Do you approve or disapprove of homosexual marriages? (lawyers, soldier, high school)
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.
Problem is there is no real definition of marriage other than the union of 2 people or more. Gay marriage existed in places like china and greece thousands of years ago. Even today some people define marriage as only with 1 person, other with multiple people (polygamy) some as strictly heterosexual some as homo sexual and hetero sexual. Thats all fine especially when it comes to religion to say what marriage is in your religion. But when it comes to the state a legal marriage doesnt have anything to do sex, anybody should be able to get married by the state. All it is, is a legal union not a spiritual one by a church.
Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the United States Bill of Rights, expressly forbids laws being made "respecting an establishment of religion" and that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, according to this argument, the state has no authority to define marriage as between one man and woman because there are various religions which hold that gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage
In my opinion, I disapprove of homosexual marriages.
I approve of them. I see no reason why I should disapprove them. Two people who love each other should be able to commit to each other and get married. I don't see the big deal. I don't see how it would affect me (as a straight person - affect MY own personal marriage, I should say). On the other hand, people that give reasons why they disapprove of gay marriage; things like protect sanctity of marriage, etc., need to look at the adultery, cheating, divorce issue within "traditional" marriage and quit blaming gay people. Seems to me that gay people and gay marriage would be the LEAST of one's worry about protecting the sanctity of marriage or protecting traditional marriage.
Most of what I've read on this (and other boards) is some kind of weird, irrational pre-occupation about the intimate acts that gay individuals partake of. I think that those people need to get passed what other people do in the bedroom (gay or straight) and look to people as people that deserve to have the right to be legally married to the person that they want to marry.
Additionally, if people are allowed to pick the mate of their choice at the onset, it actually "protects" marriage in the regard that people don't have to live a lie for 20 years and then all of a sudden announce to their spouse and/or children, "I'm gay." It's better to let people be who they are from the onset to avoid this kind of occurrence. Lies almost inevitably come out. Life is too short for ANYONE to live a lie.
I just don't get it. What is the difference than? Why not all - don't you think the distinction is a societal message - your union isn't as valid as a hetero union. A marriage should be about love and commitment. I'm sorry, it is discrimation against gays - plain and simple - that our love isn't as good as your love - it drives me bonkers that people feel the need to deny me something they have for personal reasons.
Problem is there is no real definition of marriage other than the union of 2 people or more. Gay marriage existed in places like china and greece thousands of years ago. Even today some people define marriage as only with 1 person, other with multiple people (polygamy) some as strictly heterosexual some as homo sexual and hetero sexual. Thats all fine especially when it comes to religion to say what marriage is in your religion. But when it comes to the state a legal marriage doesnt have anything to do sex, anybody should be able to get married by the state. All it is, is a legal union not a spiritual one by a church.
It's two-sided though. How can you prevent me from exercising my religeous rights and wanting to ban gay marriage. But then a gay person has a religeon where it's ok to marry then how do I have the right to stop that? That's where it will ultimately come down to a Supreme Court vote but even then it's likely to be a split decision.
Again though I don't have a problem with civil unions. I just want to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
I do appreciate the rational way that you expressed yourself.
It's two-sided though. How can you prevent me from exercising my religeous rights and wanting to ban gay marriage. But then a gay person has a religeon where it's ok to marry then how do I have the right to stop that? That's where it will ultimately come down to a Supreme Court vote but even then it's likely to be a split decision.
Again though I don't have a problem with civil unions. I just want to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
I do appreciate the rational way that you expressed yourself.
This is the perfect example of why same sex marriage should be legal. It seperates what is legal from what is the whims of one's personal beliefs in whatever perspective religion they ascribe to.
It is far easier to provide the same rights and freedoms to all regardless of religious denomination. Again, you have every right to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it should end there at belief.
For instance, what are you going to do when the first President of the U.S is elected who is an Athiest or a Buddhist. Deny him the Presidency because he refuses to swear on the Bible? Religion in Politics and National/State law can't and never should mix.
It's two-sided though. How can you prevent me from exercising my religeous rights and wanting to ban gay marriage. But then a gay person has a religeon where it's ok to marry then how do I have the right to stop that? That's where it will ultimately come down to a Supreme Court vote but even then it's likely to be a split decision.
Again though I don't have a problem with civil unions. I just want to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
I do appreciate the rational way that you expressed yourself.
But your argument is flawed in this point. The government should make no distinction meaning it can't be by christianity or buddhism or w/e it is. Meaning anybody regardless of race,religion,age,sexuality can get married. For example if you want to ban gay marriage you are imposing your belief onto homosexuals. If gay marriage is legalized they are not imposing their belief onto you. Your marriage will still be heterosexual and won't change anything in your life. At the moment the only way gays can get married is if they get married with someone of the opposite sex, meaning they are not free to do as they wish. If homosexual marriage is legalized heterosexuals are still free to do as they wish and can marry whoever they want so nothing changes for them.
If you want to do it religiously then i have absolutely 0 problem with banning gays from getting married by "god" in certain churches/religions. I personally dont want gays to get married by shinto priests but that is my belief and has nothing to do with legal marriage which is done a piece of paper with your names on it.
I'm not opening my mouth i am typing. And basically everysingle founding father was against organized religion and was against the government and religion interefering with personal liberties. Your faith has absolutely nothing to do with another person liberties that don't affect you at all. Did you know that the US today is more religious-practicing than it was in its first century of existence?
Did you learn anything in your government class? LOL. The fact that the supreme court which is a tiny minority of the population can overturn something is fact enough that the majority of the population does not rule. That means if 99% of americans say 300,000,000 americans voted for something a few people can still overturn it. That is not majority rules democracy. Yes there is plurality and majority when it comes to voting but any american who knows anything about government will know the USA is not a "majority rules" government. What you are trying to describe is something called direct democracy however the US is a republic not a direct democracy.
Even when you vote for the US President you vote for representative who will then cast your vote for you. You are not directly voting for your president. That means if the electoral college for whatever reason disagree with your vote they can vote for the other candidate. This is what is called a republic not a direct or majority rules democracy. Also representatives are elected through a plurality meaning you dont necesarily need a majority.
An example is during the 2000 election more people voted for al gore but Bush won the electoral votes and won the presidency. How can you call the US a majority rules or a direct democracy then?
How do people get into the electoral college again? Oh, they are voted in by a majority of the votes in their district.
Of course we are a majority rules country. If 99% of the people voted in favor of something then it's almost assured that's the way the Supreme Court would vote as well. Of course they could vote the opposite way but in reality that never happens. Find me one concrete example where the country felt 99% towards accepting something and the Supreme Court overruled this. You can't because one doesn't exist.
In the 2000 election who got a majority of the electoral college votes? Did the person with this majority win the election? Were those electoral college members also elected by a majority vote in their district? Can they be replaced by a majority vote once their term expires?
Everything we do in this country comes down to majority rules at some point.
Currently the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage so that's how it will stay for quite some time if not indefinitely (hopefully anyway).
So how can you say that faith has nothing to do with someone else's liberties? The Christian Faith in this country is what denying gays the right to marry. You say one has nothing to do with the other (or shouldn't) but clearly it does.
You keep talking in hypotheticals and I'm talking reality. Hypothetically, what if 99% of the people agree on something and the Supreme Court overturns it? Give me a break. Find any one idea that 99% of people in this country believe in. I doubt you could get 99% to agree we've actually been to the moon or that the sky is blue. Talk like that is cheap but if you want to put more serious thought into this argument then do a little research first or possibly have someone help you with your writing.
The problem with prohibiting something based on religious belief is that it is basing laws on unsound 'logic.' The bible is a product of the time that it was written. If homosexual marriage is going to be prohibited because the bible says it's immoral, then why not make unbelief a capital crime or legalize and advocate slavery. Gay marriage should be legalized because laws should be formed based on objective reasong, rather than subjective personal biases.
That's right - in their district. Not nationally as you insinuiated. Furthermore, electors do not have an obligation to vote for a specific candidate.
As far as the second paragraph, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
Clearly the electoral college members do not have an obligation to vote the way of the majority but thank you for stating the obvious. If they do this though they run the risk of being voted out of their position by the majority in their district at the next election point.
Also, I don't insinuate anything....I think you would agree that I've stated my position very clearly. I don't need to insinuate when I can just tell you exactly how I feel. Seems as though when you read my posts you can't take the words at face value but instead have to read your own prejudices into them.
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.
