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.
What a silly attempt at semantics. By this "rationale" (though of course there is nothing rational about it) the move by those opposed to equality and who support huge government invasion of our private lives would be to prevent gay people from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Clearly that is not the issue.
This leaves aside the obvious fact that wanting to prevent two consenting adults from marrying based on their sexual orientation is ALSO nothing but discrimination and bigotry.
Makes absolutely no difference whether the issue is gender or orientation. It is still, without question, bigotry. And bigotry itself is based on fear, ignorance, hatred.
Quote:
There is a difference between 2 people living together and marriage.
What are these differences? Specifically, legally, socially? Many marriages are sexless. Many relationships, be they between heterosexual OR homosexual couples don't involve sex or children. Are these also invalid? What possible difference does it make?
Quote:
Marriage is something that is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman (according to the bible). So, there is reason #1 for Christians.
Well, there's no question that not all Christians feel this way. Not that it would matter. Our laws are not--nor should they be--based on The Bible or the scriptures of any other culture. If you like the idea of living under a theocracy, there are some nations in the Middle East that are right up your alley.
Quote:
Another reason is that most Americans do not approve of homosexuality.
Proof?
Quote:
So, do these reasons result from hatred, fear, ignorance, bigotry?
No, I'm saying that all voices count equal. And, our government is supposed to represent the people. There is NOTHING in the constitution that advocates for gay marriage. If this were the case then wouldn't it have been brought up before 2014? So for the supreme court to say (in a 5-4 ruling) that the former marriage laws are unconstitutional then I call bs. And... I'm not alone in this. As mentioned, 4 supreme court justices also agree with me. If it were a 9-0 decision then I would have a tougher argument.
If you look at history, it was Abraham Lincoln (a white republican) who freed the slaves.
So, please keep this in mind when you want to paint all white conservative men as racist or unfair.
I noticed that you mentioned the 1st amendment. As a nation of laws, we should enforce these laws. Obama and Holder DID NOT enforce the marriage laws, and that (in part) led to the knee-jerk decision by the supreme ct.
You can frame it as a "civil right" if you want, but keep in mind... We had many states vote on gay marriage and most of the time it was voted NO.
If we are going to have an election then there needs to be a result. In these cases, the (gay marriage) elections were basically veto's by the president and supreme court.
Had those elections actually resulted in favor of gay marriage then (again) I would have a hard time arguing my point.
The marriage law, lol, was DOMA and DOMA was not a part of the constitution, it was a discriminatory law that was added. DOMA was and is unconstitutional. Get your facts right.
Well, for one.... No one is born gay. That would be genetically then, if they were.
Since gays were not in the breeding class, that gene is not passes to any offspring. It gets culled from the species.
Being gay, is taught. It is learned.
So what? Even if this were true, it makes no difference whatsoever. Even IF every single gay person chose their orientation, that doesn't make discrimination and bigotry right. Nor does it harm anyone, nor is it anyone else's business.
The only thing that bothered me about the ruling was that many of these states voted on the legalization/banning of gay marriage, and it sets a dangerous precedent that something voted on by the people is overturned in one fell swoop. A very dangerous precedent that ought to scare a lot of people. Who is to say anything we vote on can't be overturned just because someone doesn't like it?
It's not about how much support the LGBT movement had gained leading up to the SCOTUS decision. It's about rendering voting, something that's at the root of our status as a democracy, effectively meaningless.
This issue should have gone to a vote in the places, such as Ohio where I live, that voted it illegal. Given the popular feelings in this country, I am confident it would have been legalized in most or all of the 50 states, and that's how it should have been done.
No, the US system was designed to, among other things, protect everyone's basic rights. When the "will of the people" runs up against someone's basic rights, the "will of the people" must step aside.
If you think that marrying your choice of consenting adults is *not* your basic right, well then, defend that position.
why can't consenting adults enter a group marriage? Or, 1 man with 1 donkey? There has to be a law that defines marriage. Maybe the gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether?
There is absolutely, inarguably, no reason whatsoever--not one single reason--to oppose same sex marriage or be offended or disgusted by homosexuality that is not based on hatred, fear, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination of those things.
Not a single one.
To wish to preclude two consenting adults from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of discrimination and bigotry.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? You know not what you talk about, just spewing nonsense. I was born gay, I was not taught to be gay. And gay is genetic and is passed on.
How do you explain bi-sexuals? Or, men that marry women, and later divorce because they claim they are (now, suddenly?) are gay? Or, gay people who later switch teams? it happens more than you want to admit. People change, and we should allow that. Sexuality is confusing for many. It's ironic that you want to diminish that. Of course, it's ok if transgenderd or bisexuals want to join forces with gays because it's all the same? I call bs.
The only thing that bothered me about the ruling was that many of these states voted on the legalization/banning of gay marriage, and it sets a dangerous precedent that something voted on by the people is overturned in one fell swoop. A very dangerous precedent that ought to scare a lot of people. Who is to say anything we vote on can't be overturned just because someone doesn't like it?
It's not about how much support the LGBT movement had gained leading up to the SCOTUS decision. It's about rendering voting, something that's at the root of our status as a democracy, effectively meaningless.
This issue should have gone to a vote in the places, such as Ohio where I live, that voted it illegal. Given the popular feelings in this country, I am confident it would have been legalized in most or all of the 50 states, and that's how it should have been done.
I agree. But, I think your misled when you say that it would have been legalized (by a vote?) in most or all states. I think you are underestimating the Christian vote big-time.
This is why the elections were consistently against gay marriage. The media continued to ram things down our throats, and a few states were swayed.
A few years ago, my parents had a group of people come by petitioning for speed bumps in the neighborhood. "they will keep us safe". "Speed bumps are needed to save lives", etc.
My Dad signed it... When speed bumps were actually built on his street, he hated it. he wished he never signed that petition.
So, be careful what you wish for. I think that is what we are seeing with gay marriage. Buyers remorse.
The marriage law, lol, was DOMA and DOMA was not a part of the constitution, it was a discriminatory law that was added. DOMA was and is unconstitutional. Get your facts right.
I never said that DOMA was part of the constitution! But, DOMA did not change marriage laws. So, if DOMA was unconstitutional then how did it get passed with a liberal democrat, Bill Clinton in the WH?
The only thing that bothered me about the ruling was that many of these states voted on the legalization/banning of gay marriage, and it sets a dangerous precedent that something voted on by the people is overturned in one fell swoop. A very dangerous precedent that ought to scare a lot of people. Who is to say anything we vote on can't be overturned just because someone doesn't like it?
You want precedents? Look at how the US did away with segregation and bans on interracial marriage. Same process.
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.
As a nation of laws, we should enforce these laws. Obama and Holder DID NOT enforce the marriage laws, and that (in part) led to the knee-jerk decision by the supreme ct. 