PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Same-sex marriage: It's legal.
       Same-sex marriage is legal even as we speak.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Alexis

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Same-sex marriage has been legal for a century and a half.  Gays and lesbians aren't having their rights simply denied; they're having them flat-out ignored.

I was hoping I might get some insight from some who are opposed to same-sex marriage.  Please don't mistake this for an insult or an attack; I am honestly curious, and my question is sincere.

Regardless of how a person feels about the issue, I do not see any way that a person can honestly claim that disallowing same-sex marriage is not a direct violation of the Constitution.  The reason?  Because it takes about ten seconds to pull the Constitution out, scan down to the 14th Amendment, and point to the Equal Protection Clause.  As Wonka said, it's right there, black and white, clear as crystal.

While it is certainly within a person's rights to reason to themselves and say, "Okay, so it's unconstitutional, I just don't care," is there any other possible justification that can be inferred from such a stance?  Whether you love the idea of same-sex marriage or hate it, how exactly is one capable of denying that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are being blatantly ignored?  I have trouble understanding this.  Can anyone shed any light on the issue for me?  Again, I mean no offense to anyone by this; I am genuinely confused.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:03 AM on February 5, 2008 | IP
ledzappa

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Marriage is not about adults having sex.

Marriage is about providing discipline, resource, guidance and nurture to children.

This is most efficiently accomplished by a Man and a woman contributing to their children's life experience using their own natural gifts towards the goal of raising healthy children.

This also provides for behavior modeling in the mind of the growing child (Girl or Boy) which helps them become secure men and women through the example of their parents.


-------
Peace on ya!
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:57 PM on February 20, 2008 | IP
BOB101

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

most efficiently or most traditionaly?

There is no concrete and non-biased info. about whether same sex merrage is better or worse for the growth of a child, or if it is , whether this is or isn't due to anger and hate being shown to the method and enviroment the child is raised in.

On a related note, i belive that until public belief that homosexuality isn't a bad thiing has gone way farther then it is, and hate stops, children should not be put into that enviroment. Not that a homosexual makes a bad parrent, it's the outside hate.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 02:47 AM on March 24, 2008 | IP
Existantia

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Marriage is not about adults having sex.

Marriage is about providing discipline, resource, guidance and nurture to children.

This is most efficiently accomplished by a Man and a woman contributing to their children's life experience using their own natural gifts towards the goal of raising healthy children.

This also provides for behavior modeling in the mind of the growing child (Girl or Boy) which helps them become secure men and women through the example of their parents."

Totally false. The sexual orientation does not determine the well-being of the child. It is whether or not the parent is an intelligent, emotionally/mentally capable person. Gay people can provide discipline, guidance and resources, they may also teach more tolerance than other families. You can have great or poor behavioural models in both het/gay households. It is not determined by sexual orientation at all. It is as if you cast homosexuality into the same pot as deviancy. It isn't. Gay couples can show a wonderful example of a loving, committed relationship. In fact, a child put into an environment infested with shame (probably something like yours), will probably end up more with more self-hate, anger, emotional distress and narrow-minded views on the world.


-------
"Dr.Frink, Dr.Frink, make ya laugh, make ya think....hoyyyven!!"
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:44 PM on March 25, 2008 | IP
complainjane

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Marriage should remain exactly as it was years ago and it's a sin to alter it.

Y'know, back when women were "chattel" and "property"...

(/sarcasm)

The only thing holding back equality for gays is fear, ignorance and misunderstanding.

(Edited by complainjane 5/23/2008 at 01:29 AM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 01:29 AM on May 23, 2008 | IP
tadpol

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everyone is equally protected to marry a person of opposite gender.

One must remember that there are more than one thing being talked about, there is a federal status, and a religious ceremony. I see federal marriage as basically a subsidy to straight couples. That there are people who do not qualify for the subsidy does not make the subsidy unequal. Do farm or airline subsidies violate my rights?

In the end I guess complainjane is right, the only reason I oppose equality for gays is I am ignorant of the inequality and don't understand the problem.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:18 AM on June 9, 2008 | IP
caligula32

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alright, so here's my beef with the whole issue. I actually don't care to force anyone to not do or to do anything. Live and let live. In my religion however, marriage is defined as a man and a woman making a covenant before God. My fear is that my church will be ostracized and persecuted for not performing gay marriages if it does become nationally accepted. If the nation does accept gay marriage, should my church have to perform gay marriages if asked?
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 04:04 AM on June 28, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"If the nation does accept gay marriage, should my church have to perform gay marriages if asked?"

Nope. That would be like ordering a hamburger at a vegan restaurant and demanding to be served.

Church is an institution of religion; religion is a way of living; people that do not live the way of a religion are not practicing that religion, and have no claim to that religions privileges or entitlement to its' services, therefore they have no influence over the policy that governs said religions practice. So, any couple wishing to be wed, will have to be wed as member of, and present in, an institution of church or state that establishes, and protects the union they desire. If there is no such church or state, the parties may establish their own, in order to gain recognition, and declare their sovereignty over matters such as marriage.

So, practice your religion as you wish, for you have the right, and don't sweat the other peeps, 'cus they got the same rights as you.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:51 PM on June 28, 2008 | IP
Jvel

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

call me old fashion but I think marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women. I think gay marriage is ridiculous. But we heterosexuals have made a joke of it so much so that it doesn't mean anything. People just recite some words and sign their name. It doesn't mean anything. A woman married a dolphine and man married his car. They are all stupid.  I don't care if people think it's mean but homosexuality shouldn't be promoted the way it is now. It's disgusting the way people who have some morals left are treated for thinking homosexuality is sinful.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 03:25 AM on August 8, 2008 | IP
Vagrantdream

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Marriage is not a religious term at all, and while some form of religion has almost always existed, originally marriage was most often a means of assuring alliances by producing offspring which 'bound in blood' two kingdoms, families, clans, etc. Often if offspring were not produced one of the partners (usually the woman) could have been sent back, the alliance nullified (bad omens, etc.), in some cultures the 'offending' family who sent their barren daughter would have to pay in livestock or some other material as a kind of reparation. Religions simply stepped in and sanctioned marriages later on, largely because of the advent of cultures centered around and ruled by a specific religion. However, throughout history women, for instance, have had little to no rights regarding marriage whatsoever. This goes especially for 'biblical' times.

While I can't say that I have anything against christians as a group, I do think that - as a long time student of ancient cultures, especially the near-east cultures - the bible is almost always taken out of it's intended context; a context almost 2000 years old. If you aren't reading the old testament in hebrew, and the new testament in hebrew (or greek for the later books), then you aren't really reading the bible at all, especially if you aren't privy to the historical culture context of the text itself - there is a lot of slang in the new testament, some of it would be shocking for your average conservative christian to recognize for what it is. We know this by comparing other forms of literature from the same cultures (semitic, roman, greek) and identifying similar vocabulary usage in the form of simile, hyperbole, generally poetic language which even now we use but take for granted as 'colloquial' expression.

With that said, there's no real religion basis for banning gay marriage - or for almost anything else in the modern world. I've noticed in this thread a few people mentioning that the 'new testament' - we prefer to call this the 'Gospels' and the 'old testament' the 'Tanakh' - supercedes the old testament, but in reality the text itself (read at face value of course, to be on the same playing field, as it were, as those proponents here) insists that the only alteration to the covenant is that sacrifice is no longer necessary to appease god. The rest of the covenant - the various laws regarding slavery, the ten commandments, and some aspects of the Kosher requirements for diet, etc. - still stands according to Joshua (sorry, I mean Jesus, I'm still stuck on the original hebrew version of his name, being that he was Hebrew.)

While government and religion are only recently (in the span of human cultural history, mind you) largely involved in marriage at all, western cultures at least have almost always had some provisions for the legal marriage between two men. (sorry, girls, but you've pretty much only had rights at all since about 200 years ago, and everything you enjoy now you really didn't get until the 1900s.)

A fairly recent example here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

Further back we find same sex unions for many different reasons - like heterosexual marriage throughout the ages, rarely did it have to do with actual romantic love. In the far east, specifically china and japan, it was not uncommon for an older unwed male to be legally bound to a younger male with all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges of heterosexual marriage, in order to secure a formal heir, as a way of taking care of an orphan or family friend, and in rare instances as a formal expression of the intention to share ones life with another. This was also common in ancient rome and greece as most of us surely know. In almost all cases, however, remember, it had nothing to do with love at all.

Even during the dark ages when the christian church gained power, marriage still had little to do with love. Marriages were frequently arranged by the local clergy, and carried out by them, for the purpose of procreation and nothing more. Sex was taught to be strictly for procreation, and not an expression of love. Couples were joined together strictly to make children who were to be raised as christians. Most objective cultural and socio-political studies support that this was purely to spread the religion as a long term plan to win the numbers game. Other things took place to win this game as well, including the alteration of the original christian tradition to include so called 'pagan' rituals and practices as a way of absorbing local non-christian populace. This is a common thread in most religious cultural history, and almost every religion did this in order to spread into areas where the culture differed significantly.

We come to the present, in america, and in very different times. Now, marriage is almost entirely a matter of love, at least in the western world, with convenience or necessity being the minority reason now. This was a gradual change that was largely begun in victorian europe, after the advent and popularity of the romance novel, which incidentally featured most frequently the classic 'damsel' married unfairly to an unkind husband, while maintaining a passion for her earstwhile underclassed suitor; or the underclassed damsel winning the heart - and thus the privilege to marry - a man of higher class.

Western society was thus inspired to marry for love. However, again religion reared its head to both step in and condone, while at the same time establishing caveats, as it always has be known to do. Not since or before St. Valentine, has the church in any form been known to sanction marriages not approved by respective families or by the church itself, but as times change, the church has changed, reinterpreting 'gods will' to suit the era in order to survive. Better to sacrifice some principles and maintain a hold over the people than to rigidly stick to those same principles and ultimately lose the congregation - after all a religion is nothing without its congregates. It was at the turn of the 19th century that the church began to commonly marry consenting adults who chose, out of love and fidelity, to marry of their own accord. (and the man still had more of a say than a woman in the matter).

So, for those of you proposing that marriage is a religious matter, you are wrong. There's no arguing it, there is no logical basis for it, there is no exception to this rule - historically, marriage the term itself, in various languages, predates the formal western religions from Judaism on up.

For those that say it has always meant, a holy union between a man and a woman, you are also wrong, with the same associated conditions. It has not always been that way, it has not always been a 'holy' matter, and it has just as often been between men as between a man and a woman (there are few instances of marriages between two women, which are difficult to trace as they took place largely in tribal matriarchal nations with little written history) (they do exist, they're just very rare, and mostly extinct).

The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman exclusively is therefore a rather recent (in terms of human history as a whole) and primarily religious motion - in other words, religion didn't invent marriage, it altered it to it's own needs, according to its own morality. And the entire world did not agree, only those areas where the church actually influenced politics and in many cases had its own military.

Personally, I admire the bible as a brilliant work of philosophy and metaphysics, but I read the Tanakh in hebrew and the Gospels in Greek and where available in hebrew. They tell a very different story when read in their native languages in context to culture colloquial semantics. Like the time Jesus took part in a roman orgy.

Seriously. Colloquialisms change every 50 years or so drastically. You would barely understand a 'commoner' from more than 200 years ago. You wouldn't be able to communicate with someone from england over 500 years ago. A foreign culture over 2000 years ago? Euphemism and slang are literally on every page of the gospels. The Tanakh, or more specifically the Torah, can't even be read in hebrew, as it was written in code that would have been more familiar to the egyptians, who had a heiroglyphic alphabet like the early semitic people did.

My point is, the Bible isn't proof of anything, even the matters unrelated to this issue. The only people, at least posting here, who appear to be opposed to gay marriage, seem to be christians, and these people don't even know what their own book says. They heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy... etc., over 1500 years ago.

Marriage is more than saying you want to be together forever. It's a contract saying that as of now, we are family, we have the same rights as a brother to a brother or a sister - and this is what marriage is. It's the making of two people into family, just as it has been since its first conception. A husband and wife are just brother and sister. It may sound sick to you in this modern age, but 2000 years ago and more that's exactly what it meant. We still recognize this in the form of 'in-laws'. You call your partner's siblings 'brother-in-law' and 'sister-in-law'. 'Mother-In-Law' and 'Father-in-law' for their parents. That is where this comes from. It just so happens that this culture recognizes certain rights afforded specifically to family members.

I lost my partner 4 years ago to cancer - it was unrelated to HIV, we were, and I am still, not HIV positive. For the time that he was in the hospital, I was unable to see him. He was in and out for some time, but the last stay he had lasted over two months, and he passed away in the hospital. I did not see him for the last two months in his life. I talked to him on the phone during specific hours, and due to his medications that was not always possible. I was right next door. Because of his condition, I wasn't allowed to visit as he was in intensive care, and only family was allowed visitation.

I sought legal recourse, and had none. When he passed, what assets he had, which we had built together, his family was gracious enough to give to me in accordance with his will - but his will was not enough to ensure that I received what he intended me to have when he left this world.

None of you who oppose gay marriage can possibly imagine that pain. If you could, you would support marriage between any two - or for that matter more than two - people regardless of race, sex, religion, or anything else. Those of you who are opposed are the most heartless, empty beings in this country, because you have no care for your fellow human being, not really. Your love of mankind is conditional. "I wish peace and happiness upon all of mankind, as long as they are not gay (alternatively insert minority here)."

I do believe in a God above, a supreme being who operates throughout and creates all of existence, and all potential for existence. And while I do not believe in a hell - I do not need fear to believe in God - I do believe in judgment and in truth and in forgiveness. I Forgive you for your ignorance, for your hate, and for your fear and pride. For your arrogance. ANd I know that God will forgive you as well. But he will judge you first, and show you the truth, and I do not want to be where you are when that happens. For if you cannot love those who are different from you, then whether you believe you are full of love or not, you cannot love those who are the same as you either. In condemning us this way, you are ultimately condemning your fellow christians, your fellow muslims and jews, your fellow african americans, your fellow Human Beings, all of them.

I am so sorry, that you hurt so badly inside.

peace
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 3:39 PM on November 20, 2008 | IP
Vagrantdream

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Vagrantdream Said: "With that said, there's no real religion basis for banning gay marriage - or for almost anything else in the modern world. I've noticed in this thread a few people mentioning that the 'new testament' - we prefer to call this the 'Gospels' and the 'old testament' the 'Tanakh' - supercedes the old testament, but in reality the text itself (read at face value of course, to be on the same playing field, as it were, as those proponents here) insists that the only alteration to the covenant is that sacrifice is no longer necessary to appease god. The rest of the covenant - the various laws regarding slavery, the ten commandments, and some aspects of the Kosher requirements for diet, etc. - still stands according to Joshua (sorry, I mean Jesus, I'm still stuck on the original hebrew version of his name, being that he was Hebrew.)"

Please excuse the first part of this paragraph; I originally discussed these points on another thread and pasted the majority of it into this post.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 3:43 PM on November 20, 2008 | IP
Avelon

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly, to Vagrantdream... I am in awe after reading that. I've battled with the Christian assertation that marriage is a holy institution for years and never once have I seen someone so completely and utterly destroy any possible arguments against gay marriage. My sincerest condolences on your partner's passing.

---

Now I will ice his cake. For 5 years I was a devoted Baptist Christian. I have read more of the King James than most lifelong Christians have, and I grew up with strong Christian values on both sides of my family. Not only that, but I grew up in the South, where it is the only way. At some point I realised that I had lost my faith. I realised that never once in my life had I been given a reason to believe - I had just been told I must. I searched myself for years, and continue even now to do so, but I cannot find in my being the will or motivation to believe there is something greater. I am an atheist: I do not believe there is anything; however, I do not believe that there IS nothing. I lack belief, rather than blindly believing that there is nothing to believe in. That said, I still live my life with good morals and try to be the best person I can be. If there is a god who will judge me, then I cannot comprehend that god caring whether or not I blindly believed in its existence without any kind of evidence.

What I want to talk about is what I have learned in my life about Christianity. Like every other religion, Christians tell their kids to play nice and try to live by a code dictated by their creator. This lifestyle is nothing if not admirable; however, somewhere along the way religion began to teach closed-mindedness. If you are a Baptist Christian, I ask you: Are the Catholics right? Of course they aren't. They're so caught up in their rigid ceremonies, they fail to see the true nature of God. They go through the motions but do not give themselves fully. And if you are Catholic: Are the Baptists right? Certainly not. They have forsaken tradition and have taken the easy way out, assuring themselves that they have secured their place in the afterlife with minimal effort. They can sin as they wish and trust that because they take sacrament their souls are safe.

The point here is that these religions teach you that your way of life is the only true way to live. Whatever happened to 'Live and let live'? What happened to the teachings of love and tolerance found in the words of Christ? People have lost sight of that, and so now I will remind them.

Who are you? Are you God? Or perhaps you are Christ himself. "No," you say, "that is blasphemy." But here you stand, judging your fellow man as though you were the Mouth of God. You wave your scriptures around and cry 'Sinner!', saying that they are less than human. "But the Bible says..." So? Does it matter what the Bible says? *gasp!* More blasphemy, right? Wrong! Let me tell you what else the Bible says: We are given the choice to live according to God's will. That's right - every person has a divine right to live in accordance with God's will, or live according to his or her own will. Do I speak falsehood? Then show me where in the Bible it states that all men MUST conform.

Who are you? Are you the next prophet, speaking the revised will of God? Does he now want all of his faithful to subjugate those who are not part of the flock? If such is the case, then Speak! Let it be known that you speak for God, and then we will see how you are judged for that. The institution of marriage is not religious. Marriage is a thing that religions have developed ceremonies for - not the other way around.

Who are you to tell me that I cannot be with the person I choose to be with, regardless of their gender, race, or creed? All we who support gay marriage want is the legal status; please keep your religious ceremonies. It is your right to deny a gay couple a wedding ceremony in your church. If it goes against your beliefs, then it's as simple as that. Religious institutions have rights, too. We just want gay rights to be recognized.

That's all I have to say.


-------
Of course, that's just my opinion.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 03:23 AM on December 29, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Vagrantdream
in reality the text itself (read at face value of course, to be on the same playing field, as it were, as those proponents here) insists that the only alteration to the covenant is that sacrifice is no longer necessary to appease god. The rest of the covenant - the various laws regarding slavery, the ten commandments, and some aspects of the Kosher requirements for diet, etc. - still stands according to Joshua (sorry, I mean Jesus, I'm still stuck on the original hebrew version of his name, being that he was Hebrew.)
Exactly. When i point out Mathew 5:18/19 they just don't know where to hide.

The law says that if they tried to convince you to abandon your religion, or to change it, you should kill that person.

I encourage everyone to abandon christianism.
Now you have only two valid choices: Leave it or kill me.

If marriage is about raising children, then infertile or old people should be banned from marrying.

Having said that, i'm sorry, but i still don't like gay marriage.

The thing is that i don't like marriage. I don't like the concept.

But it has some useful legal comsequences that should be available for any two people that want to sign such a contract.

There should be a new institution, that's not called 'marriage' (so christians shut the fuck up, and people can be legally binded by a contract that's free from a whole bunch of ridiculous overtones).

And perhaps three people should be able to join too. Or four. Or whatever. I don't know... Perhaps i'm talking nonsense...

I lost my partner 4 years ago to cancer - it was unrelated to HIV, we were, and I am still, not HIV positive. For the time that he was in the hospital, I was unable to see him.
That's hideous! I'm so sorry for you two... If marriage is the only solution to situations like those, then i'm for it, even if i dislike the concept.

You know what i'd love? A gay (in it's origins) institution that was so good and convenient that heterosexual partners would want to choose it.

He was in and out for some time, but the last stay he had lasted over two months, and he passed away in the hospital. I did not see him for the last two months in his life. I talked to him on the phone during specific hours, and due to his medications that was not always possible. I was right next door. Because of his condition, I wasn't allowed to visit as he was in intensive care, and only family was allowed visitation.
Who made that rule??

So you can't say "When i'm in intensive care, i don't want my sister to be anywhere near me. She's crazy and she's stalking me. I'm trying to get a restriction order. I just want to see my partner."

I find that really disgusting.

If they didn't let me to see my girl (we live together and have a kid, but we're not married), i'd tell them to fuck themselves, and i'd leave.

Are they so dumb that they can't see that being with the people i love is a big part of my health?

None of you who oppose gay marriage can possibly imagine that pain.
I sure can't. When i try, i get very sad and a little bit furious.
If you could, you would support marriage between any two - or for that matter more than two - people regardless of race, sex, religion, or anything else.
I do support most of the rights that come from marriage (i'm not sure if there's any right implied in marriage that i wouldn't support).
Those of you who are opposed are the most heartless, empty beings in this country,
I'm from Buenos Aires.
because you have no care for your fellow human being, not really. Your love of mankind is conditional.
I love my gay friends. And i always stand for them. No one that discriminates gay people can be my friend.
I have no tolerance for that.

I wish my gay friends learned martial arts so fighting discrimination isn't always upon me. Haha!

I did sound violent in my post... I'm sorry... But when it comes to discrimination i... Grrr!!!!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:18 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
PerfectBob

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To all that believe that our current form of marriage, in a country founded upon religious freedom, was defined in the bible.  Who are you to accept Christian marriage as the only legal form of marriage?

To all that announce that the most nurturing environment for a child is within a family with a mother and a father, where has this been scientifically proven?

To all that see homosexuality as the degredation of moral values, do you not hold compassion and goodwill as values of your own?  Do you believe it is morally acceptable to speak out against something that you do not understand?

To all that think homosexuality should be hidden from children (in schools or otherwise), this is simply not possible.

To all that think sodomy is disgusting, please look away.

To all that oppose gay marriage, you are wasting your time and creating enemies.


-------
What can I say?
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 02:45 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Innocent-Bystander

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There was no such thing as a marriage license until after the Civil War, same for gun registration. The reason these came about was because it didn't seem a good idea to hand guns to a large group of people who had been enslaved. They were too ticked off. And the idea of Black and White marriage was offensive to most. To remedy this you needed a Marriage License for interracial marriage. So, by virtue of the 14th Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Prior to this there had never been the word "subject" used to describe the people's relationship to their government. And citizenship was recognized by the State first, then United States second. This was changed. It had been assumed that the government was subject to we, the people, but in order to give slaves a higher status by making them citizens, it decreased everyone's free status to a be one that was subject to a higher authority, our government. Prior to that our rights were subject only to God.

This opened the door to regulate our God given rights. The Bill of Rights is not a laundry list of the rights granted the people by the government, it is a list of what we claim as sentient beings. It was written down to make sure our government understood not to trample in such areas since they have a tendency to do just that.

Marriage was announced between two people as a Common Law act, usually held at a church so that society could witness the union. But it required no law, no paper, no witness. There was no such thing as a 1040 Married, Filing Jointly. It was your claim as a two free persons. It was between you and your God, if you had one. It was not regulated.

Today, Common Law marriage is still legal. I simply say that I am married to her and she, if I am lucky, says the same thing. Today, if it were not for slavery and the 14th Amendment, all gays would have to do would be to declare their status as married. If I didn't agree with that, too bad. I cannot force another to share my religious beliefs.

Our government was set up as a Republic, based on property rights. The Bill of Rights describes these rights. We own our body, our mind, our thoughts. We make our choice and determine our lives based on this fact. You might live in such a way that revolts me, but it is your right.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:00 PM on May 4, 2009 | IP
davep

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Allowing gays to use the religious rite of marriage to santify their union is just plain wrong.

However, gays should have a right to form a civil partnership with all the legal benefits of the state just like the sanctioned heterosexual marriage. They just shouldn't be allowed to change the definition of the term "marriage" nor demand to use the church to perform the ceremony of their union.

Basically, there are two separate issues that get confused, and this is why all the problems arise.

[1] the historical definition, meaning, practice, and religious rituals of "marriage" and it's religious sanction.
[2] the civil legal framework that promotes, celebrates, and sanctions unions between two people.

The problem is that the governments got involved in mixing up religious and civil rights very early in the formation of the state. Because most people were christians, when they entered the halls of government, they implemented laws that favored their religious ideals, and promoted their religious principles. So, in effect, religion became the law, despite the fact that the US constitution required the separation of the state from religion.

This is why the gay community sees an injustice today. Their civil rights are being held hostage to religious doctrine, enforced and sanctioned by the state, in violation of the constitution.

The core of the problem is that "marriage" is sanctioned by the state, when it should not be.

The term "marriage" should be removed from all state documents, and replaced by "civil unions."

Leave the "marriage" to the religious orders that santify the special union between man and woman, and conduct that ceremony in the context of one of the religious orders, thus keeping the "meaning" of the term the same. And use the "civil unions" as the sole state sponsered partnership, that  bring "legal" rights and obligations to the various types of unions.

Also, expand the partnership concept to include any union between adult human beings.

The religious "marriage" requires sex between man and woman to "consumate" the union, otherwise the marriage is null and void.

But, what if two people, say a man and woman, want to live together in a platonic relationship, lead celibate lives, but are just there to love and support each other emotionally, financially, and assist each other in times of ill health? Why can't they form a union, get the blessings of the state, and obtain inheritance rights, the right to visit the other in hospital, etc..

With "marriage," they are required to have sex. But, it's really nobody's business what they do in private. Yet, religion "intrudes" into their lives, and tells them what they must do if they want the sanction and blessings of a "marriage" etc..also "gay sex" is not acceptable in religion to satisfy the "consumate" part of the marriage rite..since this also includes the implication of conception, which is impossible for the gay couple...etc...

So, while a "marriage" can be accepted as a "civil union", the converse is not possible, a "civil union" cannot become a "marriage." To use the term "marriage" and it's ceremonies, is just to  introduce "confusion" into the language.

However, there's no reason why "civil unions" of all types should not be sanctioned by the state. The "voters" determine what they want their state laws to be. The "voters" can't change the religions. Since, by definition, religion is doctrine "given to us" to believe in, by beings or intelligences who know more than we do, we don't get the chance to create our own religion, when we create oue own "doctrine" to follow, it's not called "religion" it's called "philosophy."

So, either we accept religion, or we reject religion. Either is fine, from the point of view of the state, since the state isn't supposed to promote any particular religion. But, you can't have "freedom of religion" if you destroy the language the religious use to define their principles, and communicate their ideas, by deliberately confusing the elements of their religion in broadening the terms and/or reversing the historically accepted meanings of words used in the religious texts that need to be read again and again by those new entrants to the world of men.

So, the best solution. To make everybody happy. Is to remove all reference to "marriage" from the civil laws enacted by the state; thus correcting an error introduced by the first lawmakers when they mixed in their own personal religious preferences in state matters. Replace "marriage" with the terms "civil unions" or "living partnerhips", so that the state can sanction "celibate partners", "homosexual partners", "heterosexual partners", "swinging partners", or whatever type of "partnerships" the "voters" decide they want to form.

The "living partners union" should also be allowed to have any number of individuals in the union, there's no reason to limit it to "two" people. For example, 2 men and 3 women, can form a "living partner union", where they pledge to support each other, be there in times of need, look after each other, financially, emotionally, and in times of ill health, and these 5 people would all have the right to visit the others in hospital, inherit from them, etc...as usual, just like the state "marriage."

It just wouldn't be "called a marriage", nor have the special requirements of a marriage, i.e. to have to have sex, to "consumate". The "living partners union" would not need to be "consumated", the initiating civil ceremony and signing of legal documents would be enough. What they do in the privacy of their own home, would be their own business. Neither the state, nor the religious orders would intrude into their sex or non-sex lives. The state would only uphold the "union" on financial issues, and rights of visitation etc..

This is the solution.

Anything else, requires sombody to lose for another to gain what they want.

With the separation of "living partners unions" from "marriage" everybody wins.


Every marriage would then just be a special type of "living partners union", but under state laws there would be no benefit nor loss of benefit to be "married", verses any of the other "special" types of "living partners union" that become accepted under this plan.

No religion would be disturbed. There would be freedom of religion again.

And every voter would obtain his civil rights, whether he's religious or not.

 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 1:23 PM on November 4, 2009 | IP
Cyryus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from tadpol at 11:18 AM on June 9, 2008 :
Everyone is equally protected to marry a person of opposite gender.

One must remember that there are more than one thing being talked about, there is a federal status, and a religious ceremony. I see federal marriage as basically a subsidy to straight couples. That there are people who do not qualify for the subsidy does not make the subsidy unequal. Do farm or airline subsidies violate my rights?

In the end I guess complainjane is right, the only reason I oppose equality for gays is I am ignorant of the inequality and don't understand the problem.



Marriage is a legal contract as well. To deny Gays the opportunity (or legal right) to enter into that contract with another consenting adult of their choosing is discrimination. I pay the same taxes as my straight neighbors, am subject to the same daily laws, so why can they enter into that particular contract and recieve its benfits, and we can't? That's where the inequality comes in. And it's religiously based, for the most part.


-------
No one is free while others are oppressed.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:31 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
Cyryus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from davep at 1:23 PM on November 4, 2009 :
Allowing gays to use the religious rite of marriage to santify their union is just plain wrong.

However, gays should have a right to form a civil partnership with all the legal benefits of the state just like the sanctioned heterosexual marriage. They just shouldn't be allowed to change the definition of the term "marriage" nor demand to use the church to perform the ceremony of their union.

Basically, there are two separate issues that get confused, and this is why all the problems arise.

[1] the historical definition, meaning, practice, and religious rituals of "marriage" and it's religious sanction.
[2] the civil legal framework that promotes, celebrates, and sanctions unions between two people.

The problem is that the governments got involved in mixing up religious and civil rights very early in the formation of the state. Because most people were christians, when they entered the halls of government, they implemented laws that favored their religious ideals, and promoted their religious principles. So, in effect, religion became the law, despite the fact that the US constitution required the separation of the state from religion.

This is why the gay community sees an injustice today. Their civil rights are being held hostage to religious doctrine, enforced and sanctioned by the state, in violation of the constitution.

The core of the problem is that "marriage" is sanctioned by the state, when it should not be.

The term "marriage" should be removed from all state documents, and replaced by "civil unions."

Leave the "marriage" to the religious orders that santify the special union between man and woman, and conduct that ceremony in the context of one of the religious orders, thus keeping the "meaning" of the term the same. And use the "civil unions" as the sole state sponsered partnership, that  bring "legal" rights and obligations to the various types of unions.

Also, expand the partnership concept to include any union between adult human beings.

The religious "marriage" requires sex between man and woman to "consumate" the union, otherwise the marriage is null and void.

But, what if two people, say a man and woman, want to live together in a platonic relationship, lead celibate lives, but are just there to love and support each other emotionally, financially, and assist each other in times of ill health? Why can't they form a union, get the blessings of the state, and obtain inheritance rights, the right to visit the other in hospital, etc..

With "marriage," they are required to have sex. But, it's really nobody's business what they do in private. Yet, religion "intrudes" into their lives, and tells them what they must do if they want the sanction and blessings of a "marriage" etc..also "gay sex" is not acceptable in religion to satisfy the "consumate" part of the marriage rite..since this also includes the implication of conception, which is impossible for the gay couple...etc...

So, while a "marriage" can be accepted as a "civil union", the converse is not possible, a "civil union" cannot become a "marriage." To use the term "marriage" and it's ceremonies, is just to  introduce "confusion" into the language.

However, there's no reason why "civil unions" of all types should not be sanctioned by the state. The "voters" determine what they want their state laws to be. The "voters" can't change the religions. Since, by definition, religion is doctrine "given to us" to believe in, by beings or intelligences who know more than we do, we don't get the chance to create our own religion, when we create oue own "doctrine" to follow, it's not called "religion" it's called "philosophy."

So, either we accept religion, or we reject religion. Either is fine, from the point of view of the state, since the state isn't supposed to promote any particular religion. But, you can't have "freedom of religion" if you destroy the language the religious use to define their principles, and communicate their ideas, by deliberately confusing the elements of their religion in broadening the terms and/or reversing the historically accepted meanings of words used in the religious texts that need to be read again and again by those new entrants to the world of men.

So, the best solution. To make everybody happy. Is to remove all reference to "marriage" from the civil laws enacted by the state; thus correcting an error introduced by the first lawmakers when they mixed in their own personal religious preferences in state matters. Replace "marriage" with the terms "civil unions" or "living partnerhips", so that the state can sanction "celibate partners", "homosexual partners", "heterosexual partners", "swinging partners", or whatever type of "partnerships" the "voters" decide they want to form.

The "living partners union" should also be allowed to have any number of individuals in the union, there's no reason to limit it to "two" people. For example, 2 men and 3 women, can form a "living partner union", where they pledge to support each other, be there in times of need, look after each other, financially, emotionally, and in times of ill health, and these 5 people would all have the right to visit the others in hospital, inherit from them, etc...as usual, just like the state "marriage."

It just wouldn't be "called a marriage", nor have the special requirements of a marriage, i.e. to have to have sex, to "consumate". The "living partners union" would not need to be "consumated", the initiating civil ceremony and signing of legal documents would be enough. What they do in the privacy of their own home, would be their own business. Neither the state, nor the religious orders would intrude into their sex or non-sex lives. The state would only uphold the "union" on financial issues, and rights of visitation etc..

This is the solution.

Anything else, requires sombody to lose for another to gain what they want.

With the separation of "living partners unions" from "marriage" everybody wins.


Every marriage would then just be a special type of "living partners union", but under state laws there would be no benefit nor loss of benefit to be "married", verses any of the other "special" types of "living partners union" that become accepted under this plan.

No religion would be disturbed. There would be freedom of religion again.

And every voter would obtain his civil rights, whether he's religious or not.




Wasn't trying to quote your whole post, but so be it. I think you are right, overall. "Marriage" should be reserved for heterosexual Christians only. Trouble is, hetero atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi, etc, are all free to "marry" under the law, when the whole institution is really just a legal contract, bottom line. As a Gay person, I don't care if they call it the Hokey-Pokey! lol Just let me and my partner sign the same contract as the Hets, and give us the very same benefits. My partner is a non-US citizen, here on a student visa. When that visa expires, we're screwed unless she gets lucky enough to find a job to sponsor her. The green card system is f*** b/c of 911 concerns and Bush's ignorant laws, so the green card lottery is virtually useless to her/us (4 years trying and no green card "windfall" as of yet). Our relationship's days are numbered as a result, and instead of me just being able to 'marry' her or enter into a 'civil union' or whatever, I may have to leave my own country! Immigrate to cold-ass Canada, or go to Autralia, a billion miles away. Granted, she's had to do that just to be with me for this limited, precious time, so maybe it's my turn. But really??? Do I HAVE to leave the country to have the same rights as other US citizens?? I mean, she came here...to the US...b/c this is where she wanted to be. But these laws are threatening to force us BOTH out now. There does need to be some sort of distinction between "marriage" and "civil union", if for no other reason than to keep the fundies happy and do right by everyone else. It's complicated, but something needs to be done....soon.


-------
No one is free while others are oppressed.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:45 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
Cyryus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from caligula32 at 04:04 AM on June 28, 2008 :
Alright, so here's my beef with the whole issue. I actually don't care to force anyone to not do or to do anything. Live and let live. In my religion however, marriage is defined as a man and a woman making a covenant before God. My fear is that my church will be ostracized and persecuted for not performing gay marriages if it does become nationally accepted. If the nation does accept gay marriage, should my church have to perform gay marriages if asked?



Your church shouldn't (and probably wouldn't) be ostrasized for not performing Gay marriages. I mean, would I really get upset with the KKK if it didn't want to allow my African American organization to march in its parade? In fact, I probably wouldn't even ask ;) So, it's doubtful that many Gays would want a known anti-Gay church to perform a marriage ceremony. Granted, there may be several traditionally Christian churches that might open their doors and offer, and that's great. If their congregation members are opposed, then maybe they should find another church. I suggest Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. They'd be welcome there


-------
No one is free while others are oppressed.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:12 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
RoryGilmore669

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[color=lime] I hate it when people bring children into it. They can have children! Do you know how many kids are homeless and are needing a place to call home. Kids that are starving or sick, they all need somewhere to go. This world is over populated, and so why can't G/B/L/T people help and adopt children. If they want a baby with there genes they can pay some one to have there baby for them. They have ways to have kids and be parents, so why even bring that into it!


-------
Grace Foster!
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 09:31 AM on July 26, 2010 | IP
tinkertron

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Marriage was design by religion. If gay marriage is allow, then we would be in violation.

Quote: The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So there for by forcing churches to accept terms of gay marriage would be in violation of our rights. period.

The Constitution states 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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Where does it says that sexual come in to play?
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 02:20 AM on November 24, 2010 | IP
roberthere

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mostly, law is formed based on the likes of powerful people in the society and only sometimes that the poor and weak are considered. Even if there is a law for them, its difficult to say if it will be followed or not..

(Edited by roberthere 6/14/2011 at 02:19 AM).

(Edited by roberthere 6/14/2011 at 02:19 AM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 02:16 AM on June 14, 2011 | IP
AxisMundi

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from tinkertron at 01:20 AM on November 24, 2010 :
Marriage was design by religion. If gay marriage is allow, then we would be in violation.

Quote: The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So there for by forcing churches to accept terms of gay marriage would be in violation of our rights. period.

The Constitution states 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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Where does it says that sexual come in to play?



Firstly, your second quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. While an important historical document, the DoI is a colonial document, not a US legal document. It predates our Nation by nearly a decade.

Secondly, to force unwilling churches to perform religious wedding ceremonies would be like trying to force them to conduct Hindu wedding ceremonies. Those churches that still wish to be mired in the medieval ages would reserve be right to deny gays wedding ceremonies.

I invite you to show any churches which have been forced to give gays wedding ceremonies in the six states which have chosen to honor our Founding Principles and offer Marriage Equality to gays.

Thirdly, religion did not invent marriage, and does not own the title to the practice, or term. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church never became directly involved in marriage until the 16th century. Marriage pre-dates Christianity, and it's parent religion Judaism.

Citizens have always had the option of enacting marriages under secular means in this Nation, by judges/justices and other non-religious sources as listed in their state's list of marriage officiants.

Lastly, by denying marriage equality to the GLBT community, we are breaking the First Amendment.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the Nation's first legal definitional source for American legal definitions, a work begun in the early 1800's. Entry number four for "Establish" reads...

"To found, prove, confirm, or admit, as in Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion".

To claim that religion is the sole property of marriage, and to deny a group of US citizens equal rights based solely on religious doctrine, is simply illegal.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 09:47 AM on June 14, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AxisMundi at 08:47 AM on June 14, 2011 :
Marriage pre-dates Christianity, and it's parent religion Judaism.


To that I add that Judaism's traditional marriage is polygamous, with each man having as many wives as he could afford as a wife was considered part of the man's property.

Lastly, by denying marriage equality to the GLBT community, we are breaking the First Amendment....

To claim that religion is the sole property of marriage, and to deny a group of US citizens equal rights based solely on religious doctrine, is simply illegal.


I'm not sure it is a first amendment violation. Sure religion plays a role, but the competent ones will go along the route of 'it's bad for the well-being of those involved and it is detrimental to society'. I could say that murder is wrong solely on religious belief, but there are secular reasons for this too, and one can do the same for banning gay marriage.

I have heard that it is a violation of the 14th amendment though. Saying that it will violate the equal protection clause as marriage holds certain legal ramifications, as well as the violation of liberty without due process.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:06 PM on June 14, 2011 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.