<p>
[quote]
What you see as your rights and liberties does not equate to another person's translation of their rights and liberties, which is precisely why I say this is a very sensitive topic and indeed voicing pro gay marriage or the latter will offend many.
[/quote]
I am not denying that it is a sensitive topic, but just because someone perceives something as a right or a liberty does not make it true. A person's rights or liberties extend to where it infringes on other's rights. A person does not lose anything by knowing that same-sex couples are out there. It does not impact the sanctity of his own marriage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another fundamental point which you don't seem to have a grasp on, They are being deprived of what they feel is something given to them by god
[/quote]
You are not understanding me. The heterosexual marriages are completely unaffected by homosexual marriages. They still have their god-given marriage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just because YOU didn't get the obese joke, doesn't mean others didn't, it was reference to a thread about obese people
[/quote]
I think you should go back and read that thread. If you'll recall, I posted in it.</p>
<p>Banning gay marriage and not legalizing gay marriage are two very different things. Either way these rights are reserved for the states who I'm sure will do what is in the best interest of their residents, respectively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Banning gay marriage and not legalizing gay marriage are two very different things.
[/quote]
That's merely an argument over semantics. If the law itself is ambiguous but has always been interpreted as banning it, it is for all intents and purposes banned even if it is not outright banned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the states who I'm sure will do what is in the best interest of their residents, respectively.
[/quote]
Tell that to Alabama, who taxes their rich residents at 3% and their poor residents at 12% and so can't fund their schools well enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not denying that it is a sensitive topic, but just because someone perceives something as a right or a liberty does not make it true. A person's rights or liberties extend to where it infringes on other's rights. A person does not lose anything by knowing that same-sex couples are out there. It does not impact the sanctity of his own marriage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does when marriage has biblical origin and comprehensive religious significance. What they feel they do indeed lose is the sanctity of their marriage because of the governments lack of respect for that very sanctity, which to many may seem awkward considering this nation was found "under god."
The idea of civil unions for legal/economic purposes may seem as an equal-but-separate thing, but then again should the government be allowed to grant rabbinical ketubas (jewish marriage license)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tell that to Alabama, who taxes their rich residents at 3% and their poor residents at 12% and so can't fund their schools well enough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is taking a extreme and blowing it way out of proportion. This is not the case with every State where legislation is heavily affected by voters which represent the voices of the people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It does when marriage has biblical origin and comprehensive religious significance.
[/quote]
That is just a good argument for removing marriage from government law altogether, because of the separation of church and state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because of the governments lack of respect for that very sanctity
[/quote]
The government is not meant to sanctify the practices of religion. So sayeth the establishment clause of the first amendment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this nation was found "under god."
[/quote]
The nation was not founded "under god."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The idea of civil unions for legal/economic purposes may seem as an equal-but-separate thing, but then again should the government be allowed to grant rabbinical ketubas (jewish marriage license)
[/quote]
No, they shouldn't. But that doesn't apply at all because the government is not mandating that churches accept homosexual marriages. Government marriage and religious marriage are two completely separate entities. You can get married in a church and not have government recognition. Further, you can get married by the government without ever entering a church.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, you can get married by the government without ever entering a church.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But my personal convictions are that this SHOULD NOT HAPPEN and if legislation doesn't adhere strictly to my beliefs and the beliefs of some other people, then what's the point of living in a free, democratic nation?</p>
<p>That is where the argument stems back to, governments granting "marriage" was okay but the religious marriage is sacred and under our law equal to the marriage granted by my local city hall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's merely an argument over semantics. If the law itself is ambiguous but has always been interpreted as banning it, it is for all intents and purposes banned even if it is not outright banned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it's not. The gist of it might be the same -- two men and two women cannot legally be considered a marriage -- but there is no law that says gay people can't marry. The marriage law defines marriage between one man and one woman. Theoretically, gay people can marry. Men can't marry other men and women can't marry other women.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But my personal convictions are that this SHOULD NOT HAPPEN and if legislation doesn't adhere strictly to my beliefs and the beliefs of some other people, then what's the point of living in a free, democratic nation
[/quote]
That's kind of a contradiction. A democracy does not mean that you're free to oppress everyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is where the argument stems back to, governments granting "marriage" was okay but the religious marriage is sacred and under our law equal to the marriage granted by my local city hall.
[/quote]
But constitutionally, the marriage granted by a church can not give more legal protections/options/rights anything than the marriage granted by the government.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the religious marriage is sacred and under our law equal to the marriage granted by my local city hall.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's not. Civil marriage is a state contract; the decision to make it a religious ceremony is that of the people getting married and has nothing to do with the legality of the marriage. </p>
<p>People can get married without the church involved in the slightest, which is why I'm confused over why you think it's ok to limit the practice according to religious beliefs. </p>
<p>Look, 50 years ago people were saying the exact same thing about interracial marriages. That it was immoral, would erode society. It wasn't "traditional" and wasn't accepted by enormous quantities of people. It's the same argument. And they were totally, completely wrong about it, just like you're totally wrong. </p>
<p>I don't necessarily dislike religious people, but I do have a problem with those who pathetically cling to archaic, outdated moralities - and worse, try to enforce them on others. There's no place for that in the modern world; when an idea or mindset is no longer relevant or supported by evidence, it gets left in the dust. Sorry. These people retard the social and political progress of this country, and contribute to the bizarre American anti-intellectual mentality that makes this country a laughingstock.</p>
<p>Listen guys, I am not anti gay marriage but I just feel that these issues are very complex. Marriage does have biblical origin, and whether or not you like religious people they have a valid argument. There are 2 sides to every story and both sides usually have legitimate purpose and concrete evidence to back up their side of the story. Personally I am not affected by gay marriage but I sympathize with those who feel they are.</p>
<p>I don't think it's fair to butt into someone's life and tell them who they can/ cannot marry. I know I get pretty mad when people get into my business when it's not their place at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
religious people...have a valid argument.
[/quote]
But that's just it. Their argument is completely and utterly unconstitutional. Is it important to them? Yes. Are they sensitive about it? Yes. But is their argument valid? No. It would overturn the most precious of our legacies, that of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment cannot be violated. You can not have a free society without freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I am not denying the sensitivity of the issue. I am denying the complexity. There is a clearly defined right and wrong option.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's fair to butt into someone's life and tell them who they can/ cannot marry. I know I get pretty mad when people get into my business when it's not their place at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But actually, its gay couples that want the government involved. No one is stopping them from going to a progressive-thinking church and getting married. It's just that, if they want all of the tax breaks associated with marriage, they have to go through the government.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But actually, its gay couples that want the government involved. No one is stopping them from going to a progressive-thinking church and getting married. It's just that, if they want all of the tax breaks associated with marriage, they have to go through the government.
[/quote]
You make it sound like all they want are tax breaks. How about the right to bequeath their property to their loved ones upon their death? How about health care? How about insurance?</p>
<p>It is not the homosexuals who want to get the government involved. They say "government, stay out of defining marriage - it's none of your business to decide if people are legally allowed to love one another." Then a minority of Americans say "bah, you homos are unnatural! You don't deserve health care, insurance, social security, veteran's pensions, compensatory money for the death of your spouse, worker's comp, employment assistance, the right to bring your Significant Other in from a foreign country, veteran's disability, disability payments, medicaid, joint filing of bankruptcy, parenting rights, family visitation rights, next-of-kin status for medical decisions, domestic violence protection orders, funeral leave, and join adoption and foster care" - this is just part of a long, long list of rights contingent upon marriage. Goes a little bit past "tax breaks," eh?</p>
no, he's a terrible poster who uses too...... many....... ellipses..... and fake-embraces rap "thug" culture to counter his conservative-religious side
</p>
<p>I'm so happy someone finally said that. Quoted for truth.</p>
<p>
But actually, its gay couples that want the government involved. No one is stopping them from going to a progressive-thinking church and getting married. It's just that, if they want all of the tax breaks associated with marriage, they have to go through the government.
</p>
<p>You are a bigot. End of discussion. Switch "gay" for "interracial" in that first sentence and you have something that might as well have been written by some 50's KKK Grand Wizard.</p>
<p>
Listen guys, I am not anti gay marriage but I just feel that these issues are very complex. Marriage does have biblical origin, and whether or not you like religious people they have a valid argument. There are 2 sides to every story and both sides usually have legitimate purpose and concrete evidence to back up their side of the story. Personally I am not affected by gay marriage but I sympathize with those who feel they are.
</p>
<p>It's very simple. If marriage is a religious, biblical institution, then decouple it from marriage as a civil institution. Then individual churches can discriminate all they want. But currently, marriage is a civil institution. It can have all the religious tradition associated with it that it wants, but at the end of the day as a civil institution it must abide by the US Constitution, which it does not. Period.</p>
<p>By the way, just for the record, I don't think Muslims, Jews, or anyone non-white should be allowed to be married in America - and certainly not to our white people. This isn't bigotry - this is biblical tradition!</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are a bigot. End of discussion. Switch "gay" for "interracial" in that first sentence and you have something that might as well have been written by some 50's KKK Grand Wizard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No I'm not, but I'm starting to think maybe you are. How many more allusions to Blacks are you going to make? It's not the same thing, even though the issue of marriage is still in question.</p>
No I'm not, but I'm starting to think maybe you are. How many more allusions to Blacks are you going to make? It's not the same thing, even though the issue of marriage is still in question.
</p>
<p>Oh? And why, exactly, is it not the same thing? Because you don't feel as uncomfortable about black people as about gay people? Because ancient, outdated Old Testament books (Leviticus) didn't mention black people like gay people? Or, perhaps, because you feel that gay people are just choosing a lifestyle?</p>
<p>Well, let me make it very clear: the two are not different, except in severity of historical treatment. Black people have had to deal with more crap than gay people; the differences end their. Other than that, they are both minorities who are or were derisively degraded pervasively throughout our culture, because of something that it is both unfair and impossible to ask them to change. (have you ever asked a black person if they would just try not to be black? Or just stop living the "black lifestyle"? Yeah, didn't think so.)</p>
<p>I can understand why you're so hot under the collar about me switching "black" for "gay" in your posts, though - it's not very comfortable to read what are 99% your own words and realize that what you're reading is bigoted trash. But what else can I do? You're making thes ridiculously bigoted posts with absolutely no perspective on what they sound like - all I can do is try to bring that to your attention.</p>