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.
An individual's actions cannot be "UnConstitutional." The Constitution does not limit what individual citizens can do. It limits what the government can do. The Constitution puts no prohibition on a person being a racist homophobic bigot, if that's what one wishes to be. The debate is whether the government has the right to force individual businesses to behave as the government wishes.
The government technically doesn't. Cases of discrimination are generally civil cases. Discrimination is illegal in the US and people can argue rather or not a certain action is discriminatory. The courts oversee it and make the final decision once all the evidence is brought in, but I don't see a whole lot of police just showing up a bakeries or whatever and arresting anyone who said something slightly negative about gay people.
To address business discrimination, there's a fine line. A baker shouldn't refuse to bake a gay person a cake for any reason. That's discrimination. The baker however should not be required to create a cake with a message on it that they are opposed to. That same line of logic applies in other places as well. Being forced to actually partake in it is unjust, but being forced to sell to people who will is perfectly sensible as to do otherwise is unlawful and unethical discrimination.
It really doesn't matter what people who against equal marriage think, say or do. The fight has been won.
They can be offended by the color of the sky, mix raced couples, coupons for pizza, or gay marriage. That offense and worry all amount to the same thing
it doesn't matter
their opinion no longer matters
This debate is over, its been won by the good guys, and now you and your opinion (if you disagree) will fade away to the same place that people who are offended about mixed races went.
No one is forcing you to pay for the ceremony.
No one is forcing you to attend and watch.
No one is forcing you to be friends with gay people or like anything about them.
No one is forcing your church to change its teachings and start performing gay marriages.
So how does it harm you if two of them are in a legally-recognized, secular union with equivalent survivorship, estate, and inheritance rights?
Does it stop you from enjoying any rights?
Does it stop you from going about your business and paying your bills?
Does it somehow infringe on your marriages?
What's the deal?..
Don't give me some variant of the argument that it somehow "cheapens" marriage... please, have you looked at the divorce rates among overwhelmingly heterosexual marriages?
Why can't conservatives just deal with the fact that people different from them - people they don't even have to interact with if they don't want to - might have the same legal relationship rights as them?
The only reason I can think of is because they are different from you and you hate that and can't live and let live.
It doesn't.
I am conservative- or so they tell me- and I have never had a problem with gay marriage.
Okay, which ethical philosopher was it who said that gay people shouldn't be allowed to love and marry just like everyone else?
Aristotle? Kant? Mill? I could make good arguments in favor of gay marriage from all three of their perspectives. Heck, let's do so.
Aristotelian virtue ethics is all about individual character traits. Hmm, is it virtuous or vicious to tell a gay guy that he can't visit his dying partner in the hospital because of an arbitrary legal distinction? Isn't it well-established that love and honor and family are core virtues? (Hint: Yes.) Any argument in favor of family values, most of which I support and most of which would be supported by those who oppose gay marriage on "moral" grounds, can be offered under this framework as an argument for gay marriage.
Modern variations on virtue ethics work similarly. A Eudaimonist view, which is one that advocates human flourishing and progress, would support gay marriage on the grounds that marriage and families are demonstratably healthy for society. An agent-based view, which is one where virtures are determined by common sense intuition, supports gay marriage, as well, since it's pretty obvious that committing to your partner is a virtuous thing to do, and being loyal is generally thought of as admirable. Care ethics is a slam-dunk case for gay marriage -- we ought to treat gay people with the same compassion with which we treat everyone else.
What about Kantian ethics? Well, what is the categorical imperative? Most people who are drawn to Kantian ethics agree that the second formulation of the categorical imperative, the one that emphasizes the dignity of the individual will, is a thing of beauty. Clearly, gay marriage does not violate any of the formulations of the categorical imperative, and attempting to ban it violates the second. Going after the dignity of other people merely in order to feed your own prejudice (or whatever -- basically, it's because you don't believe in gay marriage) treats those people as a means to an end, and that's a big no-no in Kantian ethics. It's possible to expand on this, but this post is long enough. Suffice it to say that Kant is awesome and banning gay marriage goes against everything he stood for when it comes to human dignity.
The last one left is utilitarianism, right? Well, guess what? We've looked inward at the virtues of the people involved, and we've looked at the intrinsic properties of acts themselves. What about outcomes of moral acts? Well, this brings us back to some things we've already touched on. Families are good for society. Single people carousing are less good. Raising children properly is good for society, and every study ever done has shown that married couples (gay or straight) do a better job of it than single people. Just on those merits, we already have a strong case. Add in the fact that gay marriage harms literally nobody (maybe some people get their feelings hurt, but that's only because they lost a political fight, and going any further into the matter just begs the question and gets us into circular logic).
Wow, it seems that maybe there isn't such a great case for banning gay marriage. Well, those were all dusty old philosophers. What about new people? What about modern philosophy? What would John Rawls say about this?
Ha ha, of course Rawls would tell you to take a minute to step behind the Veil of Ignorance and see just how inhumane it is to take a segment of society that did not choose to be who they are and deny them one of the cornerstones of civilization. I mean, marriage is such a wonderful thing (this is true, even if we like to joke otherwise), so rolling dice and declaring to people that the circumstances of their births dictate that they can never marry is cruel on many levels, in addition to the way it's harmful to society.
So, yay for this ruling. It's not symptomatic of a lack of moral compass. As someone who is rather fond of the ethics of care, I have to say that it's nice to see that society is becoming more empathetic and compassionate toward our fellow humans. It's time to wake up and see that that is virtuous.
^^ Regarding the above statement, I think God would beg to differ.
It's not a good day for those who actually still have a moral compass.
It's a fine day for those of us whose moral compass works just fine... without the threat of divine retribution or the expected treat of next-life reward to keep us in check like children or dogs.
A civil union is a legal union also. I just don't believe in a "traditional" union for them based on my religious beliefs and that I think by making it lawful nationwide in in direct conflict of what we have been as a majorily Christian nation in identity, gives us a bad image and makes us hypocrites. Yeah, I know let the flames begin. I refuse to banter back and forth about this though. It is my opinion of which I am entitled to and if whoever doesn't like it then so be it.
Big deal. I now have the "right" to marry a man, yet I'm required to engage in usury by the US government (disguised as a health-care reform). And I should celebrate my "rights"? Seems I'm losing rights that I give a damn about trading them for "rights" that I couldn't possibly care less about.
Marriage supposedly died when my generation was young. I was told that marriage didn't matter and that I do not need a piece of paper to tell me it's okay to love and live with the person of my choosing. I don't really see why that has changed. Now it's back to big daddy government giving me the okay?
Technically, the thirteenth amendment freed us from marriage, in general, over a hundred fifty years ago. But it's okay; you go ahead and play house like nice little servants to your state. Your government loves taking more of your money. They'd let you marry your hand if they thought they could get away with it, because it would mean more revenue. Just like one of those big corporations you love so much.
I advocate for "traditional marriage," as that term refers to marriage between man and a woman. I see nothing wrong with it, I think it's a good thing, helps families and communities. So in that way, I "believe in" and "support" what is known as "traditional marriage" too.
But I ALSO support and advocate for gay marriage.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-26-2015 at 03:38 PM..
Reason: Deleted quoted post
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.
