174 replies to this topic

[luvsmyncis]

Get use to it. It will be legal in the next 10 yrs watch. Right now there is a law suit in California over Prop 8, that a civil rights issue should never be "up for a vote", AND most law experts say no matter who wins or loses it will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Great. Leave it up to the assholes who blocked a ban on corporate political spending. If GLADD can come up with a way to line the pockets of the chief justices, then I'd say this is a wonderful idea!

[chobitz]

Great. Leave it up to the assholes who blocked a ban on corporate political spending. If GLADD can come up with a way to line the pockets of the chief justices, then I'd say this is a wonderful idea!

Nah usually I would agree with you but the "family values" team of idjits are getting their ass handed to them in this case so far. Even their "experts" on gay marriage admitted they had no scientific studies or even unbiased research results on the negativity of gay marriage. While the pro gay marriage team has tons of scientific and unbiased research to prove their is no negatives to gay marriage.

While I DO NOT agree on the Supreme Court's ruling on corporate funding I DO understand why they ruled. They took the letter of the law and just ruled on the lower court's rulings on those cases. An amendment to fix the hole in the constitution would fix the problem.

All the supreme court needs is the laws, and facts on this specific law suit against Prop 8. Since sexual orientation is covered under hate crimes and discrimination laws plus this falls under civil rights IMO the supreme court IS painted into a corner by their own past rulings on civil rights and discrimination. IMO the supreme court will have to rule by past rulings that the Prop 8 votes were unconstitutional as civil rights cases CANNOT be put up for vote.

Imagine if the south was allowed to vote on the abolishment on Jim Crow laws for example..

This would be the first hurdle to pass to legalize gay marriage. It would make it unconstitutional to allow gay marriage be up for votes.

THEN an amendment similar to other civil rights amendments could be introduced.

This a civil rights issue pure and simple.

[Frizzle]

Except for the fact that a state religion isn't inherently tied to every act of legislation.
There's no valid reason that England can't make marriage legal without forcing even CofE churches to comply.

Well most legislation is based around our old christian values. Infact most of our culture is. Surely something like this would be up for a referendum and not be made on the whim of some gay rights groups.

Oh btw I wished you a happy birthday on FB the other day just incase you didn't get it xx

[Joanna]

Well most legislation is based around our old christian values. Infact most of our culture is. Surely something like this would be up for a referendum and not be made on the whim of some gay rights groups.

Oh btw I wished you a happy birthday on FB the other day just incase you didn't get it xx

"on the whim of gay rights groups" You act like these people don't have rights because they're gay?!
Boy I am surely glad that we can finally consider black people and women equal among us, but taking it a step further to all people would just be to much because God says so.
Its so nice that he "loves" all people isn't it?

[chobitz]

"on the whim of gay rights groups" You act like these people don't have rights because they're gay?!
Boy I am surely glad that we can finally consider black people and women equal among us, but taking it a step further to all people would just be to much because God says so.
Its so nice that he "loves" all people isn't it?

Yep "love thy neighbor" unless he/she is another religion, race or gay..

[iargue]

Nah usually I would agree with you but the "family values" team of idjits are getting their ass handed to them in this case so far. Even their "experts" on gay marriage admitted they had no scientific studies or even unbiased research results on the negativity of gay marriage. While the pro gay marriage team has tons of scientific and unbiased research to prove their is no negatives to gay marriage.

Wtf are you talking about. Scientific and unbaised reasearch to prove their is no negatives to gay marriage? This isnt something you can research? Does the research involve having two guys married and seeing if one of them turns into a serial killer? This sure isnt an issue. If your trying to fight an opinion, with research, your going to fail. Providing scientific evidence about gay marriage is just pure retarded.

All the supreme court needs is the laws, and facts on this specific law suit against Prop 8. Since sexual orientation is covered under hate crimes and discrimination laws plus this falls under civil rights IMO the supreme court IS painted into a corner by their own past rulings on civil rights and discrimination. IMO the supreme court will have to rule by past rulings that the Prop 8 votes were unconstitutional as civil rights cases CANNOT be put up for vote

.

Wrong. The supreme court is free to rule in any way they wish, and their lastest ruling is the only one that is valid.

This would be the first hurdle to pass to legalize gay marriage. It would make it unconstitutional to allow gay marriage be up for votes.

Democracy is unconstitional eh? I didnt know that.

This a civil rights issue pure and simple.

This is about people gaining state benefits. Thats not Civil at all.

[Sweeney]

Democracy is unconstitional eh? I didnt know that.

Um... well, then you're not paying attention.
The US Constitution specifically lays out a set of unilateral basic rules of society that are, by definition, not up for debate.
The very definition of undemocratic.

Ergo, attempting to apply the democratic process to the topics covered in the Constitution is unconstitutional.

[Joanna]

Um... well, then you're not paying attention.
The US Constitution specifically lays out a set of unilateral basic rules of society that are, by definition, not up for debate.
The very definition of undemocratic.

Ergo, attempting to apply the democratic process to the topics covered in the Constitution is unconstitutional.

That is exactly why we will never have extreme gun control laws in the United States. The right to bear arms is an undebatable constitutional right.
Whether I agree with it or not is a completely different story.

[chobitz]

Um... well, then you're not paying attention.
The US Constitution specifically lays out a set of unilateral basic rules of society that are, by definition, not up for debate.
The very definition of undemocratic.

Ergo, attempting to apply the democratic process to the topics covered in the Constitution is unconstitutional.

And civil rights are one of them..

Like I said before, civil rights should never be up for vote because of a loud minority *cough* Christian right bible belt *cough*. The Jim Crowe Laws would not have been overthrown if allowed to be up for a vote.

Legalization of gay marriage IS a federal not stat by state civil right. Why? because there has been issues of gay married couples being told their passports were invalid to return into the US because the US on a whole doesn't recognize state by state gay marriage.

So an amendment to the constitution must be made, or an amendment that says people can't be discriminated against with marriage contracts. Because marriages are LEGAL contracts NOT religious based. Religion was brought into the marriage scenario later.

An honest question for those against gay marriage.. how can two people in love and getting married honestly hurting you?

[Frizzle]

"on the whim of gay rights groups" You act like these people don't have rights because they're gay?!
Boy I am surely glad that we can finally consider black people and women equal among us, but taking it a step further to all people would just be to much because God says so.
Its so nice that he "loves" all people isn't it?

Where did I imply that homosexuals did not have rights? It's merely a cynical view of the force and intimidation that gay rights group use to forcefully push across their point.

I'd rather not get into the religious arguement as I'm purely agnostic (or simply, I do not care.); all I'm explaining is that when a country is built upon certain traditions and values it shouldn't be undermine simply because a small minoritiy wishes to change it dramatically. Our country was based around simple christian traditions, and although the faith is falling, it's unacceptable that it can be undone so easily because of a small group with a large voice.

Simply, this should be put to a political referendum and the choice should be in the hands of the voters of this country. I find it such a hard and complex issue that a simple 664 men and women (who are highly biased as it is) to make the decision for us. (Prehaps over 1,000 if you include the lords, but this is merely a tangent.) If a large majority of voters wished that gay marriage would be legal then that's how it's done. Democracy in action.

Civil unions are already in place (and ironically, gay "divorces"), so I think that it shows that the vast majority of people accept (at least partially), homosexuals as a part of our society. I just don't buy into the whole ideal of changing our country and forcing our state religion to change it's views based on online petition or a growing urge in the LGBT community.

[Joanna]

No one is asking religious people to change their views. The US is not a christian country and it was founded on the principles of separation of church and state.
Marriage is not a solely religious institution and therefore should not only be limited to straight people.
While there are not as many gays as there are straights that does not give us the right to discriminate against them.
Because that is what this is. It is discrimination.

In the US there is no state religion, there is a freedom of religion, and that is what I am talking about. Why should a country that says you can be whatever you want to be tell you that because christian values dictate that marriage is between a man and a woman, you cannot marry.
Its bull, if we have the freedom to be whatever we want to, then why does ONE religion out of the hundreds that there are get to tell everyone what they can and cannot do? It should be no religion telling anyone anything.

There should be liberty for all like our Declaration and Constitution state.

[Frizzle]

You seem to be forgetting you live in a democratic society. If more people want gay marriage then people who don't, you'll get gay marriage. If not, you don't. (Simplified).

The US is murky water for this type of conversation, you have three political/legislature levels. Federal, state and national if I'm not mistaken. Because of this, you cannot be justified in saying that because there is a seperation of state and church that gay marriage must be accepeted. This would be defermential and contradictary to many people's ways of lives. You cannot change their way of view and if they have a stronger voice in politics then it must be accepted. You cannot change the rules of game just because it isn't going your way.

You cry discrimination but it'll fall on deaf ears. It's not discrimination if gays do not get the right to marriage because it is politics. Simply enough it's a numbers game. The more people who wish for something to happen in politics, the more likely it will happen.

You cannot assume that more people will think in patricular way just because there isn't enough of you. There are more white politicans then black politicans, that is because America is a "white country" and the largest demographic is white. Statistically what are the olds of a black or other minoirity character getting into politics? Rare or low. That's not discrimination, that's the law of odds.

Just like, odds are, more people are against gay marriage then are in favour. That is why gays do not deserve the right to marriage. Not because of the act or anything to do with the issue. But simply, it is a numbers game.

Give it time, I'll assure you it'll change, but until then all you can keep on doing is going to protests or whining on online forums.

[chobitz]

You seem to be forgetting you live in a democratic society. If more people want gay marriage then people who don't, you'll get gay marriage. If not, you don't. (Simplified).

The US is murky water for this type of conversation, you have three political/legislature levels. Federal, state and national if I'm not mistaken. Because of this, you cannot be justified in saying that because there is a seperation of state and church that gay marriage must be accepeted. This would be defermential and contradictary to many people's ways of lives. You cannot change their way of view and if they have a stronger voice in politics then it must be accepted. You cannot change the rules of game just because it isn't going your way.

You cry discrimination but it'll fall on deaf ears. It's not discrimination if gays do not get the right to marriage because it is politics. Simply enough it's a numbers game. The more people who wish for something to happen in politics, the more likely it will happen.

You cannot assume that more people will think in patricular way just because there isn't enough of you. There are more white politicans then black politicans, that is because America is a "white country" and the largest demographic is white. Statistically what are the olds of a black or other minoirity character getting into politics? Rare or low. That's not discrimination, that's the law of odds.

Just like, odds are, more people are against gay marriage then are in favour. That is why gays do not deserve the right to marriage. Not because of the act or anything to do with the issue. But simply, it is a numbers game.

Give it time, I'll assure you it'll change, but until then all you can keep on doing is going to protests or whining on online forums.

Since there ARE federal laws protecting the LGBT community from discrimination and are considered a minority in the hate crimes laws (another federal law) there IS precedence in our laws to call this a civil rights issue.

Because IT IS discriminating against gays from marrying as it did for interracial couples and for disabled people to marry.. NEITHER of those laws required votes to be overturned. Because civil rights laws are usually above votes.

There has been married gay couples having problems reentering the USA because its a state by state law and the USA doesn't recognize their passports. This HAS TO be fixed.

Every few months another state legalizes gay marriage(or "union" which reminds me a little to much of the 'separate but equal' segregation laws) while some states are held captive by the Christian Right (an organization that is RUINING the USA) but one by one they too will fall.

Believe me when (and I predict in the next 5-10 yrs) gay marriage is legal in the US I will be shouting from the roof tops because it means the reign of idiots is over. No I am not saying all Christians are idiots but the extremist group Christian Right ARE pure and simple mean idiots..

[Joanna]

You seem to be forgetting you live in a democratic society. If more people want gay marriage then people who don't, you'll get gay marriage. If not, you don't. (Simplified).

The US is murky water for this type of conversation, you have three political/legislature levels. Federal, state and national if I'm not mistaken. Because of this, you cannot be justified in saying that because there is a seperation of state and church that gay marriage must be accepeted. This would be defermential and contradictary to many people's ways of lives. You cannot change their way of view and if they have a stronger voice in politics then it must be accepted. You cannot change the rules of game just because it isn't going your way.

You cry discrimination but it'll fall on deaf ears. It's not discrimination if gays do not get the right to marriage because it is politics. Simply enough it's a numbers game. The more people who wish for something to happen in politics, the more likely it will happen.

You cannot assume that more people will think in patricular way just because there isn't enough of you. There are more white politicans then black politicans, that is because America is a "white country" and the largest demographic is white. Statistically what are the olds of a black or other minoirity character getting into politics? Rare or low. That's not discrimination, that's the law of odds.

Just like, odds are, more people are against gay marriage then are in favour. That is why gays do not deserve the right to marriage. Not because of the act or anything to do with the issue. But simply, it is a numbers game.

Give it time, I'll assure you it'll change, but until then all you can keep on doing is going to protests or whining on online forums.

You're just telling me the democratic process. Just because it is the way things work when laws are considered does not make it non-discriminatory or make it right. Civil rights are not up for the democratic process in this country because they are constitutionally ours.

(btw the branches of the American government are Executive, Judicial, and Legislative)

If you think about what you are saying, and if you applied it at another controversy we have had in the last hundred years you might change your tune. Just because more people wanted slaves than people who didn't does that make it right? No. Did that mean that it was not going to change, no.

It is the same concept.

You cannot call civil rights a numbers game. These are people. We are not asking the straight people to change their views, or change their way of living because freedom doesn't go up for a vote in this country. You cannot have a stronger voice in this country when it comes to the rights of US citizens. And that is our argument.

If the Christians want marriage to be between a man and a woman- so be it- let them marry who they want to. They cannot force their religious values on the rest of us because we live in a country where you are free to practice whatever-the-fuck you want to and you are free of the government telling you what you can and cannot worship.

If there was a religion in this country that only allowed men to marry men and women to marry women would their views be taken into account? No, and would it still be a numbers game? No! It would be an infringement on their rights. And that is not up for a vote in this country- it is wrong, and that is what the government is failing to see and that is what we want changed.

America isn't a "white" or "black" country anymore. That is an ignorant way to categorize a country that has fought for civil rights throughout its entire existence. I don't know if you noticed, but we elected a black president this year and I would go as far to say that blacks and women have made a bigger imprint on this country's political system than you realize.

Civil rights cannot and are not put up to vote because they are constitutionally made what they are, they are human rights! If these homosexual people are US citizens than they should enjoy all of the rights that heterosexuals do- constitutionally.

You cannot put the rights of man onto a pedestal and vote about them and that is what we are fighting for.

And btw, this is not whining- at all. And I resent that statement.
This is debating.
I would not call it whining when the rights of, what you might find surprising, large group of people are being stomped on! This has nothing to do with whining- it has everything to do with a country living up to what it was founded on and my freedom to talk about it.

[chobitz]

And btw, this is not whining- at all. And I resent that statement.
This is debating.
I would not call it whining when the rights of, what you might find surprising, large group of people are being stomped on! This has nothing to do with whining- it has everything to do with a country living up to what it was founded on and my freedom to talk about it.

You said it much better than I could ever say it.

+rep for that!

[Joanna]

You said it much better than I could ever say it.

+rep for that!

Thank you.

[luvsmyncis]

This has nothing to do with whining- it has everything to do with a country living up to what it was founded on and my freedom to talk about it.

There is a dark side to this free speech business. Because it gives THESE people the right to protest dead solider's funerals for reasons that have nothing to do with the deceased.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU
I cannot even bring myself to hate these people. I just feel sad that they are so horribly misinformed and full of hatred for no good reason.

Our country began with people who were trying to escape religious persecution. Now it has become a country that uses religion to infringe on the rights of it's people. Some day gay marriage may be legal in the USA, but I imagine it will be as taboo as *GASP* EVIL EVIL abortion and you know... UNAMERICAN! Mexicans 'stealing' the white man's jobs.

I do not understand how people fail to see that not allowing gays to marry is parallel to not serving someone in a resturaunt because of the color of their skin. It is wrong and shameful. Is there some way the conservative leaders of this country will lose money if gays get married? Because that's usually the biggest reason they get all huffy about things.

[chobitz]

I do not understand how people fail to see that not allowing gays to marry is parallel to not serving someone in a resturaunt because of the color of their skin. It is wrong and shameful. Is there some way the conservative leaders of this country will lose money if gays get married? Because that's usually the biggest reason they get all huffy about things.

My honest opinion?

This is the Christian Right's do or die issue. They lost over abortion and gay marriage is they last hurrah. When its legalized it will castrate their movement, overthrow any power they think they have.

So they are digging their heels in.

[Joanna]

There is a dark side to this free speech business. Because it gives THESE people the right to protest dead solider's funerals for reasons that have nothing to do with the deceased.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bOrz5k0jWdU[/url]
I cannot even bring myself to hate these people. I just feel sad that they are so horribly misinformed and full of hatred for no good reason.

Our country began with people who were trying to escape religious persecution. Now it has become a country that uses religion to infringe on the rights of it's people. Some day gay marriage may be legal in the USA, but I imagine it will be as taboo as *GASP* EVIL EVIL abortion and you know... UNAMERICAN! Mexicans 'stealing' the white man's jobs.

I do not understand how people fail to see that not allowing gays to marry is parallel to not serving someone in a resturaunt because of the color of their skin. It is wrong and shameful. Is there some way the conservative leaders of this country will lose money if gays get married? Because that's usually the biggest reason they get all huffy about things.

They came to Philly to protest- Haha I followed them around the city and protested their protest. It was fun. I interviewed a couple of them, they are indeed crazy.
They bring their children along with them! There was an extremely sad little boy with them.

They give Christianity a bad name. Even though I am not a christian, i know that normal Christians are NOT like this.

[Georgina]

I think the main issue is that marriage is basically nothing but a religious ceremony, it doesn't actually mean that an individual, or couples, feelings or views of each other will change at all, its simply to be united in the eyes of god. But if homosexuality is against god wishes how can it be deemed that marriage isnt?

I'm totally not against it, to be honest I'm impartial but I can actually see both sides of the argument.

Yes two people love each other, great and some of my best friends are homosexual and I love them to bits, but its the ceremony itself being completely contradicting i can see where the argument is...

[Sweeney]

I think the main issue is that marriage is basically nothing but a religious ceremony, it doesn't actually mean that an individual, or couples, feelings or views of each other will change at all, its simply to be united in the eyes of god. But if homosexuality is against god wishes how can it be deemed that marriage isnt?

I'm totally not against it, to be honest I'm impartial but I can actually see both sides of the argument.

Yes two people love each other, great and some of my best friends are homosexual and I love them to bits, but its the ceremony itself being completely contradicting i can see where the argument is...

Not all religions, or churches, are opposed to homosexuality. Nor has marriage always (or ever) been a solely religious ceremony.
Non-religious couples have been getting married for as long as atheism has existed. Which is always.

[outsidedream86]

Marriage =/= holy matrimony.

Religious institutions already have their own thing--a union of two people with God. But somehow the term "marriage" has been associated with a religious matrimony than with a legally binding contract between two people. I say, civil unions for all, plus an additional matrimony/marriage ceremony through churches for the religious folks.

[Adam]

Civil unions - yes
Marriage - no.

Simple.

QFT

IMO I don't care if you're gay, that's great everyone is entitled to love someone. Not that I'm classifying gay couples as 'lower' then straight but I just don't think gay couples should be allowed to be married, civil union yes.

[luvsmyncis]

QFT

IMO I don't care if you're gay, that's great everyone is entitled to love someone. Not that I'm classifying gay couples as 'lower' then straight but I just don't think gay couples should be allowed to be married, civil union yes.

Then obviously you DO care if someone is gay, and consider them 'lower' to a point, because you don't believe they deserve the same exact benefits straight people do JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.

[Map]

Then obviously you DO care if someone is gay, and consider them 'lower' to a point, because you don't believe they deserve the same exact benefits straight people do JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.

I'm a bit confused in this thread here. Because it seems like this debate is just side versus side. This is just what i'm seeing, but it's basically if you're a minority (thinking that gay marriage is "wrong", or "not right", whatever) then its the majority bashing your head against a wall until your point of view is changed. ?

So anyways to catch up on this thread,

- Are we talking about the Christianity point of view about marriage, and how that's wrong?

- What benefits are we talking about in marriage?? Just the act of being married, or having a ceremony?

- What is your definition of marriage?

Edited by Annabeth, 23 February 2010 - 08:38 AM.