<p>In continuation with the early political discussion, lets have a running debate so that the days will pass quicker. Any suggestions? I will be up for anything not related to colleges.</p>
<p>Do you think gay marriages should be legal?</p>
<p>Absolutely not. I believe that that denegrates the social and religious foundations of our nation. As a strong Christian, I can not support homosexual marriages or unions. In any case. Period. The biggest case made for these is that the 14th Amendment gives equal protection. Anyone who has done research on this Amendment knows that it was never legally ratified. I'd be happy to provide links.<br>
Thats just my 2 cents. Hope to hear from everyone else.</p>
<p>i think we should allow civil unions but not gay marriage. personally, i think it is unfair that they don't have the visitation things and all, but i don't see why it is necessary to have it be officially called gay marriage. it won't change anything.</p>
<p>there's no need to change the definition of marriage. constitutionally it must be left to the states, and seeing by the votes, the people don't want gay marriage. we are a democracy and i think the wishes of the majority should be respected in this case.</p>
<p>well i think your 14th amendment point isn't really valid--incorporation doctrine has been a fundamental tenet of 20th century constitutional law. mapp v ohio miranda v arizona blah blah pretty much every 1920-1960 landmark case involved some form of incorporation. to say that the 14th amendment wasn't ratified is slightly misleading because it has in effect evolved into the vehicle to incorporate federal constitutionality into state law.</p>
<p>I understand your point about the 14th Amend., but you have to correct an error. It should be repealed immediately because it was completely illegally ratified. If the states want to ratify one with the exact same wording, let them do it, but I will not sacrifice my morals and say...well its been law for a while, so... The Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate the agenda that our Congressmen never would, it is supposed to judiciate. If you look at Justices, the most idiotic Chief Justics ever was Earl Warren. He should have been impeached. Not saying that the decisions that he reached were bad, but he was making rulings not based on constitutionality.</p>
<p>I like this thread. Lets keep it going. We can have multiple topics going at once if yall would like.</p>
<p>Justice, can you give me my ranking for Harvard EA in your mind. I am the one who started the Rank A New EA etc... thread. It's still up on page one. Thanks man.</p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
<p>i agree with civil unions and full legal rights, but not marriages. To me a legal-union is the big heading on the outline that is described as a legal union between two people. Under thatis marriage, which is a specific type of a legal-union refering only to a union between a man and a woman, it's a special type. I'm not discriminating against gays, it's just that a marriage means, to me anyways, that it is specifically for a man and a woman.</p>
<p>marriage should be more religious than secular in my opinion... however, we live in a country that despite it's liberties, religion is almost looked down upon/ ignored in certain ways (media, etc). I am Catholic and do not believe that same-sex marriages should be allowed in the Church, and they never will. however, why should religion or moral reasons be used an excuse to deprive people from their CIVIL liberties(when we have technically separated Church from state)??? love the sinner, not the sin. </p>
<p>i mean, we ARE trying to move away from our founding-fathers' primitive ideas on social justice... right? (it all goes back to the rights of PEOPLE, should ppl be looked down upon because of their race, or their gender: NO, so why is this any different?)</p>
<p>What business is it of yours if two people want to get married? What right do you have to judge whether or not they meet the specifications to do so? If you are able to decide the rights of them, why can they not do the same to you? What is special about a man and a woman that 2 men do not have?</p>
<p>for the first question, society has to redefine marriage in order for those two people to be married. why should we unwillingly change that definition if we do not wish to or have any reason to?</p>
<p>for the second, people have the right to judge because this is a government by the people for the people. if every state proposition, even liberal Oregon's, goes against gay marriage, it is obvious that the people do not back gay marriage. the question you should be asking is: why should a societal expectation (man + woman = household) be upturned? it there is a great reason for it, then i'm all for it. until i hear of that great reason, i will allow civil unions but see no point in going against the people. </p>
<p>another point, about church: i am not religious, but it is important to note that much of the social change in this country was PROPELLED by churches (civil rights grassroots, abolitionism ie. second great awakening, etc). </p>
<p>"what is special about a man and a woman?" can we not be so pseudo-progressive. for one, mammals (if you consider yourself one) are designed to partner with the opposite sex. those that do not are characterized as genetically mutant in some way, and the homosexuality phenomenon occurs in other animals when there is a chemical inbalance. as such, if it is not a choice, then we have to find ways to genetically treat it. if there is a physical cause to it, then certainly there will be a day when there will be no more homosexuals because it will be cured. if it is a choice, then further reason not to allow gay marriage because it validates a choice that has no reason to be validated.</p>
<p>Justice, I usually agree with all your points; but I'd have to say that your opinion on gay-marriages is pretty narrow-minded. The nature argument is hardly valid. Many aspects of our life has defined what "nature intended". You can not claim that in this instance, it is unnatural because if it is not what 'nature". Why should the choice to be gay not be valid?</p>
<p>Even your point on the church does not make any sense. Nobody owes the church anything. Just because, the church has propelled social change does not mean that only their ideologies are correct. In fact the church is notorious for breeding intolerance, due to it's strict laws. The catholic church looks down upon divorce, does that mean that divorce should be abolished as well?</p>
<p>Yes, Justice, let's spend millions of dollars to "cure" or "genetically treat" the awful disease that is homosexuality. Don't worry about AIDS or cancer, the real problem is those gays and their ridiculous desire to have equal protection under the law as you do.
Right.</p>
<p>Anyway, the "institution of marriage" as it's called is a joke these days. Britney Spears can get hopped up on Red Bull, get married, and annulled hours later, but two men or women who have been together for twenty-five years and have two children can't recieve the same benefits as she did in those 55 hours of marriage.</p>
<p>On the other hand, marriage is a religious custom clearly defined as between a man and woman and the government shouldn't the force the church into that. They do need to provide the same protection under the law as a "married" couple, so civil unions should be legalized. </p>
<p>But that creates the whole issue of "separate but equal" where basically all we are arguing is semantics (marriage vs. union). The argument keeps going around and around. I think it'll eventually end up at the Supreme Court, just like abortion will once again, and then it will be decided.</p>
<p>I love this topic.</p>
<p>I disagree with practically everyone so far (except Venkman and davidrune). Gay marriage must be legalized. First, practically gay marriage is important because it helps with fidelity and self-esteem of gays. As Andrew Sullivan always says, gays were born into heterosexual families, and they want to continue the tradition of heterosexual marriage. They want the same status as others do.</p>
<p>"Justice"--the thing about nature--our teeth are also designed to eat meat, but you don't see us wanting to treat vegetarians. Well, maybe that's not such a good example. The thing about homosexuality is a choice is hard for someone like me to think about because of all of the pain I've gone through coming out, etc. Do you think I would bring on all of the discrimination, never being able to get married, not being able to have kids--would I bring those on myself just to...well, why would I do that? And I am offended that people do not trust me, but I guess you don't know me. Maybe all of the images of freaky gays in pride parades make you think that all gays are just crazy, and those offend me, too, because I think being so open about sexuality is gross.</p>
<p>Again "Justice"--it is not "upturning" "a social expectation" of marriage to allow gays to marry. Stop this "redefining" nonsense, please--we are allowing more people to be included in marriage. We are expanding marriage to a different class of people--gays--so that they can honor it, too. Also: why are we so resistant to change here? Redefining marriage is no argument.</p>
<p>And civil unions--that is still different in name. We want to be treated just as others are treated. Can you put yourself in my shoes? Picture me, 13 (I am 17 now), being attracted to other men, really freaked out, going through all of the pain, etc., having grandparents being disappointed (some people's parents are disappointed--I am lucky that mine are cool), being ashamed at school, then growing to love myself because there is nothing I can do about being gay--and now being told I can not get married in my own state, and that maybe some day I will be able to get a "civil union," a really awkward term that is designed just so I will not be able to say I get married? So civil unions will be separate but equal?</p>
<p>Okay. Done ranting, I think. I may have other reasons too, but I really should finish up my Princeton app because I don't know about next Tuesday...</p>
<p>PS: No one is going to come into a church and demand that the church let two gays marry! This is about CIVIL MARRIAGE--government marriage.</p>
<p>PPS: What specifically do you have against gays from a religious standpoint? Just because the church says it's wrong now does not make it wrong period, right (because it has been wrong before)? Just the one prohibition in the Old Testament? But doesn't the Old Testament also have laws for keeping kosher, stoning adulterers, and telling stories of people who had multiple wives? (They've since redefined marriage, I guess.) There is nothing in there about Sodom/Gomorrah actually being filled with gays.</p>
<p>The bottom line remains that homosexuals are capable of loving relationships just as heterosexuals are. They should be allowed to commit to each-other, and get married. Non-christians can get married... mass murderers can get married... why not homosexuals?</p>
<p>i am not saying that we should follow the church's ideology; i was referring to the common arguments that the church stunts social change, which is not always true. sorry, that was a pretty non sequitur comment.</p>
<p>the nature argument i stand by 100%. from what i've seen, i feel that most people are gay by nature and i respect that in the same way that i respect all people's right to be inherently different. i further note that homosexuality, if having a basis in neuroscience, must be something that can be treated eventually. if you are arguing that it does not need to be treated and that the world should have homosexuals even if it is preventable, then we are at deeprooted differences. </p>
<p>i am 100% for the equal protection of homosexuals--that is, equal rights as partners--they can have all the perks of marriage, but again, it does not make sense to me to redefine marriage. i think john kerry, among most if not all democrats, would agree with me.</p>
<p>to make a rather poor but hopefully functional analogy, someone left-handed shouldn't demand that all cars have two clutches so that they can drive manual as well as the right-handed people. it is unnecessary. they can, however, order their own custom cars which are slightly different and may cost slightly more than normal cars. the idea is that the minoritie's interests do not redefine the vast majority's ideas.</p>
<p>Here's another crude analogy. According to what you're saying then, the African-Americans were wrong in being opposed to slavery because quite simply they were the minority and therefore their interests can not define the majority's ideas. The minority is entitled to the same rights as the majority. By giving one group the ability to get married and taking it away from another, you're going against that very principle.</p>
<p>Even if being gay can be "treated," why should we treat it? What is intrinsically wrong with being gay? The world will still procreate. Is it unnatural? First, homosexuality does occur among healthy animals in nature. Second, what about the teeth thing? And isn't unnatural to suppress urges? There is nothing intrinsically good about things that are "natural" unless you are insecure about the present and want to stick to the natural because it has worked for so long (has it?)--and even if it has, sometimes new circumstances come up that demand change. And homosexuals are not new, but hearing about them publicly is.</p>
<p>Again, the redefining thing and the left-handed thing--I agree about the left-handed thing. But we are not changing marriage! We are expanding its definition to include more people! Changing the cars would make it harder for righties to drive, but we are not making it harder for straights to get married if we let gays get married!</p>
<p>In fact, your analogy isn't right at all. Homosexuals are not demanding two clutches. They want custom cars. They want to be able to drive a car (get married) but it'll be different. their clutch will be on the left side (they will be single sexed).</p>