Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, our rights come from our creator, and if we want to keep consistent, then our morals do as well.

This is irrelevant. The Contstitution says nothing about forcing people to be moral or immoral, much less how we go about determining what God thinks is immoral. All it does is set up a government whose job is to ensure our Happiness and Safety, and protect our rights. It may be immoral to claim that Jesus is not the Son of God...however, it is not our government's job to determine or enforce this--even if it IS the opinion of the majority. That, my friend, is the job of governments in places like North Korea and Iran.

Come on, chris. This is high school civics stuff, remember?

Anyway, to deny people the right to a legal contract that the government grants everyone else based solely on their sexual orientation is discrimination and a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"Yes,some Jews, but not all. Reform Judaism accepts gay and lesbians."

I stand corrected.

"A person voting aganist gay-marriage because its immoral is no different than a person voting against murder. "

No, its a civil rights issue. Did we vote for blacks to have rights? noo. its a disgrace that until the 70s there was still discrimination. not too long ago, Christians held black slaves. what does that say?

Its a civil rights issue, people should not *vote*, the rights should automatically be given. There are some people who disagree that blacks should be given the same rights as whites. there are some who believe that gays should not be given the same rights as heteros.

well.....

 

[chris9178]

Ok Spinkles.....

I've written two lengthy responses that didn't post (once because it somehow logged me out in the middle, and the second because I hit a key that took me back a screen.... losing everything I typed.....), so instead of me continuing my arguement, could you just explain to me where it's unconstitutional? That should end the debate alone, shouldn't it?

 

[painted wolf]

the constition (14th ammendment)states that:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To deny the right of a certen group of grown, mature citizens of the USA to marry you deny them the privilege given to another group of grown, mature citizens of the USA. That is in short unconstitutional. You deny them equil protection of the law.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

painted wolf has it right on, chris.

chris let me say that I respect the way you have carried yourself in this discussion. You are fair, open-minded, and well-reasoned. I respect that. Let me also say that I once thought precisely as you did....but I learned that I held a subtle prejudice for gays that clouded my judgement. Remember, prejudice is a lot like insanity: when people have it, they don't know they have it.

Oh and I forgot to add-- sorry about the post deletion. That's happened to me before too. I hate that! :banghead3 :bonk:

 

[chris9178]

For the sake of further argument I'll just agree with this one. It probably is unconstitutional. But I still believe if given the chance to vote, people should vote for what they think is right. I heard today that a New York judge prcolaimed it unconstitutional there. That's going to raise a large stink here in Louisiana where the Supreme Court allowed it..... how can it be different in two states? In the end "constitutional" will always be decided by whoever controls the judges seat. What a mess.....

 

[Pah]

For the sake of further argument I'll just agree with this one. It probably is unconstitutional. But I still believe if given the chance to vote, people should vote for what they think is right. I heard today that a New York judge prcolaimed it unconstitutional there. That's going to raise a large stink here in Louisiana where the Supreme Court allowed it..... how can it be different in two states? In the end "constitutional" will always be decided by whoever controls the judges seat. What a mess.....

As I have said before the people don't vote on constitutional questions so you are right about "in the end"


It can be different in various states depending on the US appeals court jursidiction but only decided when the question has exhausted the state courts.

I understand the ruling does not apply to the State of New York but only one of the judicial districts. But it is a start

 

[chris9178]

Well, I'm sure it will find it's way to the Supreme Court. Still, the decision means the marriage will be recognized in say, Buffalo, but not Albany?

 

[Pah]

Well, I'm sure it will find it's way to the Supreme Court. Still, the decision means the marriage will be recognized in say, Buffalo, but not Albany?

Hehehe - it seems to me that an appearence in the US Supreme Court would be a killer to anti-homosexual bigots. They have had plenty of time to appeal the Massachusetts decision but nothing to my knowledge has been started. Instead, Massachusetts opponents to the rights of homosexuals are only concerned with a possibility of changing the Commonweath Constitution.

The decision is binding in the jurisidiction of the Manhatten State of of New York Appeals court - so I guess that would indicate the city is New York City. Greenich Village will be pleased as New York City has perhaps the second largest homosexual population outside of San Fransisco. You might remember that homosexual activism begun by riot in the Village when police started surpressing homosexuals - I'm sure that it could happen again if homosexuals were legally married there and then somehow denied their rights

 

[chris9178]

Hehehe - it seems to me that an appearence in the US Supreme Court would be a killer to anti-homosexual bigots.

That all depends on who the justices are at the time the vote comes. There are a lot of old justices getting ready to retire, and ther'es a conservative in the White House.
The 14th Amendment is certainly open to interpretation, and that's what the courts are for.

As for riots, I don't think any law should be decided on a riot. As I said long ago, I don't oppose gay-marriage, but I might change my mind if that's their behavior. I don't like rewarding bad behavior... which I probably picked up in the army. Riots only make innocent people suffer.
Now if they wanted to have their million gay march, then have at it.
That may seem incensitive, but I don't care for civil disobedience.

 

[Pah]

That all depends on who the justices are at the time the vote comes. There are a lot of old justices getting ready to retire, and ther'es a conservative in the White House.
The 14th Amendment is certainly open to interpretation, and that's what the courts are for.

There is some fear that new justices would make a difference but I've come around to the opinion that the body of precedent would make it very difficult to overturn due process and the recognition of the right of privacy. Whatever holding is crafted that denies homosexual marriage would open the door to prohibiting again inter-racial marriage and that just won't happen.

As for riots, I don't think any law should be decided on a riot. As I said long ago, I don't oppose gay-marriage, but I might change my mind if that's their behavior. I don't like rewarding bad behavior... which I probably picked up in the army. Riots only make innocent people suffer.
Now if they wanted to have their million gay march, then have at it.
That may seem incensitive, but I don't care for civil disobedience.

As deplorable as the riots in Watts were, they were necessary to bring attention to the problems that lead to the riots. Look at it as aggressive civil disobedience. The real crime was establishing the primary problems

 

[Bastet]

That all depends on who the justices are at the time the vote comes. There are a lot of old justices getting ready to retire, and ther'es a conservative in the White House.
The 14th Amendment is certainly open to interpretation, and that's what the courts are for.

And that's why all these conservatives are pushing to amend constitutions all over the place. Then they won't have to worry about 'activist judges'.

As for riots, I don't think any law should be decided on a riot. As I said long ago, I don't oppose gay-marriage, but I might change my mind if that's their behavior. I don't like rewarding bad behavior... which I probably picked up in the army. Riots only make innocent people suffer.
Now if they wanted to have their million gay march, then have at it.
That may seem incensitive, but I don't care for civil disobedience.

Something we can agree on.

 

[Firecat89]

Love is love. Just because we can't contribute to overpopulation doesn't mean we aren't doing our jobs as citizens. Sure you get your bad homosexuals. But you get your bad heterosexuals too, homosexuals are often singled out simply because of sexual preference, which is, if I may be so blunt, stupid. If it occurs in nature, it's natural. Simple as that. And when homosexuals just want to live their lives and be forever bound to the one they love, who cares if they're the same sex or not? They live happily together. Difference in preference has been an issue before and it should not be again. Except I think it is something less trivial than Republicans and Democrats. And you whoever you are that says it's a sin, do you even question it, or do you take it without exploring reasons? Questioning something is the best way to learn about it.

 

[chris9178]

Just to clear things up......

The reason I believe it's a sin is because the Bible labels it as so. For an atheist, or Buddhist that wouldn't matter, but for me, a Christian, it does. So why did God say its a sin? Well, I don't want to put words in God's mouth, but I think it's basically the same as divorce. God made marriage a very holy thing (the mand and the woman become one being.....). Jesus says that if any man divorces his wife, and remarries, then that man (or woman) is committing adultery, because in God's eyes he's still married to his original wife..... there is an exception to that, but thats beyond our point.... Sex was made to be like marriage, holy in God's eyes. Homosexuality would be considered a perversion of what God made to be holy.
Now the thing that gets me is the double standard many churches show these days. They'll accept divorce, but not homosexuality.....

That sums up why I believe homosexuality is a sin. If you're not a christian I don't expect you to agree. If you are a christian and still disagree, then you tell me why it's a sin, or what part of scripture suggests to you that it's not a sin. We'll have some intelligent discourse and, unless you're very convincing, we'll probably agree to disagree.

And by the way... to set the record straight once more before I get labeld a bigot.... I have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage is a political issue, not a religious one. If God recognizes it or not is up to Him. God gave us free will, and I won't stop others from using theirs.

 

[Scorn]

And by the way... to set the record straight once more before I get labeld a bigot.... I have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage is a political issue, not a religious one. If God recognizes it or not is up to Him. God gave us free will, and I won't stop others from using theirs.

Well there you go huh? All the rest is nonsense. I think you just summed up the entire reason to support it. Leave it to the individual. If you believe, then you will know that God will sort it out later. I've never heard a gay person asking for pity on their soul. Why on earth would anyone even worry about it?

 

[Majikthise]

Just to clear things up......

The reason I believe it's a sin is because the Bible labels it as so. For an atheist, or Buddhist that wouldn't matter, but for me, a Christian, it does. So why did God say its a sin? Well, I don't want to put words in God's mouth, but I think it's basically the same as divorce. God made marriage a very holy thing (the mand and the woman become one being.....). Jesus says that if any man divorces his wife, and remarries, then that man (or woman) is committing adultery, because in God's eyes he's still married to his original wife..... there is an exception to that, but thats beyond our point.... Sex was made to be like marriage, holy in God's eyes. Homosexuality would be considered a perversion of what God made to be holy.
Now the thing that gets me is the double standard many churches show these days. They'll accept divorce, but not homosexuality.....

That sums up why I believe homosexuality is a sin. If you're not a christian I don't expect you to agree. If you are a christian and still disagree, then you tell me why it's a sin, or what part of scripture suggests to you that it's not a sin. We'll have some intelligent discourse and, unless you're very convincing, we'll probably agree to disagree.

And by the way... to set the record straight once more before I get labeld a bigot.... I have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage is a political issue, not a religious one. If God recognizes it or not is up to Him. God gave us free will, and I won't stop others from using theirs.

1. How can anyone not have a problem with homosexual marriage but have a problem with homosexuals.The first does not lead to the latter.Gay marriage cannot be a political issue for a practicing christian, it can only be a religious one.If I call myself a mechanic I had better be able to repair an engine or I'm out of a job.

2. By what you believe my wife and I do not have a valid marrige.We have been together longer than most christian couples we know(and thats just about everybody),and will be together for the rest of our lives.That is my faith.

 

[Druidus]

If someone would be willing to PM me all incidents in the bible where homsexuality is condemned, I would be very grateful.

Several of you say that you believe it wrong merely because your religion does. Why do you follow your religion blindy? Is it not possible that some people could have perverted parts of it throughout history?

Secondly, why does it matter what others do? People should not try to impose their moral standards on others, or the standards of the beliefs. That is personal choice for everyone. Worry about what you do, and not what others do. Do you remember Jesus? Did he not say, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."? If you have done nothing wrong in your life, never lied, stole, or anything, perhaps then you could be justified. But as of now, you do not follow exactly the rules of the religion you claim to follow. No one does. Why, therefore, do those flawed with "sin", get to seem morally superior to others, flawed with "sin" as well. And their "sin" isn't even on the Ten Commandments. None of them are "Though shalt not commit acts of homosexuality".

It's very hypocritical to claim you cannot agree with homosexuality because it is against your belief system, and yet, do things against it yourself. I'm quite sure that you have lied, and probably still do.

 

[Scorn]

Druidus - Especially as homosexuality had a much different context for much of the last few thousand years as it does today. Considering that there was no definition for homosexuality until a century and a half ago. Around the same time in my opinion that the anti-gay agenda began to flourish. Since then, the word and meaning of homosexuality itself was willfully translated into the bible and the agenda began. An agenda I might add that anti-gay proponents have fostered in much the same way as they claim and admonish that the gay rights activists have done in the past 30 years. Who exactly cast the first stone here?

At best, there was never any reference to homosexuality in the early bibles. At worst, we cannot possibly know that the original ambiguous passages refer to homosexuality.

 

[chris9178]

First, my belief is based on my Christian belief, so if you're arguing based on any other reason (it's not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anybody, etc....) I'm not going to debate that, because, as I said in my post, I don't expect others to hold the same beliefs as mine. I might as well argue with a Buddhist that his religion is wrong because mine is right! It's pointless, and I'm not out to convince anybody it's wrong. I'm simply answering Firecats question as to why Christians believe homosexuality is a sin.

Majikthise:

How can anyone not have a problem with homosexual marriage but have a problem with homosexuals.The first does not lead to the latter.Gay marriage cannot be a political issue for a practicing christian, it can only be a religious one

Obviously it can. I'm proof. If God wanted to dictate human laws he wouldn't have given us free will. Me denying others the right to do wrong based on my religious beliefs would be attempting to take away the liberty that God has given us. If I do it on personal, or moral beliefs (leaving God out of it), then it's fine. That's why I believe in laws against murder.... not because of religious beliefs, but because I think it's wrong personally.

By what you believe my wife and I do not have a valid marrige.We have been together longer than most christian couples we know(and thats just about everybody),and will be together for the rest of our lives.That is my faith.

Are you in a gay marriage??? I'll assume that's the case, otherwise I don't see its relevance in the post. If that's that case, and your country allows it, then why wouldn't it be valid to me? I've already said I support it constitutionally...... I've said that since I first posted it in this debate, and at least once in that posts. Are you just babbling on to argue, or what?

Druidus:

It's very hypocritical to claim you cannot agree with homosexuality because it is against your belief system, and yet, do things against it yourself. I'm quite sure that you have lied, and probably still do.

So do you believe that rapists are cool? I would guess that rape is against your moral code, and I'm even willing to bet that you've done things that were wrong before in your life. That doesn't make rape right, or you hypocritical. Now if you were a rapist calling rape wrong, then I could see some hypocrisy, but otherwise, that was a completely inane statement.

Several of you say that you believe it wrong merely because your religion does. Why do you follow your religion blindy? Is it not possible that some people could have perverted parts of it throughout history?

Couldn't you say the same of most all religions? It's possible that all of our religions are wrong, and that athiests are right..... just because it's possible should I throw my faith away? I don't live my life, or my religion worrying about possibilities.
And I'm wondering, do you have some god, or goddess holding your hand, physically speaking to you and telling you what is right and wrong? If so could you ask me for his/her/it's e-mail address so I could ask a few questions myself.
My point is, all people follow their beliefs blindly. Theists have no real proof of a god, and atheists can't prove that there isn't one.

Scorn:

At best, there was never any reference to homosexuality in the early bibles. At worst, we cannot possibly know that the original ambiguous passages refer to homosexuality.

Yes, all of our Bibles were written 150 years ago (little sarcasm)...... Check out the Septuagint, or the Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, or any of the 25,000 New Testament manuscripts we have preserved that go back as far as the 2nd century.

Again, I'm not going to argue to a non-Christian that homosexuality is wrong. If you're a Christian and want to debate it, then create a thread in the Same-Faith Debates, and we can go at it, but it's rather off-topic here.

I've gotta go now - a gay friend of mine is coming over to have dinner with me and my wife tonight.

 

[painted wolf]

Chris my religion and many other have no problem with gays.

I'm glad you don't oppose gay marrage, but what are we arguing about then?
I think I missed a memo...

wa:do