7 States And Counting

[FerventGodSeeker]

That I wouldn't disagree with. But as I said our political views come directly from our religious beliefs, as yours do from yours.

Agreed. (I knew we could do it!) I just get very annoyed when people start saying, "You only support/oppose that because of your religious beliefs!"...well DUH, we all do.

 

[standing_alone]

So which beer goes best with a conversation like this one? I'm thinking Fat Tire. But some might say Budweiser? Opinions?

I'm always up for Guinness or Leinenkugel's Creamy Dark. I loves me dark beer.

 

[lilithu]

I feel the same way, except that because 7 states just voted against it, I have doubts as to arguments for gay marriage (though, to also be fair, it also hasn't been all that long.)

What does time have to do with it? The argument in favor of gay marriage is the argument in favor of equality, period. And you can claim that technically it's equal because everyone's allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex but you know that some people are legally prevented from marrying the person whom they love. You know it.

Marriage EQUALITY. EQUAL. The validity of that argument is undeniable. Some people may try to hold off the inevitable but equality will win.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm always up for Guinness or Leinenkugel's Creamy Dark. I loves me dark beer.

Good choices! Dark beer for darker amendments!

I strongly suspect the folks who voted for these amendments favor Pabst.

 

[Tigress]

I feel the same way, except that because 7 states just voted against it, I have doubts as to arguments for gay marriage (though, to also be fair, it also hasn't been all that long.)

Okay, but how does their voting against same-sex marriage aid in disproving the arguments in favour?

 

[Zephyr]

So which beer goes best with a conversation like this one? I'm thinking Fat Tire. But some might say Budweiser? Opinions?

Heineken of course. It's really the only correct choice. Perhaps Guinness if you're really in the mood. Steer clear of American beer.

In short, I see no point to these amendments. I don't have any strong opinion on the matter really. I'll just say what I've been saying for a while now: Get the government out of the marriage business. Allow civil unions for both straight and gay couples, and leave the marriage to whatever church they're with.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

What does time have to do with it? The argument in favor of gay marriage is the argument in favor of equality, period. And you can claim that technically it's equal because everyone's allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex but you know that some people are legally prevented from marrying the person whom they love. You know it.

Yes, people are prevented from doing things that they want to do all the time in society. It's nothing new, and it's not always bad.

Marriage EQUALITY. EQUAL. The validity of that argument is undeniable. Some people may try to hold off the inevitable but equality will win.

As I have already explained, that depends on how you view the situation, which I see, and you have noted, as already being equal.

 

[lilithu]

Because marriage is a legal institution, and worship isn't...I thought you liberals adored separaton of Church and State?

If marriage is a legal institution then it must be free of discrimination. Yes, we love separation of Church and State.

 

[Sunstone]

If someone passed an amendment banning all beer, I would not think that amendment was fair to the beer drinkers simply because they had a right to drink as much whisky as anyone else.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

If marriage is a legal institution then it must be free of discrimination. Yes, we love separation of Church and State. Separation of church and state favors us in this case.

It is free from discrimination...It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from, you may marry one unrelated person of the opposite sex.

 

[Zephyr]

If someone passed an amendment banning all beer, I would not think that amendment was fair to the beer drinkers simply because they had a right to drink as much whisky as anyone else.

What you don't understand is that this is a moral issue. We cannot allow lame American beer to break down more robust, traditional brews.

 

[Sunstone]

It is free from discrimination...It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from, you may marry one unrelated person of the opposite sex.

Would you consider an amendment that prohibited all religions but Girls On Trampolines to be free from discrimination?

 

[lilithu]

Yes, people are prevented from doing things that they want to do all the time in society. It's nothing new, and it's not always bad.

Yes, and when they do they have to have a legitimate reason. You have already admited that same-sex marriages do not directly affect you. So what is your legitimate reason?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Yes, and when they do they have to have a legitimate reason. You have already admited that same-sex marriages do not directly affect you

No, I haven't, remember??

So what is your legitimate reason?

Lilithu, that would require a hole other thread...oh, wait, we've had about a bzillion of them. I'm not gonna go into all that all over again, it's getting far too late for that.

 

[lilithu]

It is free from discrimination...It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from, you may marry one unrelated person of the opposite sex.

FGS, I can't help but think that you put that wink there because you know that argument is b.s.

A rule that is equally applied to everyone is not free of discrimination if the rule itself is inherently discriminatory.

 

[Tigress]

I guess I'm simply left wondering what isn't religious about this issue. Yes, there are arguments against same-sex marriage that don't involve religion, but because Canada, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands all have legalized same-sex marriage, and are still standing strong, I have doubts as to their authenticity (though to be fair, it hasn't been all that long).

I feel the same way, except that because 7 states just voted against it, I have doubts as to arguments for gay marriage (though, to also be fair, it also hasn't been all that long.)

Okay, but how does their voting against same-sex marriage aid in disproving the arguments in favour?

Also, if you agree that this is a religious issue, I'm left to wonder why you appear to be alright with the ban, as it's clearly supporting a religious view.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FGS, I can't help but think that you put that wink there because you know that argument is b.s.

No, I put the wink there because I'm pretty sure you knew already how I was going to respond.

A rule that is equally applied to everyone is not free of discrimination if the rule itself is inherently discriminatory.

The definition of marriage isn't any more inherently discriminatory than any other activities we put limits on in society. You can't drive by yourself until you're 16. You can't vote until you're 18. You can't join the League of Women Voters if you're a man. You can't get married to someone of the same gender as yourself. It's simply what the definition of marriage is.

 

[Revasser]

What does time have to do with it? The argument in favor of gay marriage is the argument in favor of equality, period. And you can claim that technically it's equal because everyone's allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex but you know that some people are legally prevented from marrying the person whom they love. You know it.

Marriage EQUALITY. EQUAL. The validity of that argument is undeniable. Some people may try to hold off the inevitable but equality will win.

I don't know, lilithu. I don't even think the issue of "the person you love" even needs to be brought into it to counter that argument.

Claiming everyone has the right to marry one person of the opposite sex is bogus. It's not a legitimate argument because it simply isn't true. An individual doesn't have the right to marry anyone. Have you ever heard of some woman taking a trip to the registry office and marrying some man without his participation? How far do you think she'd get?

Marriage licenses aren't issued to individuals. No individual has the right to marry. You can't just "get married" with no other person involved and you certainly can't unilaterally marry someone else. Marriage licenses are issued to couples.

At the moment, a couple with its members of different sexes can be issued a marriage license by the government. A couple with its members of the same sex cannot. It is discrimination of the basis of sex, pure and simple.

 

[Bishka]

The definition of marriage isn't any more inherently discriminatory than any other activities we put limits on in society. You can't drive by yourself until you're 16. You can't vote until you're 18. You can't join the League of Women Voters if you're a man. You can't get married to someone of the same gender as yourself. It's simply what the definition of marriage is.

Yet those things have changed. Laws change and so does the culture and the times.

There are some states that allow you to drive when you are 14 and 15, should we make an exception for those, just because they live in a farming community?

Women couldn't vote for years, but we finally allowed them, was that a bad descion as well?

 

[lilithu]

No, I haven't, remember??

I asked what makes you think you have the right to influence something that doesn't directly affect you. You responded that third parties do it all the time. I reponded that you are not a third party. You responded by asking whether I was seriously saying that you don't have the right to vote on things that don't directly affect you. At no point did you say that marriage equality does directly affect you, even tho you had more than one opportunity to make that claim. And your asking about your right to vote on things that don't directly affect you suggests to me that you admit the issue does not directly affect you.

I'll rephrase the question which you didn't really answer in the first place: what makes you think you have the right to legislate how other people live and love?