marriage should only be between heterosexual couples? You haven't stated a reason for that.0
-
Just read this:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstituional, though it has a high likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court for a final showdown. This is a big victory for equal-rights folks out there.
Discuss.
You know what, I'm happy that we as a country have gotten to the place where we are truly separating church and state since we are making that proclamation and such. However, I don't necessarily agree, and this is totally because of my own personal view toward marriage, that homosexuals should marry. I think that we should all have the right to marry of course, I just don't think that homosexuals should do so. I think that it is a union that should be reserved for a man and a woman who falls in love. Men that want to spend the rest of their lives with other men should do so, and women who want to spend the rest of their lives with other women should do so. I just don't think that they should go so far as to get married to do so.
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
While I understand your point of view, I believe that God loves all his children and wants them to be happy. That being said, a civil union is much different than holy matrimony. I do feel that this ruling is a step in the right direction for keeping equality a non-religious issue.
Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion.
You are completely contradicting yourself. I find your opinion of gay people incredibly offensive. What reasons would YOU want to get married? Gay people want to get married for those exact same reasons. We're not aliens. We're human. As a woman who is married to another woman, I honestly find opinions like yours kind of hurtful. I don't care about religion. In fact, I'm atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't want to, or shouldn't, get married. Or have the right to, just like you do. Marriage isn't black and white and has nothing to do with church for some of us.
Like I said before. My intentions were never ever to offend or degrade anyone for anything. I am glad that you are happy in your marriage and I am glad that you are doing what makes you feel fulfilled in life. I sincerely apologize for offending you.
Like I said before, I don't condemn people for doing what they feel is the right thing to do. I am only trying to explain my view of what I think marriage is. I am trying my best to do it in as humbly a way as possible. I am not trying to be self righteous. Trust me, if you knew me, you would know that is not the case.
Let me try it this way. I have a sister that got married to man that disrespected her, hit her, burned her, and was down right not a good man or boyfriend. They had the right to get married (the same as you and your partner had the right to get married). Do I think that they should have gotten married, no, I don't think that they should've gotten married. I know that we aren't talking about abuse in your situation or any other homosexual situation. We are talking about civil rights and equality. For my argument, I am using my sister because she has the legal right to get married (as I hope everyone one day will have) however, I don't think that she should've gotten married to that man. She made a choice to do what she did. I love my sister just the same.
I have an aunt that I love dearly that is gay and she got married to her partner a couple of years ago. I went to the engagement party and everything. I love them both just as I loved them before. Do I think they should've gotten married, no, they were happy before they got married. I still don't understand why they spent all of that money to get married. Going out of state, paying for the license, etc. I think they could've loved each other for free and went about their merry way.
Again, I do apologize for offending you.0 -
My argument is that I wouldn't make the choice, and that is simply because I think that marriage should be a certain way. Not saying that the people that think differently then me are wrong for thinking differently then me. For all I know, they are right and I am wrong (I don't think that I am wrong, but hey, neither do the people that think the opposite of what I think!)
Ok, so what you actually said--I know because you confirmed it when I asked earlier--is that same-sex couples shouldn't get married, as if it were a universal truth. You said nothing about how it's just your opinion because you happen to view marriage in a particular way. The fact that you mentioned how you view marriage at all is a little suspect.
That is, who cares? Not be rude about it, but really. Unless you're attempting to extend your opinion about marriage to a larger audience, why would anyone care about whether or not you think marriage should be between a man and a woman or not---except perhaps someone who wants to marry you?
So what you're really saying is that you feel marriage should be a certain way...for yourself. Because to suggest marriage should be a certain way for anyone else is a little arrogant.0 -
Just read this:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstituional, though it has a high likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court for a final showdown. This is a big victory for equal-rights folks out there.
Discuss.
You know what, I'm happy that we as a country have gotten to the place where we are truly separating church and state since we are making that proclamation and such. However, I don't necessarily agree, and this is totally because of my own personal view toward marriage, that homosexuals should marry. I think that we should all have the right to marry of course, I just don't think that homosexuals should do so. I think that it is a union that should be reserved for a man and a woman who falls in love. Men that want to spend the rest of their lives with other men should do so, and women who want to spend the rest of their lives with other women should do so. I just don't think that they should go so far as to get married to do so.
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
While I understand your point of view, I believe that God loves all his children and wants them to be happy. That being said, a civil union is much different than holy matrimony. I do feel that this ruling is a step in the right direction for keeping equality a non-religious issue.
Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion.
You are completely contradicting yourself. I find your opinion of gay people incredibly offensive. What reasons would YOU want to get married? Gay people want to get married for those exact same reasons. We're not aliens. We're human. As a woman who is married to another woman, I honestly find opinions like yours kind of hurtful. I don't care about religion. In fact, I'm atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't want to, or shouldn't, get married. Or have the right to, just like you do. Marriage isn't black and white and has nothing to do with church for some of us.
Like I said before. My intentions were never ever to offend or degrade anyone for anything. I am glad that you are happy in your marriage and I am glad that you are doing what makes you feel fulfilled in life. I sincerely apologize for offending you.
Like I said before, I don't condemn people for doing what they feel is the right thing to do. I am only trying to explain my view of what I think marriage is. I am trying my best to do it in as humbly a way as possible. I am not trying to be self righteous. Trust me, if you knew me, you would know that is not the case.
Let me try it this way. I have a sister that got married to man that disrespected her, hit her, burned her, and was down right not a good man or boyfriend. They had the right to get married (the same as you and your partner had the right to get married). Do I think that they should have gotten married, no, I don't think that they should've gotten married. I know that we aren't talking about abuse in your situation or any other homosexual situation. We are talking about civil rights and equality. For my argument, I am using my sister because she has the legal right to get married (as I hope everyone one day will have) however, I don't think that she should've gotten married to that man. She made a choice to do what she did. I love my sister just the same.
I have an aunt that I love dearly that is gay and she got married to her partner a couple of years ago. I went to the engagement party and everything. I love them both just as I loved them before. Do I think they should've gotten married, no, they were happy before they got married. I still don't understand why they spent all of that money to get married. Going out of state, paying for the license, etc. I think they could've loved each other for free and went about their merry way.
Again, I do apologize for offending you.
In that case, why don't you feel the same way about straight people? Why can't they just stay how they are, living together, etc. and leave out the marriage bit? You seem to think it's pointless.0 -
If two consenting adults want to get married, it doesn't matter what my "opinion" is on it.....they are not in the least bit harming anyone else or infringing on anyone elses rights. My "opinion" does not matter. I'm going to live my life regardless of other peoples approval, homosexuals should have that right as well. If I or anyone else doesn't like....well, no one said freedom was easy.0
-
As a gay person, the inherent privilege of straight people is, at times, very frustrating. :brokenheart:0
-
"Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion."
Based upon this statement, you are saying that the only people who get married are those who believe in God and want to make a religious committment. That is rather hypocritical. I can hear that you are saying that while you feel it should not be banned, you don't beleive that it should take place. So in your mind-frame, while the LBGT community should not be banned from marriage, they should make the decision not to make a committment? Isn't that kind of the same thing as a ban?
The history of marriage is not wholly rooted in religion BTW. History repeatedly shows that marriage was used as a way of transferring property, strengthening political ties, and purifying bloodlines. While the concept of matrimony goes back to Adam and Eve, the formation of Christianity and the puritan mind-set is where "holy matrimony" developed. Prior to that, it was a legal binding contract between a husband and the wife's family. It has not been until the past several hundred years that women have even been given a choice in the decision process.
While "holy matrimony" and the idea of such should be held to the reservations of the religious preference, a legal civil union as performed by the governmental bodies should be open to all regardless of sexual preference.
Thanks for not calling me an idiot or ignorant.
Someone previously killed my argument about marriage taking place before legal benefits and such. I respectfully agree with you all on that point.
I would, however, like to point out that I don't disagree with the commitment between same-sex couples. I have stated before that I am all for people committing to one another for a lifetime. I'm a big proponent of freedom of choice. I believe in free will. We should all have the right to make the choice that we want. I don't have to agree with the choices that are made though. So, to answer your question. Yes, do believe that we should all have the right to marry, but I think that we should make the choice to do it with someone of the opposite sex. For those of us that choose not to do it with someone of the opposite sex, I love them just the same.0 -
"Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion."
Based upon this statement, you are saying that the only people who get married are those who believe in God and want to make a religious committment. That is rather hypocritical. I can hear that you are saying that while you feel it should not be banned, you don't beleive that it should take place. So in your mind-frame, while the LBGT community should not be banned from marriage, they should make the decision not to make a committment? Isn't that kind of the same thing as a ban?
The history of marriage is not wholly rooted in religion BTW. History repeatedly shows that marriage was used as a way of transferring property, strengthening political ties, and purifying bloodlines. While the concept of matrimony goes back to Adam and Eve, the formation of Christianity and the puritan mind-set is where "holy matrimony" developed. Prior to that, it was a legal binding contract between a husband and the wife's family. It has not been until the past several hundred years that women have even been given a choice in the decision process.
While "holy matrimony" and the idea of such should be held to the reservations of the religious preference, a legal civil union as performed by the governmental bodies should be open to all regardless of sexual preference.
Thanks for not calling me an idiot or ignorant.
Someone previously killed my argument about marriage taking place before legal benefits and such. I respectfully agree with you all on that point.
I would, however, like to point out that I don't disagree with the commitment between same-sex couples. I have stated before that I am all for people committing to one another for a lifetime. I'm a big proponent of freedom of choice. I believe in free will. We should all have the right to make the choice that we want. I don't have to agree with the choices that are made though. So, to answer your question. Yes, do believe that we should all have the right to marry, but I think that we should make the choice to do it with someone of the opposite sex. For those of us that choose not to do it with someone of the opposite sex, I love them just the same.
Thanks for assuming that being gay or loving someone of the same sex is a choice. Your argument doesn't make any sense and hasn't from the beginning. I've asked you to clarify and you still haven't. Do you not have a reason? Luckily, I live in a place that doesn't discriminate against me just because my partner doesn't have a penis. It's a good thing you're not the one calling the shots, because there would probably be a lot of questions you wouldn't have any answers to.0 -
I can think of about 1100 reasons why a gay couple should want to get married. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
You keep asking why they should want to get married. Why shouldn't they? Because society says it's not the norm? So what? 50 years ago it wasn't the norm for women to have a job outside the house. 40 years ago it wasn't the norm for blacks to live in the same neighborhoods as whites. 60 years ago it wasn't the norm for women to wear pants. Society evolves. Always has, always will. As a black man you should be very glad that society evolves and social norms change.
Aside from the fact that society has not completely evolved to accept gay marriage (and lets face it, there will always be some who won't just as there will always be some who think that blacks shouldn't mix with whites and women shouldn't work outside the home) why shouldn't a gay couple get married? I posted 1100 reasons why they should. I'd love to hear some non religious reasons why they shouldn't.
I do give you kudos. The societal norm reason is the first non religious reason I've ever heard. However, I think that's been pretty well countered unless you think that just because you have the right to live wherever you want that doesn't mean you should. It's really not comparable to wearing spandex. Denying gays the right to marry is keeping them as second class citizens the same way that blacks were once denied the opportunity to buy homes in white neighborhoods. When that was deemed unconstitutional would you have said that just because they had the right to live where they want that doesn't mean they should?
Toche! Thanks for not calling me an idiot or ignorant. I greatly appreciate that.
I can't think of any non-religious reasons as to why same-sex individuals shouldn't get married. That is why I agree that we as humans should have the legal right to get married to whomever we please. Outside of my religious convictions, there are absolutely no reasons why a gay person couldn't get married.
That was an incredibly great argument!0 -
Commit yourself to the person that you love and call it a day. Love on each other. Be with each other. Live with each other. Have a party, exchange commitment rings. Do whatever you want, except for get married.
I really don't understand your viewpoint at all. You have no problem with a gay couple essentially being married (permanent commitment, marriage ceremony, etc.), but you don't want them to get any tax breaks, partnership benefits, etc.that is normally afforded married couples? I am really confused...
I think that we as humans should have the right to be with the person that we fall in love with. I don't think that love is a respecter of person. We fall in love with whom we fall in love with. If we just so happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex, by all means, we should be with that person if that's what you want to do. Live together, exchange commitment rings, have a commitment ring exchange party, love each other with all of your heart. Personally, and this is purely because of my religious convictions, I think that marriage itself is reserved for a man and a woman. Not commitment between two people. Gay people should commit to one person and settle down. I just think that actual marriage is/should be between people of the opposite sex and again, that is because that is what I think God has told us.0 -
If two consenting adults want to get married, it doesn't matter what my "opinion" is on it.....they are not in the least bit harming anyone else or infringing on anyone elses rights. My "opinion" does not matter. I'm going to live my life regardless of other peoples approval, homosexuals should have that right as well. If I or anyone else doesn't like....well, no one said freedom was easy.
Good point....0 -
"Well, I would suppose in the most technical of ways there are differences between civil unions and holy matrimony but honestly, lets just be straight about it. We are going for a separate but equal action here. I'm not saying that we should ban gay marriage. I don't think that we have the right to tell someone that they don't deserve to get married. We all should have the legal right to do, I'm just saying that we shouldn't get married. Again, this is just my own personal opinion."
Based upon this statement, you are saying that the only people who get married are those who believe in God and want to make a religious committment. That is rather hypocritical. I can hear that you are saying that while you feel it should not be banned, you don't beleive that it should take place. So in your mind-frame, while the LBGT community should not be banned from marriage, they should make the decision not to make a committment? Isn't that kind of the same thing as a ban?
The history of marriage is not wholly rooted in religion BTW. History repeatedly shows that marriage was used as a way of transferring property, strengthening political ties, and purifying bloodlines. While the concept of matrimony goes back to Adam and Eve, the formation of Christianity and the puritan mind-set is where "holy matrimony" developed. Prior to that, it was a legal binding contract between a husband and the wife's family. It has not been until the past several hundred years that women have even been given a choice in the decision process.
While "holy matrimony" and the idea of such should be held to the reservations of the religious preference, a legal civil union as performed by the governmental bodies should be open to all regardless of sexual preference.
Thanks for not calling me an idiot or ignorant.
Someone previously killed my argument about marriage taking place before legal benefits and such. I respectfully agree with you all on that point.
I would, however, like to point out that I don't disagree with the commitment between same-sex couples. I have stated before that I am all for people committing to one another for a lifetime. I'm a big proponent of freedom of choice. I believe in free will. We should all have the right to make the choice that we want. I don't have to agree with the choices that are made though. So, to answer your question. Yes, do believe that we should all have the right to marry, but I think that we should make the choice to do it with someone of the opposite sex. For those of us that choose not to do it with someone of the opposite sex, I love them just the same.
Thanks for assuming that being gay or loving someone of the same sex is a choice. Your argument doesn't make any sense and hasn't from the beginning. I've asked you to clarify and you still haven't. Do you not have a reason? Luckily, I live in a place that doesn't discriminate against me just because my partner doesn't have a penis. It's a good thing you're not the one calling the shots, because there would probably be a lot of questions you wouldn't have any answers to.
You are right. I am wrong. I have no right to express my own personal opinion about marriage in a public forum like this. Just because I wouldn't do something it doesn't make it wrong for someone else to do it. I understand that. I digress completely and totally bow out of this discussion defeated. I have insulted you and again, I extend my sincerest apologies publicly.0 -
Just read this:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstituional, though it has a high likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court for a final showdown. This is a big victory for equal-rights folks out there.
Discuss.
You know what, I'm happy that we as a country have gotten to the place where we are truly separating church and state since we are making that proclamation and such. However, I don't necessarily agree, and this is totally because of my own personal view toward marriage, that homosexuals should marry. I think that we should all have the right to marry of course, I just don't think that homosexuals should do so. I think that it is a union that should be reserved for a man and a woman who falls in love. Men that want to spend the rest of their lives with other men should do so, and women who want to spend the rest of their lives with other women should do so. I just don't think that they should go so far as to get married to do so.
I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
If being gay and getting married antagonizes religious groups.....well that's just icing on the BIG FAT GAY WEDDING CAKE!!!!!!!0 -
Just read this:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-violates-constitution-appeals-court-finds/
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstituional, though it has a high likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court for a final showdown. This is a big victory for equal-rights folks out there.
Discuss.
*I mean really, if you are homosexual then the only reason you want to get married is so that you can antagonize the religious groups. If you would proclaim your affection, love, and dedication to someone else I don't think that anyone would have anything to say. However, going so far as to get married. I think that those individuals are simply looking for a fight. Unless of course those individuals are going in for financial and tax purposes.*
I don't think that is the debate right now though. For arguments sake. I think that we are really coming a great far as a country and we are making strides toward equality and indifference.
Why else do others get married if not for financial, insurance, legal, and tax purposes? How are they antagonizing religious groups when marriage is sanctioned by the state government NOT by religion?
I must disagree. I think that the sanction of marriage is actually rooted in biblical/religious foundations. While there are several legal advantages to marriage, I think that the basis of marriage was founded in religion. Think about it. Before there were tax breaks or anything else we were getting married to one another.
Before there was religion we were getting married to each other, too.
And we were shtupping each other as well. Probably in several places.
Seriously--when it comes to civil rights and equality, "biblical/religious foundations" mean precisely d!ck. We have one "foundation" in this country:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
That supersedes any religious blather.
Now some might argue whether or not marriage is really a "pursuit of Happiness" :laugh: , but that choice should be left up to the individual.0 -
Sruffin, it seems to me that your issue is with the definition of "marriage" even though you didn't expressly say that. Is that correct? If so I say again, society evolves. Marriage has meant a lot of things throughout the ages. It has been a transference of property (the woman) far more often and for far longer than it ever had anything to do with love. It has been banned to blacks completely in this country just a few hundred years ago. It was banned to interracial couples in America as recently as 1967. Did they have to change the definition of marriage when blacks were allowed to marry? What about when interracial marriages were made legal?
Don't try saying it's different because those were still marriages between men and women. There were a lot of arguments about it back then, some citing Biblical references, as to why marriage was only for whites and later why it wasn't for interracial couples. Just because we're now talking about gays that doesn't change the definition anymore than we had to change the definition of "Army" when DADT was repealed.0 -
Toche! Thanks for not calling me an idiot or ignorant. I greatly appreciate that.
I can't think of any non-religious reasons as to why same-sex individuals shouldn't get married. That is why I agree that we as humans should have the legal right to get married to whomever we please. Outside of my religious convictions, there are absolutely no reasons why a gay person couldn't get married.
That was an incredibly great argument!
I understand your religious convictions. Separation of Church and State is for a reason. For you personally marriage means one thing, to others it means something else, and whatever that is we have no right to deny them a Civil Marriage based on religious beliefs. Civil marriage isn't a Holy Sacrament - the terms of the Bible or any other religious source has no bearing on it.0 -
hahahaha
If being gay and getting married antagonizes religious groups.....well that's just icing on the BIG FAT GAY WEDDING CAKE!!!!!!!0 -
hahahaha
If being gay and getting married antagonizes religious groups.....well that's just icing on the BIG FAT GAY WEDDING CAKE!!!!!!!
I love it! That was really funny! :drinker:0
This discussion has been closed.