Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really wonder, are there any objections to gay marriage that aren't based on religion? Even if indirectly.
I do oppose it and personally my oppostition is based on religion and my traditional values. However what I am most upset about is the violation of the constitution here. The equal protection clause has been used to usurp the 10th amendment, and in my opinion this is unacceptable. In fact it is so wrong I cant figure out why some states are not "nullifying" or defying the edict. Marriage law is civil law, that is clearly the realm of the states, nowhere is marriage law part of the federal constitution. Also the civil rights laws were written to protect ethnic minorities and women. Homosexuality is a behavior, and behaviors are not protected by these laws. States have the right to make laws that show favor to some behaviors and punish others. Look at pedophiles, they behave in a way that no one finds acceptable and they are punished severely for it. Other sexual behaviors we don't allow are bestiality, polygamy and incest. Those who argue that homosexuals are born that way also must acknowledge that if that is true than so is it true for those who practice these other said unacceptable sexual behaviors. I personally believe it is a choice based on life experience, but I am not a scientist and not interested in arguing that point. Homosexuality just happens to be much more acceptable than these other behaviors, but the fact remains that it is a behavior, and as I said the 14th amendment does not mention protecting ANY behavior of any kind. This ruling could be a stepping stone to more rulings legitimizing other marginalized groups. The first will likely be the polygamist, so look for MY 5 Wives folks to be your new neighbors in the future. Obviously we can never give pedophiles any rights at all but the legal argument could be made.
What should have happened??? Well our constitution should have been allowed to work. Each state is entitled to have laws that reflect its values. Liberal New Englanders have the right to allow gay marriage and conservatives in the south have the right to have their values reflected in their state laws. A nation that is as large as ours will have diverse values and different laws reflecting different regional values. What was wrong with this??? We all have the right to move, so if you live somewhere you cannot deal with local laws and values you have the right to move. Instead the bigger more populated liberal states used their control of the government to force their way on the rural smaller more conservative ones. THey used courts to do it and the authority of the federal government. Its not just this issue, it is abortion, Obamacare, affirmative action laws and all sorts of other court laws. Anyone who has taken civics knows that the judicial branch was not given the power to write law, but that is what they are doing. Now the people are just accepting it.
Our founding fathers would never have tolerated this violation of the constitution, but they were real Americans who believed in freedom. People today are willing to give up their freedom so they can be safe, be supported by government, treated "fair" or even for the right to not be offended. Our founding fathers rebelled against their tyrants, we ask our tyrants for more rules and government. We should be ashamed of ourselves for destroying what they left us. We are in uncharted territory, the division these changes are causing in our nation could be really toxic to our nations future. Many people in the conservative states now despise the federal government because of this and other federal power grabs. Folks in the liberal places do not realize what could happen in the future if this nation is stressed in any way. Read the history of the 1850s if you want to see where that kind of division leads, and if you think that kind of history cannot repeat itself you are deluding yourself. When one part of America stops respecting the rights of another it can only lead to bad things in the future.
They will never be married in my and many many other peoples eyes.
Unless you don't have faith in a church or don't believe a minister or priest has the correct credentials, then YES, "THEY" will BE married. Suck it up buttercup!
We all have the right to move, so if you live somewhere you cannot deal with local laws and values you have the right to move.
People don't always have a tenable, realistic choice.
My boss is a lesbian. She's a born and raised Bostonite. She's been with her partner for over twenty years, married for eleven. They have a daughter (her partner carried the daughter, while my boss's brother contributed genetic material). Several years ago our company began a mass migration from the Northeast to more southern areas as part of its site strategy. Two years ago she was asked to move to Texas or give up her career. She is the breadwinner in the family, her wife being a stay-at-home wife. They moved to Texas. Because Texas, in its infinite wisdom, refused to recognize same-sex marriage, she and her partner faced many issues.
The Supreme Court has corrected this problem.
Texas is a big state. There are some real religious wingnuts living out in West Texas, the Panhandle, East Texas etc. (red counties). There are also many educated progressive people living in Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc. (blue counties). It doesn't make sense for the religious right to be able to impose restrictions on equal rights to the entire state. The Supreme Court has corrected this problem too.
-----------------------------------
To all: Are you straight? In a straight marriage, or potentially getting married to a person of the opposite sex at some point? Good for you. Last Friday's ruling has literallynothing to do with you. What other people do is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Except some states were trying to make it everyone's business using the coercive power of big, overbearing government. The Supreme Court has corrected this problem too.
I'm happy for my gay friends as well as for everyone out there who is now more free. I'm happy for the country as a whole too.
I am in support of gay marriage, but to answer the question about it being none of Christians' business: Christians, by definition, are supposed to spread Jesus' teachings and encourage others to live like Him. So if they stand by idly and don't try to say anything at all, then they're not doing their job. Now as to how they do that, I know that can get ugly, quickly. And that is sad.
Housing? I have not heard of that being an issue. Does anyone have a link that says this?
omg that 10 reasons...here's one of them: 3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
Such a lame argument. Half of all hetero marriages end up in divorce, leaving children orphaned and hurt and broken all the time. I'd venture to say half the kids who come into this world already don't have a father, so yeah, how bout that. At least the kids of the homosexuals have a better guarantee that their TWO parents will be there for them because they went out of their way to adopt them, they didn't just get knocked up with them.
People don't always have a tenable, realistic choice.
My boss is a lesbian. She's a born and raised Bostonite. She's been with her partner for over twenty years, married for eleven. They have a daughter (her partner carried the daughter, while my boss's brother contributed genetic material). Several years ago our company began a mass migration from the Northeast to more southern areas as part of its site strategy. Two years ago she was asked to move to Texas or give up her career. She is the breadwinner in the family, her wife being a stay-at-home wife. They moved to Texas. Because Texas, in its infinite wisdom, refused to recognize same-sex marriage, she and her partner faced many issues.
The Supreme Court has corrected this problem.
Texas is a big state. There are some real religious wingnuts living out in West Texas, the Panhandle, East Texas etc. (red counties). There are also many educated progressive people living in Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc. (blue counties). It doesn't make sense for the religious right to be able to impose restrictions on equal rights to the entire state. The Supreme Court has corrected this problem too.
-----------------------------------
To all: Are you straight? In a straight marriage, or potentially getting married to a person of the opposite sex at some point? Good for you. Last Friday's ruling has literallynothing to do with you. What other people do is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Except some states were trying to make it everyone's business using the coercive power of big, overbearing government. The Supreme Court has corrected this problem too.
I'm happy for my gay friends as well as for everyone out there who is now more free. I'm happy for the country as a whole too.
This is an emotional issue and people feel strongly about it on both sides. To me however the big issue is how it was done and how most people are ignoring the fact that the supreme court has violated the constitution in order to make a new law in states that refused to pass it the legitimate way in their state houses. This is the very definition of judicial activism and usurpation of states rights as stated in the 10th amendment. If anyone thinks that force of government will suddenly make homosexuality more acceptable in Alabama simply because a judge swings his gavel is deluding themselves. If anything it will create more resentment. You cannot legislate acceptance or values. This issue like others before it have been stepping stones for government to grab more and more power. The real power in the US is intended to be with the states who have more authority to regulate daily life. This includes marriage, so yes it is the states business who does and does not get married. The supreme court may have changed that for now but that does not make it right. Before someone suggest it I will say this, I have never been for the federal marriage ban or other federal regulations regarding the issue. I have always been a states rights supporter, not simply because of this issue. In fact states rights and our Bill of rights are so much bigger than this, and the real loser here is more of the freedoms and rights our founding fathers left us in the founding documents.
People don't always have a tenable, realistic choice.
My boss is a lesbian. She's a born and raised Bostonite. She's been with her partner for over twenty years, married for eleven. They have a daughter (her partner carried the daughter, while my boss's brother contributed genetic material). Several years ago our company began a mass migration from the Northeast to more southern areas as part of its site strategy. Two years ago she was asked to move to Texas or give up her career. She is the breadwinner in the family, her wife being a stay-at-home wife. They moved to Texas. Because Texas, in its infinite wisdom, refused to recognize same-sex marriage, she and her partner faced many issues.
The Supreme Court has corrected this problem.
Texas is a big state. There are some real religious wingnuts living out in West Texas, the Panhandle, East Texas etc. (red counties). There are also many educated progressive people living in Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc. (blue counties). It doesn't make sense for the religious right to be able to impose restrictions on equal rights to the entire state. The Supreme Court has corrected this problem too.
-----------------------------------
To all: Are you straight? In a straight marriage, or potentially getting married to a person of the opposite sex at some point? Good for you. Last Friday's ruling has literallynothing to do with you. What other people do is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Except some states were trying to make it everyone's business using the coercive power of big, overbearing government. The Supreme Court has corrected this problem too.
I'm happy for my gay friends as well as for everyone out there who is now more free. I'm happy for the country as a whole too.
Always laugh when libs slam Texas on this issue, calling them bigots and haters. And conveniently leaving out the state of California that actually VOTED FOR banning same sex marriage.
Also laughable that you call the issue before the ruling "using the coercive power of big, overbearing government" and at the same time being too dim to realize that the ruling was exactly that.
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
Such a lame argument. Half of all hetero marriages end up in divorce, leaving children orphaned and hurt and broken all the time. I'd venture to say half the kids who come into this world already don't have a father, so yeah, how bout that. At least the kids of the homosexuals have a better guarantee that their TWO parents will be there for them because they went out of their way to adopt them, they didn't just get knocked up with them.
Lame? It's demonstrably wrong.
This claim has been repeatedly made by the anti-gay crowd in trial after trial, and as the equality proponents have constantly pointed out, the actual data does not support the claim.
Not only that, but they ignore the fact that allowing gays to marry does not impact whether or not they have children. Gays are raising children now - allowing them to marry merely allows them, and the children they're raising, to enjoy the stabilizing benefits of marriage. The we-hate-gays crown bleats on and on about supposedly caring about children, but they actively work to make sure that those children being raised by gays are raised by gays that do not have the option of raising their children in a married environment.
Children are nothing more than a prop to mask the fact that they simply dislike gays and want them marginalized by the law.
Fact:
With gay couples, there is never an unwanted pregnancy. Every child they have is either the product of an expensive and complicated adoption process or an expensive and complicated surrogate process. No gay couple ever has a child because they get liquored up and careless and - surprise! - nine months later they're parents.
I am in support of gay marriage, but to answer the question about it being none of Christians' business: Christians, by definition, are supposed to spread Jesus' teachings and encourage others to live like Him. So if they stand by idly and don't try to say anything at all, then they're not doing their job. Now as to how they do that, I know that can get ugly, quickly. And that is sad.
And what did Jesus say about gay marriage? "If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context. In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
