Who believes the US has a right to censor gay marriage?... (illegal, 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.
Well, this issue has a lot of different angles to it. The wide majority of this country is religious, and most of these religions believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is God's will. Marriage is considered a holy contract under God between a man and woman, and the idea that a state/country would sanction something like this is utterly horrifying for many people. This is has to do more with people's deeply held religious convictions more than anything. I personally am not opposed to gay civil unions, because this would entitle them to the same rights as married couples, but I am against gay marriage because I think the entire idea of it is completely offensive to most christians and other faiths in this country. I think the gay movement would be much better off by not using the phrase marriage because that is a loaded word. The idea of a constitutional amendment is completely ludacris and is obvious pandering by this president to his christian-right base. This is something that will never happen. But, as you have seen, marriage in many states, by ballot initiative, is being purposely defined as 1 man and 1 woman, and these are passing by wide majorities. This is not infringing upon people's rights--these rights never existed before and it has to do with people's deeply held beliefs that should be respected.
It's not a religious issue...we're talking about civil marriage, like from the Justice of the Peace...so why is it that because of YOUR religious beliefs other people are still denied the right to marry? It doesn't matter what you believe in terms of someone else's rights. This minority (gays and lesbians) will eventually be able to get married...and nobody is trying to get married in your church, believe me on that one.
I'll have to look up the percentages of people for and against same sex marriage...it's more supported than you're portaying it to be.
If the Government was not involved in marriage, you would not care either. Why does it matter if the definition of marriage changes? If it is between 6 guys, a gal and a dozen sheep, if the government is not giving (or demanding that corporations give) special treatments to "marriages" there would be no perceived need for changing the definition of marriage. This would also fix the divorce issue too, because you could call it something else too....like Burgoo, or Mungies. Then go get your "ceremony" where ever you want it, and call it what ever you want to call it, and when you are done with it, you can call it what ever you want. No $$ incentive to anyone, no "special treatment" for anyone, no nothing for no body, then everybody is happy.
I'll be glad to accept gay marriges as soon as you get the muslim countries too. lol , good luck. If I say I dont back it, thats all you need to know, im not trying to convince you I'm right.
Well, this issue has a lot of different angles to it. The wide majority of this country is religious, and most of these religions believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is God's will. Marriage is considered a holy contract under God between a man and woman, and the idea that a state/country would sanction something like this is utterly horrifying for many people. This is has to do more with people's deeply held religious convictions more than anything. I personally am not opposed to gay civil unions, because this would entitle them to the same rights as married couples, but I am against gay marriage because I think the entire idea of it is completely offensive to most christians and other faiths in this country. I think the gay movement would be much better off by not using the phrase marriage because that is a loaded word. The idea of a constitutional amendment is completely ludacris and is obvious pandering by this president to his christian-right base. This is something that will never happen. But, as you have seen, marriage in many states, by ballot initiative, is being purposely defined as 1 man and 1 woman, and these are passing by wide majorities. This is not infringing upon people's rights--these rights never existed before and it has to do with people's deeply held beliefs that should be respected.
So, let me see if I understand this... Christians often say that people shouldn't be so offended, whenever one of their practices/symbols is brought into question. Aren't they usually the ones who speak out against the ACLU, because "we shouldn't have to alter things to accomodate someone who's offended??" But then by your logic, we should deny rights to an entire group, simply because it might upset the sacred Christians. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways! Laws shouldn't be enacted just because a group doesn't like something... that sounds more like schoolyard politics to me - "We hate boys, so boys aren't allowed in the clubhouse!!" If laws were made based on individual beliefs & values, we'd never get anything accomplished. But like others have pointed out, marriage is a religious contract, and churches/temples already have the right to decide whether to perform gay weddings. I know gay people who've been married in a church, but these ceremonies aren't recognized by the state... and that's what they're fighting for, so really the religious debate is moot when speaking of LEGAL unions.
P.S. If I misunderstood your specific points, I apologize... but these comments were more generally directed (based on what some Christians & right-wingers say), so don't take them too personally.
I am curious as to why people think the US (as opposed to other countries) has the right to enter into peoples private lives.
Thanks for any and all opinions.
Hmmm... because I don't believe natural for two same sex people to enter into a marriage. And I don't believe the idea of marriage should be altered to fit everyone's sexual preferences (I believe being gay is a choice, not biological- a while other controversy). I agree with the majority of the country, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
If they really want a union, I think there should be a "garriage" which we could all learn to be a gay marriage.
Furthermore, people always enter into private lives. If that weren't the case then we would accept incest, child abuse, etc. Society often enters into private lives when people are doing things that are seen as immoral and not socially acceptable by the majority.
Incest and child abuse are not only illegal they are, in most cases, non-consensual.
Gay and lesbian relationships are legal and most times, they are the consensual acts of mature adults.
Of course we must have laws to protect the vulnerable groups in society but we do not need laws to protect us from consenting adults who wish to have relationships with eachother.
This is not infringing upon people's rights--these rights never existed before and it has to do with people's deeply held beliefs that should be respected.
(wanted to respond to this comment separately)
Here's a conversation you could have heard back in the 1920s... you know, women didn't originally have the right to vote, so why should we bother ADDING that right? Shouldn't women just be happy we didn't take anything away? In addition, men have strong beliefs against women voting, so we really shouldn't offend them by changing things. Let's just keep it as "men only" for voting, and the women can have their own elections, which won't be counted equally to men's voting. Do you see where I'm going with this? The same could be said for any rights that have been added in the last 200 years, like those for minorities, children, and basically any other group.
Incest and child abuse are not only illegal they are, in most cases, non-consensual.
Gay and lesbian relationships are legal and most times, they are the consensual acts of mature adults.
Of course we must have laws to protect the vulnerable groups in society but we do not need laws to protect us from consenting adults who wish to have relationships with eachother.
Yes, exactly... just because people like RedWings don't "like" it, that is no reason to prevent consenting adults from marrying. Just once I'd like to hear an argument against gay marriage that didn't include religion, personal opinion, or the "slippery slope theory".
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.
If laws were made based on individual beliefs & values, we'd never get anything accomplished. But like others have pointed out, marriage is a religious contract, and churches/temples already have the right to decide whether to perform gay weddings. I know gay people who've been married in a church, but these ceremonies aren't recognized by the state... and that's what they're fighting for, so really the religious debate is moot when speaking of LEGAL unions.
