<p>do you guys think gay marriages should be allowed?</p>
<p>Yes, definitely. Not allowing them to marry is like not admitting that they're people. It's totally encroaching on human rights.</p>
<p>Somehow it ended up as a discussion of the nature of evil (which says more than it doesn't), but still, more than you'd ever want to hear about gay marriage. If you read all that and honestly still have more to say (which is highly unlikely), then feel free to talk to me about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, definitely. Not allowing them to marry is like not admitting that they're people. It's totally encroaching on human rights.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no human/natural right to a government-recognized marriage. To deny homosexuals of such marriage opportunities, the Government would be violating principles on a civil level.</p>
<p>I meant human rights as the US would like to see it...as everyone being equal, etc etc. I know that obviously doesn't exist, but this is so against the principles that the country was founded on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but this is so against the principles that the country was founded on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That raises even more questions: How are the legal rights of citizens determined? Are they predicated on abtract normative/moral principles or concrete legal rules established by case precedent? If judges do take principles into account when deciding cases, how are they to weigh it if precedent encourages the competing verdict? Do judges always take principles into account? What about policy? If a verdict had the effect of maximizing utility for society, why consider principles? </p>
<p>I am not refuting your arguments. I am suggesting that this issue is much more complex than it appears.</p>
<p>here comes the religious right... take cover.</p>
<p>yep....i think i'm going to leave...</p>
<p>no. I am totally against gay marriage. Lets face it, a man and a man can't have a baby. Think about it... 2 same sexes marry...it will make US the laughing stock of the world. Seriously.</p>
<p>yeah... and america is really worried about what the world thinks of us...</p>
<p>so rExRuN, are you against marriages where a man and a women do not intend on ever having a baby?</p>
<p>are you against sterile men getting married? should a vasectomy make a marriage void?</p>
<p>^ nah dood, im just adding my christian principles into my opinion.</p>
<p>you told us to "think about it", but you obviously havn't yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Think about it... 2 same sexes marry...it will make US the laughing stock of the world. Seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you serious? Last time I checked Netherlands, Spain and Belgium were not the "laughing stock of the world." Do some research before you open your mouth next time. Dolt.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't believe in gay marriage. I have nothing against gays, or gay couples, however, the western concept of marriage is defined as the union between a man and a women. There is no reason a gay couple shouldn't have access to the same sort of benefits associated with marriage, i.e. being able to reach partners in the hospital, cohabitation benefits, etc.. But the concept of marriage is more then that. Perhaps, my greatest explanation is my belief in tradition. Yes, you can relate the argument that traditional marriage has at many points in history been more then simply 1 man, 1 women, but lets be honest, the current and vast majority of marriages in history have been that way. To say that this should be changed is not growth or progress, but abandonment. </p>
<p>Let me give a hypothetical example: why shouldn't we have a king? Many people would immeadiately launch into a diatribe against monarchy's and how democratic theory is far superior, but that's not the question. The question is what is wrong with a king? Tradition anchors society and kings might do a damn good job.</p>
<p>I realize the above example isn't extremely clear, but think about the idea of tradition and whether or not it is always a good idea to get rid of it.</p>
<p>Let civil unions become the norm, but the idea of marriage should forever stay 1 man, 1 women.</p>
<p>I don't believe in traditional or old-fashioned if it means not accepting change...It's not like homosexuals are a new breed of people, it's just that they have only been able to come out recently and try to live without being killed. Just because they have been discriminated against for all of history doesn't mean it's right to continue doing so for the sake of tradition. For example, if slavery has been going on for hundreds of years, would you support it purely because that's how it's always been? How is allowing gays to marry hurting anybody?</p>
<p>"But the concept of marriage is more then that. Perhaps, my greatest explanation is my belief in tradition."</p>
<p>Exactly, why should we even allow the government to intervene in marriage? Return marriage to the Church, where it belongs and where it will be honored.</p>
<p>Although Ralph Klein has given up this idea now, last month, he had proposed that in Alberta, the government would pull out of marriages completely and only perform civil unions (for both same-sex and heterosexual couples). If a couple wanted to be married, then they would go to a church.</p>
<p>That's a good idea.</p>
<p>for all you who claim you oppose gay marriages for "Christian principles", why do you linger so much on such a literal translation of the Old Testament? I mean, I'm a Christian too and I do believe in JC and everything BUT
the Bible as we know is a translation- there could be many meanings for a couple of verses
and if you intend on citing some of the OT chapters, look closely at some of the others things God didn't want people to do that we so willingly do now- (aka washing yourself before entering the "temple of God")
- if you were a Christian, you obviously should believe in the power of JC and how His love can save everyone, and yes, including gay ppl who accept Him
- Christianity is about love, an unconditional love for all those who come to Jesus
maybe you should think about that first</p>
<p>Most objections (mine included) to gay marriage are religious. But America is not a Christian theocracy, and to make a law based on only a couple religions' beliefs is wrong constitutionally. Christians can't/shouldn't expect people who aren't Christians and don't submit to the authority of the Bible to accept a law based only on Biblical teaching. For that reason, although it strongly contradicts my personal beliefs, gay marriage should be legalized. However, although the state should sanction these marriages, churches should NOT be forced to sanction them if gay marriage contradicts their beliefs. To require churches to perform gay marriages would be a gross infringement on the churches' first amendment rights to freedom of religion. When the government starts telling churches what they should believe, then there is no more separation of church and state.</p>
<p>Although I don't know about any specific proposals in the US, I know that in Canada, there's a part in the same-sex marriage bill that protects religious groups. I don't know the exact wording or anything, but basically, religious groups (such as the Catholic Church) would legally have the right to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. The only group that would be legally bound to perform same-sex marriages would be the government.</p>