• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Legal arguments against homosexual marriage

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
The lifeblood of almost every anti-gay argument boils down to religious dogma. Religion is the main reason there is so much homophobia even in first-world countries. It is time people realized that the fight for equality is not just against constitutional amendments; it is against the outdated and puritanical morality of certain religions.
 

Nicholas

Bodhicitta
For a mainly secular set of arguments for marriage see What is Marriage? Man and Woman: a Defense.

But the secular/religious divide really turns on what the nature of humanity is. If we are merely smarter sorts of animals then a pledged coupling between any creatures is fine. If we are sparks of the Divine or have a buddha nature or a Soul, then marriage between man and woman takes on a deeper significance.
 
Last edited:

roger1440

I do stuff
Norman: Hi roger1440, it is relevant to the people of this nation, this should be done by each state where the people vote and write to there legislative representatives. In some states, the people have already spoken. As explained in the amicus brief, the legalization of same-sex marriage across the country does far more than grant same-sex couples the right to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. By redefining what marriage has been for most of human history, the court will impede the ability of religious people to participate fully as equal citizens in American civic life.

We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.

Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.”

Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience.

Moreover, the special status of sexual orientation could, maintains the brief, “suppress and marginalize traditional religious views on sexuality and those who hold them, generating legal, bureaucratic, and social conflicts with a wide and unpredictable range of religious interests.” Essentially, religious beliefs in traditional sexual morality could come to be equated with racism.

The brief states: “The Constitution marks a wiser course by leaving the people free to decide the great marriage debate through their State democratic institutions. Allowing all citizens an equal voice in shaping their common destiny is the only way the diverse views of a free people can be respected on this matter of profound political, social, and religious importance. That is the only way this issue can be resolved without inflicting grave harm on millions of religious believers and their cherished beliefs and institutions.”

Having courts resolve these complex social issues is a far more troublesome path than having them resolved by the people themselves through the legislative processes in their own backyards. Courts can only rule on the cases before them. Consequently, their rulings provide no room for compromise. By definition, one party wins and the other loses. The result is often polarization, animosity and alienation of one side or another. What is truly needed is a process that allows for give and take, reasonable accommodation and mutual respect. By joining in the amicus brief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is arguing that “fairness for all” is much better accomplished in legislatures than in the courts.
You just justified slavery.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Norman: Hi Disgruntled Scotsman, There is much strength in the arguments

Really? What strengths might those be? I can't see any.

however I believe it should be left to the people and there legislators. This is just a summary of a talk in 2009 by Elder Dallin H. Oaks who made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

There is no religious freedom to force discrimination on non-members of a religion which is what the Christian groups filing the amicus brief are doing. By basing your arguments on the concept of 'marriage definition sanctioned by God' you're bringing religion into the mix and any laws resulting from such arguments are inherently unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. By demanding the Supreme Court accepts your definition of marriage you are insisting on the State giving a privileged status to religion in society and by insisting that your authority to define marriage derives from God (a lie as far as law is concerned) you're demanding that the Courts place Christianity in a position of privilege in relation to others. That is wrong.

This isn't about preventing religious groups retaining their own definitions of marriage. It's about not allowing them to force other people to be subject to their definitions of the concept.


Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

Good. Religion should not be accorded respect; it doesn't inherently deserve it. Religions must work and struggle for every ounce of respect it receives just like the people who practise these religions.


Although his address on religious freedom was not written in response to the Proposition 8 battle over same- sex marriage in California, Elder Oaks likened the incidents of outrage against those who prevailed in establishing marriage between a man and a woman to the “widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South.”

I can readily believe that a straight, cis-gendered white man would be daft enough to conflate dissenting views with an outright attack on their person or their opinions. It's an inevitable behaviour from people who are inherently privileged in society to see any attempt to remove undeserved power as an assault; regardless of what is actually fair.


He said members of the Church should not be deterred or coerced into silence by threats. “We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice.”

And your right to practise your religion does not extend to forcing everyone else to labour under your religion's definitions of concepts you didn't even create.


Elder Oaks also said religious freedom is being jeopardized by claims of newly alleged human rights. As an example, he referred to a set of principles published by an international human rights group which calls for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity. Elder Oaks said, “This apparently proposes that governments require church practices to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines should be resisted by all believers.”

No, these aren't "newly alleged" human rights. They're the same human rights given to us straight people being afforded to LGBTs - because they too are human. If Oaks' thinks the 'religious freedom' to discriminate should take precedence over people being given equal treatment in society then he is part of the problem - and is arguing from a position of privilege. If I were an LGBT citizen living in the United States I would protest by refusing to pay my taxes; after all, why should I pay the same taxes as straight people when I'm not afforded the same basic rights and legal protections?
 

McBell

Unbound
Norman: Hi Mestemia, Why do you think that the Supreme Court would have to as you stated "ban all marriages?:" What is the legal and political premise on this?
The Supreme Court cannot ban same sex marriage based upon religion or the "uck" factor.
Therefore there needs to be a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

Now, since not a single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage exists that does not also include opposite sex marriage, if the Supreme Court is to uphold same sex marriage bans, it will have to also ban opposite sex marriage.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
For a mainly secular set of arguments for marriage see What is Marriage? Man and Woman: a Defense.

But the secular/religious divide really turns on what the nature of humanity is. If we are merely smarter sorts of animals then a pledged coupling between any creatures is fine. If we are sparks of the Divine or have a buddha nature or a Soul, then marriage between man and woman takes on a deeper significance.

In some way that a same sex marriage does not, is that what you mean?

I fail to see how that could possibly make sense.
 

McBell

Unbound
Norman: Hi roger1440, it is relevant to the people of this nation, this should be done by each state where the people vote and write to there legislative representatives. In some states, the people have already spoken. As explained in the amicus brief, the legalization of same-sex marriage across the country does far more than grant same-sex couples the right to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. By redefining what marriage has been for most of human history, the court will impede the ability of religious people to participate fully as equal citizens in American civic life.

The problem is that some states not only ban same sex marriage, but also refuse to recognize the same sex marriages of states that allow them.
thus, the Supreme Court has to make a decision upon the state of same sex marriage.

You will have to link the Amicus you are referring to so that I can take it apart piece by piece.

I wonder how they determine that an opposite sex marriage will be impeded in participation as fully equal citizens..?
Sounds like a big huge steaming pile of bull **** to me.

We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.
Sources please.


Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.”
Irrelevant to same sex marriage.
But a nice try to poison the well.

Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience.
If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing the job you are paid to do then you should have the decency to quit before you have to fired for not doing your job.

Moreover, the special status of sexual orientation could, maintains the brief, “suppress and marginalize traditional religious views on sexuality and those who hold them, generating legal, bureaucratic, and social conflicts with a wide and unpredictable range of religious interests.” Essentially, religious beliefs in traditional sexual morality could come to be equated with racism.
That is because a lot of them are equal to racism.

The brief states: “The Constitution marks a wiser course by leaving the people free to decide the great marriage debate through their State democratic institutions. Allowing all citizens an equal voice in shaping their common destiny is the only way the diverse views of a free people can be respected on this matter of profound political, social, and religious importance. That is the only way this issue can be resolved without inflicting grave harm on millions of religious believers and their cherished beliefs and institutions.”
Spoken like some one who is either ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has to settle interstate issues or is ignorant of the fact, or perhaps is hoping enough people are ignorant of the fact that his nonsense sounds plausible.

Having courts resolve these complex social issues is a far more troublesome path than having them resolved by the people themselves through the legislative processes in their own backyards. Courts can only rule on the cases before them. Consequently, their rulings provide no room for compromise. By definition, one party wins and the other loses. The result is often polarization, animosity and alienation of one side or another. What is truly needed is a process that allows for give and take, reasonable accommodation and mutual respect. By joining in the amicus brief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is arguing that “fairness for all” is much better accomplished in legislatures than in the courts.
Bull ****.
The Mormon Church is attempting to get its religious belief made into law.
 

Nicholas

Bodhicitta
In some way that a same sex marriage does not, is that what you mean?

I fail to see how that could possibly make sense.

Yes. The polarity of man-woman reflects the spirit-matter continuum of the universe, manifest and unmanifest. Also the conception and birth of another being is because of a union between two poles. Being a Buddhist, 'creation' and 'creator' are not needed. The vast womb of space holds sparks of intelligence.

But why wax philosophical, when I doubt any openness on your part. Yet I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You are right, I am indeed not open to such an argument. It bothers me that a fellow Dharmi even considers raising it.

Doing so is just wrong, so very deeply wrong. Can't you see it?
 

Nicholas

Bodhicitta
You are right, I am indeed not open to such an argument. It bothers me that a fellow Dharmi even considers raising it.

Doing so is just wrong, so very deeply wrong. Can't you see it?

We are off topic re legal arguments here, so a final remark. I am paraphrasing an ancient notion of polarity, perhaps best know in the Yin/Yang principles of China. This is simply about human energies, harmony and disharmony. There is no judgement about gay relations etc.
 

TurkeyOnRye

Well-Known Member
Yes. The polarity of man-woman reflects the spirit-matter continuum of the universe, manifest and unmanifest. Also the conception and birth of another being is because of a union between two poles. Being a Buddhist, 'creation' and 'creator' are not needed. The vast womb of space holds sparks of intelligence.

This reasoning strikes me as utterly superficial.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
The lifeblood of almost every anti-gay argument boils down to religious dogma. Religion is the main reason there is so much homophobia even in first-world countries. It is time people realized that the fight for equality is not just against constitutional amendments; it is against the outdated and puritanical morality of certain religions.

Norman: Hi Debater Slayer, In my opinion, God gave us marriage, not man. Morality is never outdated, especially when parents teach their children morals and values. Religion has been deep rooted since the founding of this nation. What may be outdated by men is not outdated with God. Do you believe in morals and values that really are the fabric of society? It really does have every thing to do with the Constitution.Having courts resolve these complex social issues is a far more troublesome path than having them resolved by the people themselves through the legislative processes in their own backyards. Courts can only rule on the cases before them. Consequently, their rulings provide no room for compromise. By definition, one party wins and the other loses. The result is often polarization, animosity and alienation of one side or another. What is truly needed is a process that allows for give and take, reasonable accommodation and mutual respect. By joining in the amicus brief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is arguing that “fairness for all” is much better accomplished in legislatures than in the courts. What do you think?
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
If a vote was taken in the early 1860’s to free the slaves, those with slaves would have more incentive to vote.

Norman: Sorry roger, I do not understand the point you are trying to make. What does same sex marriage have to do with slavery?
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
QUOTE="Mestemia, post: 4276260, member: 3566"]
The problem is that some states not only ban same sex marriage, but also refuse to recognize the same sex marriages of states that allow them.
thus, the Supreme Court has to make a decision upon the state of same sex marriage.

Norman: This should ever never gone to the Supreme Court, because this is going to be a winner takes all. Where as if it was left to each state and the vote of the people and there legislators there would be room for compromise. This is exactly what my Church did in Utah and both sides are happy. SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is supporting nondiscrimination bills involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — while at the same time calling for protections for people of faith. In a rare news conference on Tuesday morning, LDS Church leaders announced their support for LGBT nondiscrimination legislation. “God is loving and merciful,” said Sister Neill Marriott of the LDS Church’s Young Women’s program. “Jesus ministered to marginalized outcasts.” “It’s for this reason that the church has publicly favored laws and ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment.” But the church also complained of people being branded “bigots” for speaking for their faith. “When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser,” said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles. “It is one of today’s great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals,” said Elder Oaks.

Source:

LDS Church backs LGBT nondiscrimination and religious freedom bills | fox13now.com

You will have to link the Amicus you are referring to so that I can take it apart piece by piece.

Norman: The brief is to long to post. I posted a part of it, you can read the rest of the brief by following my instructions below. We joined other Churches listed below in the brief.

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

================================================================

In The Supreme Court of the United States

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Religious organizations and associations representing over 50 million Americans appear on this brief as a diverse coalition of faith communities.1 Amici are the National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod; the Assemblies of God; the Christian Legal Society; The Brethren Church; The Christian and Missionary Alliance; the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee; Converge Worldwide; the Evangelical Congregational Church; the Evangelical Presbyterian Church; The Fellowship of Evangelical Churches; the Free Methodist Church – USA; Grace Communion International; the International Pentecostal Holiness Church; The Missionary Church; Open Bible Churches; and The Wesleyan Church.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

  1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
  2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Recognizing a new right to same-sex marriage would harm religious liberty. That harm is avoidable because neither the Constitution nor this Court’s precedents dictates a single definition of marriage for the Nation. Preserving religious liberty is a compelling reason not to give the Fourteenth Amendment a novel reading that would require every State to license and recognize marriage between persons of the same sex. At a minimum, the Court should carefully consider how a ruling mandating same-sex marriage would adversely affect religious liberty.

5 ARGUMENT

I. TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS CENTRAL TO THE FAITH, PERSONAL IDENTITY, AND WAY OF LIFE OF MILLIONS OF RELIGIOUS AMERICANS.

Our religious doctrines hold that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God as the proper setting for spousal relations and for conceiving and rearing children. We believe that children, families, society, and our Nation thrive best when traditional marriage is sustained and strengthened as a primary social institution. Millions of Americans order their lives around husband-wife marriage and derive meaning and stability from that institution. We make no apologies for these beliefs.

You can find the full brief at the URL below under
14-556_major_religious_organizations.pdf

Source:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=amicus+brief+The+Church+of+Jesus+Christ+of+Latter+Day+Saints+2015&type=Site

I wonder how they determine that an opposite sex marriage will be impeded in participation as fully equal citizens..?
Sounds like a big huge steaming pile of bull **** to me.

Norman: To answer this question I think reading the brief will help.

Sources please

Same-sex marriage in New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idaho Scrambles Over Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Irrelevant to same sex marriage.
But a nice try to poison the well.
Norman: This would be very relevant as I stated.


If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing the job you are paid to do then you should have the decency to quit before you have to fired for not doing your job.

Norman: You have missed the point here, this could happen to anyone even LGBT people.

That is because a lot of them are equal to racism.
Norman: Well, I don't think so but that is the LGBT agenda to redefine marriage as genderless and to make it a civil right.


Spoken like some one who is either ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has to settle interstate issues or is ignorant of the fact, or perhaps is hoping enough people are ignorant of the fact that his nonsense sounds plausible.
Norman: Well, it is plausible.


Bull ****.
The Mormon Church is attempting to get its religious belief made into law.
[/QUOTE]

Norman: That doesn't make any sense, this has nothing to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a legality issue with Our belief's.





 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Norman: Hi Skull, Most Americans know that religious freedom is one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Frequently called the “first freedom,” freedom of religion is prominent in the American founding documents and gives rise to many other freedoms.

It is a fundamental human right — one that is now protected in the laws of many nations around the world and in global compacts like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Americans generally recognize and revere religious freedom as one of the unalienable freedoms they can claim.

The fact that religious freedom is public and that it involves more than mere belief does not, of course, mean that it overwhelms all other considerations in society. The purpose of a democracy is to accommodate the diverse interests of all its members. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are vital because they help sustain this system of peaceful coexistence, and they must be balanced against other considerations, such as the rights of others, the law and public safety. However, because these freedoms are so fundamental to human dignity, and because they contribute so much to society, they merit careful protection.

Such protection is the responsibility of all citizens who value their freedom and recognize that one’s own freedoms are only as secure as those of others. Protecting religious freedom also requires that it is understood fully and respected in its entirety. An inadequate understanding of religious freedom can be problematic if it leads, for example, to policy and laws that define it too narrowly and protect it too feebly. Ignorance of religious freedom can also, without care, allow for it to be slowly and subtly eroded, leaving this fundamental liberty exposed or compromised. A robust sense of religious freedom — an appreciation for its full meaning — is required for it to endure and to flourish. What is your thoughts on this?

I'd generally agree, though it seems to me the original mistake was violating the separation of church and state- whereby the gov't treats couples differently depending on whether they have engaged in a religious ceremony- better to correct this infringement rather than trying to counterbalance it with more?
 
Top