Why we should allow same-sex marriage

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Well, stereotypes are funny and all, but they're rarely correct. If it was put to a vote, don't you think more minorities would show up to vote on it than those who wish to take their rights? I don't. By the way, I live in the "south".

Well, the South at one time, didn't want blacks to have equal rights, or women to have the vote. That is a fact. But the Supreme Court stepped in and fixed that. Thankfully they have (for the most part) evolved beyond that on those two issues, after basically being forced to. Not so much with gay marriage. I say, until they evolve on gay marriage, we don't give them the right to vote on it.

reply to post by dave_welch

The reason I disagree with you over "Rights" is that we have had to include a few things into our constitution where it was left out due to the time period it was written in.

You make an excellent point and, in good faith, I can't very well argue the points you make in the body of your note..except to point out that implied rights are rights defined by the courts and not by anything else in the end.

I'd be as arrogant and full of hubris as those I so dislike among the 'in-your-face' activists to say that it's ABSOLUTELY NOT a right and never could be. Who am I to say that? That is why I say I'll also respect and accept the ruling of the Super Court...whichever way it goes. If they find that it is to be a nationally recognized civil status of union to both traditional and gay couples? Well...That's the new law of the land and so it shall be.

Time will tell and at the federal level? I'd just hope both sides of this are equally willing to take what the Court gives. No more, no less. If room is left in the decision to continue to settle it out in the states? I have no doubt both sides will...with enthusiasm. It sure IS a fair question to debate in Modern America. My personal feelings entirely aside.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Well, the problem with Democracy is that everyone has a say. Is that what you're saying? You realize, I'm sure, that people vote for President, Senators, Representative, ect. based on their views on things like gay marriage. Should they not be allowed to vote?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree. It's a sensitive subject, making it hard to debate. There are pros and cons to either side, whether it should be a federal decision or should be held at the state level.

I just think that civil rights shouldn't be limited to certain groups.

reply to post by kaylaluv

The constant need to draw comparisons between Homosexuality in modern society and the utter inhuman brutality and evil of Slavery or the systemic oppression by brutal force of Black citizens, which brought much needed Civil Rights has been misplaced from the start. It's not comparing like things by any stretch.

At one time, Blacks used to get downright PISSED about having their generational struggle to simply have the right to LIVE without being attacked by dogs, blown down streets with fire hoses or lynched compared with a gay couple's right to marry. One was life and death, daily and usually HARD ways to die. The other? Well..... These are the reasons why some tend to display a level of anger and intolerance to the protesting that MAY seem out of proportion to the issue. It IS....if the ISSUE itself were the only thing pissing people off.

Just my thoughts on relativism to justify the cause. The cause shouldn't need to compare to other things...to simply rationalize it's own right to exist.

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Well, the problem with Democracy is that everyone has a say. Is that what you're saying? You realize, I'm sure, that people vote for President, Senators, Representative, ect. based on their views on things like gay marriage. Should they not be allowed to vote?

Totally different situation. People who run for elected public office know that they may not be voted into office for whatever reason, including how they talk, what they look like, the clothes they wear, etc. A private person who is gay and just wants to live their personal life in peace, should not have their ability to get a marriage license put to a vote by others.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


See, this is where I see an issue.

It's all "I don't care, I don't have an issue. But when I look over the neighbours fence I see them living differently to me, and I won't accept it."

Keep your nose out?

It's like the busy body who sticks their beak into conversations they are not part of only to offer an obtuse opinion.

Ask yourself. Two blokes live next door to you, wearing skinny jeans and tight shirts, and who made lots of banging noises after 10pm every night, and who have a cat..

Do you care? Does it affect you?

They're not gay, just fitness freaks. But you don't know.

Now, does it affect you?

Well, stop sticking your beaks in. It's because of this that we have this loud debate. Everyone is screaming "Why wont they just shut up about it." just after they've ignored laws and legislation that treats them as second class in the eyes of the law.

Once upon a time when the neighbours stuck their heads over the fence to see what you were up to, you could expect the nazis to rock up and take you away.

This whole issue is silly.

Marriage is what you make it. People say that gay marriage takes away from the sanctity of their marriage or whatever. That's absurd. It's not like the definition of marriage is "the composite average of all other marriages". Your marriage is as real, sacred, and meaningful as you make it. Some married couples swing, some don't allow each other to look at other people. Some have kids, some don't. Some have pets instead. Some get married in a church, others in a courthouse, others on the beach. Some are a man and a woman. Some are two of the same gender.

Big deal, really.

They should just give the word "marriage" to the religions and say that people are like "Legally joined" or something like that.

Seems like the word "marriage" is the sticking point for a lot of people. Churches claim marriage. But I doubt most gay couples will or would marry in a church anyways, so it's a bit silly.

Also, if the government stopped recording legal gender, they could plausibly say they are just having no opinion on it at all (As they rightfully should), and just let any 2 consenting adults be legally joined.

Simple.

reply to post by kaylaluv


That's true, but if people are voting for someone because he or she is anti-gun, anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage or anything else like that, aren't they by proxy doing just that? If they are voting on a candidate based on their views on what should be rights, then aren't they, by proxy, voting on the rights of an individual?

I'm not saying putting it to a vote is the right thing to to, I was merely suggesting that it's an option that should be looked at.

I could care less about the entire business. Being "married" in a religious sense is in no way threatened and the rest of the marriage rubbish is nothing but some civil contact. There are a couple of provisions of the law that need to be modified to accommodate same sex marriages, but that could be done in months -- and the gay activists pushing that agenda absolutely knows this. So:

-- Same sex couples have the exact civil rights as hetero couples
-- It becomes unlawful to discriminate against same sex couples unless for religious reasons
-- Your religion of choice will marry gays or not, that's nobody's business but that church.

OK.
The homosexual interests could have had every provision of the law changed years ago. They are a powerful interest group. They did not. Why? Because they want to be publically acknowledged as married. This is all about being called married. How sad. Most of reasonable married folks wish they could be called single half the time, if not more

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Comparing the level of suffering is just an excuse. Civil rights is civil rights. Equal treatment is equal treatment. Discrimination is discrimination. You should not be able to vote on whether it's okay to discriminate. It doesn't matter if that discrimination leads to lynching and beatings, or simply mental anguish and an unhappy life. It's not right to discriminate against a group of people who are not hurting anyone.

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

Well, that all sounds good, but I bet there were people who said the same thing about the Equal Rights Act. If you replace "gays" with "blacks" in your statement, you may see what I'm getting at. Where does it stop? It may be news to you that there are thousands, maybe millions of gays who have normal families, work normal jobs, and are just as much as a normal and productive members of society as you or I.

What!!!?

I tried to convey my opinion fairly without judgement, your response was nothing but trolling.

Are you saying that you thing i have a problem with interracial marriage based on what i said? read it again then you obviously missed something.

.... replace gays with blacks.... WTF

Not sure why you took offence to that, it's spot on.

It shines the light of logic on the fallacy of your argument.

And there is the problem.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Well, we're going to agree to disagree right here and drop it. Or..at least I am with this side line chat. Your reply tells me you will find a basis to dismiss anything I raise, whatever the basis and whatever the logic. It won't matter. You will discover a new line of logic to supersede and sideline mine.

I enjoy debating..not so much arguing. There is a really big difference. One line on this thread was debate and with someone I hadn't engaged with before in a serious way. I must admit, I come away with new respect in that case. This line is pure argument...and I'm taking my leave barring other replies to me or something meaningfully new coming up on the thread.

nvm on last thought... Not productive.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Well, we're going to agree to disagree right here and drop it. Or..at least I am with this side line chat. Your reply tells me you will find a basis to dismiss anything I raise, whatever the basis and whatever the logic. It won't matter. You will discover a new line of logic to supersede and sideline mine.

I enjoy debating..not so much arguing. There is a really big difference. One line on this thread was debate and with someone I hadn't engaged with before in a serious way. I must admit, I come away with new respect in that case. This line is pure argument...and I'm taking my leave barring other replies to me or something meaningfully new coming up on the thread.

nvm on last thought... Not productive.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: removed last thought

I have been very consistent in my logic regarding voting on discrimination. I stand by what I said. Have a good night.

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

See, this is where I see an issue.

It's all "I don't care, I don't have an issue. But when I look over the neighbours fence I see them living differently to me, and I won't accept it."

Keep your nose out?

It's like the busy body who sticks their beak into conversations they are not part of only to offer an obtuse opinion.

Ask yourself. Two blokes live next door to you, wearing skinny jeans and tight shirts, and who made lots of banging noises after 10pm every night, and who have a cat..

Do you care? Does it affect you?

They're not gay, just fitness freaks. But you don't know.

Now, does it affect you?

Well, stop sticking your beaks in. It's because of this that we have this loud debate. Everyone is screaming "Why wont they just shut up about it." just after they've ignored laws and legislation that treats them as second class in the eyes of the law.

Once upon a time when the neighbours stuck their heads over the fence to see what you were up to, you could expect the nazis to rock up and take you away.

stick my nose out? This so called "right" is going to reshape the way our children (mine included) see the world.
I would give it some thought if I were you. playing it all goody two shoe liberal is pretty reckless when you are talking about changing the way out children brains are wired with environmental influences with the stroke of a pen.

But before you go all haywire over that Ill be very clear, understand this:

- I do not think being gay is wrong.

- Being gay is not illegal in Canada or the US
- other than marriage and adoption you would have to educate me on any other restriction a gay person has.

- I am pro life and pro sustainability and believe heavily in interracial mixing (mixed people are better as far as gene selection)

- I believe being sexually gay should be comfortably excepted for consensual adults. It probably is in a lot of countries, I don't know, it seems natural.

- Legal same sex unions WILL eventually lead past same sex adoption. If it is legal for them to wed then there is nothing that can anyone from finding away to splice the genes ( where that goes i don't know but It deserves some thought) The Chinese are already about to make super babies with gene samples from all over the world, Its a match made in heaven for same sex marriage.

reply to post by dave_welch


Why allow same-sex marriage?
Because it is none of my friggin business what two consenting adults do if I am not harmed.
For those so offended, go to the Amish back in the 1800's.
That was simple!

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

Well, that all sounds good, but I bet there were people who said the same thing about the Equal Rights Act. If you replace "gays" with "blacks" in your statement, you may see what I'm getting at. Where does it stop? It may be news to you that there are thousands, maybe millions of gays who have normal families, work normal jobs, and are just as much as a normal and productive members of society as you or I.

What!!!?

I tried to convey my opinion fairly without judgement, your response was nothing but trolling.

Are you saying that you thing i have a problem with interracial marriage based on what i said? read it again then you obviously missed something.

.... replace gays with blacks.... WTF

Not sure why you took offence to that, it's spot on.

It shines the light of logic on the fallacy of your argument.

And there is the problem.

You have not addressed a single point with any substance, just a bunch of insults.

That shows character, it really does.

Originally posted by dave_welch
In the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), Homosexuality isn't even mentioned. The four Gospels are The Chronicles of the life of Jesus Christ. If in fact Jesus was anti-homosexual, do you not think he would have had something to say about it?

So in conclusion, I can find no reason not to allow Homosexuals to get married. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

Thanks everybody, and please keep it civil.

edit on 26-3-2013 by dave_welch because: (no reason given)

No, no it was not mentioned by Jesus, and since nothing was mentioned, I guess it gives us the right to get married to anything we want. . The only thing I ask is why were we made the way we are? Man, the wrath of Lilith is pretty bad.

Why is it anyone's business what another individual does with their life?

If it's not causing harm to you or your loved ones who cares...

It's wrong to try to dictate what another person chooses to do with their life...

Grow up already.

reply to post by JrDavis


That's why you should just not worry about it. If it is not hurting you why worry?