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

[chris9178]

Bastet:

The majority should not be able to vote on the civil rights of the minority.

Marriage is not a civil right. I'm guessing, by that statement, that you don't know what a civil right is. Check a dictionary.

This really is simple high school civics stuff.

So shoul I guess that you're still in high school?

Nobody is asking for special treatment; just equal treatment.

Amen, sister!

Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me that I don't love my partner, just as much as a heterosexual couple loves?

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

Who the hell are you to tell me that I don't deserve those "bonuses" involved in a legally recognised marriage?

I'm a registered voter.
I'm curious how far your hypocrisy might go.
Would you vote for the rights of a man to marry his dog (female or male), if technology progressed far enough for a dog to say "I do"?
That's hypothetical, but certainly plausible at some point in the future.
The point of this question isn't, should a person be able to marry who they want, but should we put limits on marriage at all.
If you're of the opinion that marriage should have NO limits at all, then at least your consistent.... though many would probably add strange.
But if you believe there should be limits to marriage, then basically the arguement only turns to what degree it should be limited. Then, everybody has the right to the opinion, and the vote, of what that degree should be.
Now if one says that he supports gay-marriage, but finds man-animal marriage reprehensible, and then goes so far as to bash someone for sticking up for their/B] principles of no gay-marriage, then that person is a hypocrit.
And I'm sure most of you are thinking "That's ridiculous, saying that people would ever consider letting a man marry a dog!", and then disregard that as a weak arguement. Well, in the late 1700's, when our laws began being made, wouldn' they have responded the same way to some man who was considering marrying his gay lover? It's a graduating process.
That being said, principles, morals, and values are considered subjective by most people.....

You know what one of those "bonuses" would be for me? Being able to live in the same country as my partner. Currently we're on opposite sides of the world. How do you call that fair?

Excuse me, did the government choose your partner for you? The laws have been consistent for many, many years. Sounds more like a case of blaming the government for your own lack of foresight. In otherwords, shifting responsibility.

Spinkles:

Um, no. Telling you that gay marriage should be legal is me expressing my opinion, and people are allowed to express their opinions in this country. To find out what a dictatorship is really like, try visiting North Korea.

Try rereading my post.

What I said:

Now if you want to turn it around and say that PEOPLE shouldn't vote against gay marriage, then that's another story. But then you're telling people to vote the way you want them too, and not allowing them to have their own opinions. And that's wrong. In fact.... that woul be more like a dictatorship, wouldn't it?

To find out what a dictatorship is really like, try visiting North Korea.

Thank you. Calling America a dictatorship, or an oppressive country is childish when you realize what a true dictatorship is like. Ask the Iraqis.

Excuse me, Mr. Bigot, but why should other people get to dictate what some people do, if what they do harms no one?

You're assuming that I'm anti-gay marriage when I'm not. If a person believes its wrong, then the one would say that the act of homosexuality is wrong, not the marriage. Whether their married, or not, shouldn't matter to a christian who believes that homosexuality is wrong to begin with. I simply defend the wight of a person to have his own beliefs, and vote the way he wants.
Saying things like:

whether a secular government has any right to discriminate against such marriages based on your personal religious considerations, and the answer is clearly "No".

is absurd, and I'll argue that all day long.


You know, if you people would spend more time EDUCATING people and explaining to them how gay marriage isn't an encroachment on their religion, then you'd go a lot further in getting those votes than you would on blaming those "religious fanatics" in "Jesusland" and automatically turning them off of what you have to say. Now, if all your doing is trying to blow off some steam, and degrade people for not having your point of view, then fine. It may help you get it off your chest, but it certainly won't convince anybody. Evrybody knows that when you go and attack somebody like that, then their first response will to get defensive, and then you completely lose your message.

 

[michel]

Phew! I voted with the majority; allways worries me if I don't.
Vive la difference!
Seriously, why not?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Try rereading my post.

I did, and I'm still of the opinion that me expressing my opinion is not anything like a dictatorship. To suggest that by telling people they should have voted differently I am therefore not allowing them to have their own opinions, is to create a false dilemma: I can do the former and stop short of the latter.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

Then what, praytell, IS it about?

Would you vote for the rights of a man to marry his dog (female or male), if technology progressed far enough for a dog to say "I do"?

I would vote yes. If an animal has the ability to consent to such a thing, why should it be illegal? The only thing that keeps me from agreeing to letting animals and humans get married right now, is that animals do not yet have the ability understand what marriage is, let alone consent to it.

If you're of the opinion that marriage should have NO limits at all, then at least your consistent

The only limit I would put on marriage, is that both partners need to be able to consent to it.

That being said, principles, morals, and values are considered subjective by most people.....

...but not by you?

Excuse me, did the government choose your partner for you? The laws have been consistent for many, many years. Sounds more like a case of blaming the government for your own lack of foresight. In otherwords, shifting responsibility.

Now you're flailing. The government doesn't choose partners any more than partners choose themselves. Obviously, you've never been in love, otherwise you would not have made such a ridiculous comment.

 

[Fluffy]

But if you believe there should be limits to marriage, then basically the arguement only turns to what degree it should be limited. Then, everybody has the right to the opinion, and the vote, of what that degree should be.

What if I am of the opinion that what I believe is right and everyone else who shares a different belief is wrong? I am happy to let them keep their beliefs but I will not let them opress others based upon these beliefs. Therefore, I don't think that people have a right to vote on this subject unless they wish to approve of gay marriages. My objective here is not to convince others that homosexuality is okay since I have long come to the conclusion that people see what they want to see and I cannot show them otherwise. Therefore it is pointless for me to try and win a vote on this. I can only inflict my will onto others and hope that I win. Changing views can happen with their children.

 

[Pah]

Marriage is not a civil right. I'm guessing, by that statement, that you don't know what a civil right is. Check a dictionary.

I hope, in your wildest dreams, you don't think it is a sacred right, a sectarian right. You need to check law books and the history of the Catholic Church and the start of the Protestant reformation. Marriage has been a civil right since the early colonial period of the United States.

I won't repeat the tripe of the rest your argument but will classify it as ignorant It's refutation has been given so many times that it is becoming a bore.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

No, apparently it's about the evil homosexuals eroding the fabric of society. Not to mention their illicit yearnings for the right to inherit property as a matter of course, which as we all know they can't achieve by any other means than same sex marriage.

Excuse me, did the government choose your partner for you? The laws have been consistent for many, many years. Sounds more like a case of blaming the government for your own lack of foresight. In otherwords, shifting responsibility.

So we can understand WHY you think the whole thing has nothing to do with love, because I don't think you have the faintest idea what love is. Normal people don't sit down, weigh up the pros and cons and then say,'Yeah, loving them is probably a fairly safe bet for the future.'
Maybe that's why it's described as 'falling' in love, rather than 'sitting down with a coffee and some cake while I debate the finer points with myself' in love.

You know, if you people would spend more time EDUCATING people and explaining to them how gay marriage isn't an encroachment on their religion, then you'd go a lot further in getting those votes than you would on blaming those "religious fanatics" in "Jesusland" and automatically turning them off of what you have to say. Now, if all your doing is trying to blow off some steam, and degrade people for not having your point of view, then fine. It may help you get it off your chest, but it certainly won't convince anybody. Evrybody knows that when you go and attack somebody like that, then their first response will to get defensive, and then you completely lose your message.

You know, if the people who are uninformed and fearful enough to believe that any way other than their way is the wrong way weren't having their bigotry pandered to by stupidity like these amendments, we wouldn't even be having this debate. As for being on the attack, when was the last time a group of gay men went out and beat up a straight guy, just because he WAS straight?
There are plenty of people who just aren't interested in the message...they're too busy out knocking on doors trying to push THEIR message to give a **** about what anyone else has to say.

 

[Melody]

I wish someone could give me even one legitimate (albeit non-religious) reason to ban gay marriage. Just one reason with substance! I really do. Because as it stands, there seem to be no such reasons to ban gay marriage. And that makes me think that a whole lot of people who oppose gay marriage are irrational. I don't like thinking that many people are basically irrational, so I devoutly wish someone could give me just one legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it is a legitimate reason when it's based on religious beliefs (and Christians are not the only ones who have this view btw) but to people who hold this view, it is a legitimate reason. If we vote to allow gay marriage, then we are giving tacit approval to homosexuality, which is forbidden by our God.

I don't understand why this bothers people. It doesn't bother me that you want the opposite, and are actually gaining ground, and will probably get the legal right to marry since that does not weigh on my soul. If I vote *for* a law that is against my beliefs, that *will* weigh on my soul. You want your rights, but you would deny me mine?

I've noticed this topic has become quite heated and has dropped into personal insults so if you just want to insult me, go for it but I won't bother responding. If you want to engage me in a debate over my views in a courteous fashion, I'm more than happy to respond.

 

[retrorich]

I hope, in your wildest dreams, you don't think it is a sacred right, a sectarian right. You need to check law books and the history of the Catholic Church and the start of the Protestant reformation. Marriage has been a civil right since the early colonial period of the United States.

I won't repeat the tripe of the rest your argument but will classify it as ignorant It's refutation has been given so many times that it is becoming a bore.

I agree, Pah. And I would further classify it as diarrhea of the keyboard.

 

[Pah]

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it is a legitimate reason when it's based on religious beliefs (and Christians are not the only ones who have this view btw) but to people who hold this view, it is a legitimate reason. If we vote to allow gay marriage, then we are giving tacit approval to homosexuality, which is forbidden by our God.

May I remind you that legitimate law in this country is Constitutional law and biblical law has no standing or authority. The only legitimacy of anti-homosexualism is personal whatever the worldview.

I don't understand why this bothers people. It doesn't bother me that you want the opposite, and are actually gaining ground, and will probably get the legal right to marry since that does not weigh on my soul. If I vote *for* a law that is against my beliefs, that *will* weigh on my soul. You want your rights, but you would deny me mine?

I would not personally ask you to vote for something not in your worldview but I could rightly ask that you not vote against homosexuality based on your worldview as it is not part of secular law. What I believe Sunstone asked for is the secular reasons you might vote to deny basic human rights.

I've noticed this topic has become quite heated and has dropped into personal insults so if you just want to insult me, go for it but I won't bother responding. If you want to engage me in a debate over my views in a courteous fashion, I'm more than happy to respond.

We would be more than happy to debate secular reasons for disapproving homosexual marriage

 

[painted wolf]

if the whole argument about marrage is to 'protect family' then what is next?
Shall we ban divorce to keep familys together?
Shall we force single parents to marry, not out of love but to protect the family?

Protecting familys is a smoke screen to cover bigotry, just like banning inter-race marrages was before then.
Civil law is seperate from Religious law, if your religion says no to gay marrage then don't marry gays in your church. My Religion says its fine and thus I should have the religious freedom to marry a woman if I wan't to. What makes the Religious ideals of some worthy of Civil Law and not the ideals of another?

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

they used to

 

[chris9178]

Mr Spinkles:

I did, and I'm still of the opinion that me expressing my opinion is not anything like a dictatorship. To suggest that by telling people they should have voted differently I am therefore not allowing them to have their own opinions, is to create a false dilemma: I can do the former and stop short of the latter.

True enough. I stand corrected. But you can't deny somebody the right to their own opinion, and if that's so, then you can't justifiably rebuke them for having it. Your holding them to your standards, and that's exactly what most people here are arguing about - religious people holding others to their standards of marriage. That's where the hypocrisy comes in. Unfortunately most people can't clear their minds long enough to recognize this. Not necessarily you Spinkels (I don't know, or don't remember your position.), but others. As for my explanation previously, you're right, one can be in the middle.

pah:

I hope, in your wildest dreams, you don't think it is a sacred right, a sectarian right. You need to check law books and the history of the Catholic Church and the start of the Protestant reformation. Marriage has been a civil right since the early colonial period of the United States.

As a christian I do believe it is a religious concept, but that concept is different than the legal one. The legal one is not a civil right. Once again, I direct you to the dictionary to educate yourself as to what our legal civil rights are. Marriage is an institution.

lady lazarus:

No, apparently it's about the evil homosexuals eroding the fabric of society. Not to mention their illicit yearnings for the right to inherit property as a matter of course, which as we all know they can't achieve by any other means than same sex marriage.

Actually yes. That is what it's about. The government isn't stopping you from love.
Now whether you want to add evil, or other adjectives in their its up to you, and everybody else. You can be as narrow-minded as you like, but the fact is that I have family that's gay, and three members of my bible study that are gay. To assume that I, or others, think that homosexuals are evil is the height of ignorance.

So we can understand WHY you think the whole thing has nothing to do with love, because I don't think you have the faintest idea what love is. Normal people don't sit down, weigh up the pros and cons and then say,'Yeah, loving them is probably a fairly safe bet for the future.'
Maybe that's why it's described as 'falling' in love, rather than 'sitting down with a coffee and some cake while I debate the finer points with myself' in love.

Right.....
Ok, lets say there is an old man who hear's about a car in an auction that he has been dreaming to own for his entire life. The auctions a few months away and he's researching to find out how much money he'll need to get the car, as well as working his butt off to be able to afford it. The day of the auction comes and the man is excited. He's raised the $50,000 he knows will allow him to buy the car. Well, auction time comes and he wins the bid at $50,000! He's thoroughly excited and loves this car! Well, as he goes to write the check, the auctioneer bring up the little issue of taxes. The cost is actually $65,000, with taxes. The man, of course, only brought the $50K and of course can not afford it, so it goes to the next highest bidder. Is it responsible for the man to blame the government after he got so worked up and excited, and close to buying it? No. It was his lack of foresight. He knew about taxes. Does it make the government happy? No. Does it make anybody happy? Well..... the next highest bidder maybe, but in general no. The laws are their, amd easy to find. If you get caught up in emotion, and you can't control the situation, then it's not the governments fault.

Now that's a simple illustration. If you want to defend her by passing the buck, then go ahead, there's no harm in it. But in REALITY, that's how it is.

You know, if the people who are uninformed and fearful enough to believe that any way other than their way is the wrong way weren't having their bigotry pandered to by stupidity like these amendments, we wouldn't even be having this debate. As for being on the attack, when was the last time a group of gay men went out and beat up a straight guy, just because he WAS straight?
There are plenty of people who just aren't interested in the message...they're too busy out knocking on doors trying to push THEIR message to give a **** about what anyone else has to say.

Most of that asininity was address above. If you don't like my advice then fine. You can deny it all day long, it won't hurt my feelings. I've already said I don't take sides with the religious voters on this one. But I do defend their right to choose, and vote. If you have a better way of convincing them than do so.

pah and retrorich:

I won't repeat the tripe of the rest your argument but will classify it as ignorant It's refutation has been given so many times that it is becoming a bore.

I agree, Pah. And I would further classify it as diarrhea of the keyboard

Jesus gives us the illustration of "casting your pearls amond swine", and I have to admit its relevance here.
If you've been reduced to personal degradation to advance your agenda, then its most logical that you've exhausted your intelligent resources to do it. Thank you.

But like I said before, I don't have anything against gay people. I have something against homosexuality, because that's within my religious doctrine. I believe that people who attack homosexuals are in err, and are certainly not in agreement with Christ's teachings. I support the equality of all men religiously, but politically (democratically) I support the rights of a person to vote for his beliefs.

 

[Melody]

May I remind you that legitimate law in this country is Constitutional law and biblical law has no standing or authority. The only legitimacy of anti-homosexualism is personal whatever the worldview.
I would not personally ask you to vote for something not in your worldview but I could rightly ask that you not vote against homosexuality based on your worldview as it is not part of secular law. What I believe Sunstone asked for is the secular reasons you might vote to deny basic human rights.
We would be more than happy to debate secular reasons for disapproving homosexual marriage

Biblical law has no authority? Really? Sodomy laws....adultery laws...laws on the books to keep stores from selling alcohol on Sunday. I'd say that biblical law has had quite a standing up to this point.

If the "legitimate" law in this country is constitutional, then it should be no problem for the Supreme Court to overrule the states. That's what it's there for.

You call it a basic human right. I don't agree. My world view is not secular and is very much defined by my faith. You may not like it but then I don't necessary like some of the things that are legal in this country either. There are avenues to change them if you're so inclined.

You say you wouldn't ask me to vote for something not in my worldview, and yet my faith defines my worldview.

 

[Green Gaia]

Marriage is not a civil right. I'm guessing, by that statement, that you don't know what a civil right is. Check a dictionary.

Check your history. In Loving vs Virginia (1967) the US Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental human right.

But after your curt reply to "check a dictionary" I thought I would do just that.

Civil rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, for example, the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in some congressional acts.

Human rights: freedom, justice, and equality: the rights that are considered by most societies to belong automatically to everyone, for example, the rights to freedom, justice, and equality

So are you saying that homosexuals should not have the same freedom, justice and equality that you enjoy and take for granted? And if so, what is your basis for such a stance?

I'm guessing in your passion of the topic you're just rambling incoherently. This isn't about love.

What is marriage about then, if not love?

 

[Fluffy]

But you can't deny somebody the right to their own opinion, and if that's so, then you can't justifiably rebuke them for having it.

This is true but there is a difference between allowing someone their opinion and allowing them to force it upon others. At the moment this is the case since those people who are of the opinion that gay marriage is wrong are forcing this onto those who disagree. Unfortunately there is no way to argue around this without being hypocritical since in doing so I would be forcing my opinion onto you. However I do believe that in some cases people should be restricted from acting on their views. One of them is inciting others to racial hatred which, thankfully, is already illegal. Hopefully soon people will be restricted from making votes on items which are clearly intolerant to a sector of society.

Biblical law has no authority? Really? Sodomy laws....adultery laws...laws on the books to keep stores from selling alcohol on Sunday. I'd say that biblical law has had quite a standing up to this point.

If the "legitimate" law in this country is constitutional, then it should be no problem for the Supreme Court to overrule the states. That's what it's there for.

You call it a basic human right. I don't agree. My world view is not secular and is very much defined by my faith. You may not like it but then I don't necessary like some of the things that are legal in this country either. There are avenues to change them if you're so inclined.

You say you wouldn't ask me to vote for something not in my worldview, and yet my faith defines my worldview.

I agree with you that the Bible contains many important laws which have much value. However, as I am sure you are aware, there are quite a few of these laws, many of which are not recognised by the large majority of Christians although homosexuality is not amongst them. I would be quite happy with anyone who says "I am going to belive this because it says so in the Bible" if they were consistent. However, I have yet to meet anyone who has studied all of the laws in the Bible and follow all of those which they have not found a way to exclude.

The fact is, if any person who was anti-homosexual could come up with a reasonable argument which showed why homosexual marriages should be banned then I would be converted. Yet there never is one. Unsubstantiated religious beliefs cannot be forced onto those who are not of that religion.

 

[Pah]

The legal one is not a civil right. Once again, I direct you to the dictionary to educate yourself as to what our legal civil rights are. Marriage is an institution.

Ah yes, the dictionary, the vast tome that gives all our laws, that is the basis for all our laws.

Get real!

 

[Melody]

I agree with you that the Bible contains many important laws which have much value. However, as I am sure you are aware, there are quite a few of these laws, many of which are not recognised by the large majority of Christians although homosexuality is not amongst them. I would be quite happy with anyone who says "I am going to belive this because it says so in the Bible" if they were consistent. However, I have yet to meet anyone who has studied all of the laws in the Bible and follow all of those which they have not found a way to exclude.

The fact is, if any person who was anti-homosexual could come up with a reasonable argument which showed why homosexual marriages should be banned then I would be converted. Yet there never is one. Unsubstantiated religious beliefs cannot be forced onto those who are not of that religion.

It depends on on which bible laws you are talking about. We are no longer under obligation to obey the religious laws (dietary laws, etc.) or civic laws (stoning someone for a crime) but are still required to obey the moral restrictions.

The whole point of faith is that, despite all reason and logic, there is something that tells us that this is truth. I can't convince you. I can only explain my point of view. If you choose to disregard it, then that is your free will. However, I must live by my faith. If I do not, then God is no longer first in my life and my faith says He must be. To live any other way would be hypocrisy.

 

[Pah]

Biblical law has no authority? Really? Sodomy laws....adultery laws...laws on the books to keep stores from selling alcohol on Sunday. I'd say that biblical law has had quite a standing up to this point.

Show me an enforceable sodomy law "on the books" and I'll show you one that is unconstitutional. Show me the enforced adultary law that was, in the past, the only grounds for divorce in most states. Shall I show you the number of states that voided "blue laws". That these laws were taken from the books is ample proof that biblical authority has no part in Constitutional law. You will find that the basis of law is the people and the institution of the Supreme Court that the people established. The people, not the priests or pastors, delegate authority to representatives to create law that must be within the dictates of the Constitution that the people have initiated. Law does not come from the pulpit nor any of the Christian cable networks.

There is no law and never will be in this country that will force me to acknowledge God as the highest authority in this land. Which means, for you, that you can not have biblical law in this country. Our law gives you the freedom, as a right, to follow, in your own expression of religion, whatever you may choose but it does not give you the right to force compliance with that expression on anyone.

If the "legitimate" law in this country is constitutional, then it should be no problem for the Supreme Court to overrule the states. That's what it's there for.

And you don't think they have? You don't think the 14th Amendment is enforced? Now, what we have at this juncture is a lot of laws on the books that are unconstitutional. And cases, where relief from injury is sought brought on by those laws, are wending their way through the courst in accordance with the secular principles of justice we have adopted. It takes time and a lot of pain to correct those laws biblically inspired.

You call it a basic human right. I don't agree. My world view is not secular and is very much defined by my faith. You may not like it but then I don't necessary like some of the things that are legal in this country either. There are avenues to change them if you're so inclined.

I am truely sorry that you would forgo basic rights in the name of God but it is your choice. Fortunetly, your worldview is not the law of the land. I am deathly afraid that at some point a revolution may be in order - in order so as to correct the opressive stance of many Christians. When your push becomes shove, stonger measures may be called for to restore the promise of our country.

You say you wouldn't ask me to vote for something not in my worldview, and yet my faith defines my worldview.

I have no problem and a great deal of respect for your chosen worldview. I only ask, as is my right, that you not try to force me to it. Not voting at all would seem to satsify both worldviews.

 

[Doodlebug02]

Yes, with full fledged marriage rights that are equal in all way to heterosexual marriages! I am bisexual and personally, I don't understand why people want to deny GLBT community rights. I mean, why? What is so wrong with letting us have rights? Are we subhuman or something??