Politics Same-sex Marriages

[Natalia]

Omg, I can't believe most Americans still think being gay is something that people chose for..  Here it's accepted by everyone that you're BORN gay, America is like 50 years back in the past with things like this.. loads of men are married here, and women too.. and they have adopted children too, nothing wrong with that imo.

:lol: I know. Everybody else was having these debates in 1940!

I have done psychology at university, and science has PROVEN that people don't just 'turn' gay, and that there are parts of the brain that are different to heterosexuals.

I guess prejudiced people will say anything to protect their 'morals'. :angry:

But with that said, I don't think it should be banned. Why? The last time I checked the Consitituiton of the United States is supposed to protect all Americans, not just the Christians and the conservatives. The consitituition states that people can not be discrimated against due to their religious beliefs, race, sex, or sex orientation. In other words, banning gay marriage violates gay people's rights because you are banning a marriage between them because of their sexual orentation.

 

[m<o>j]

11 states banned gay marrige today. I can't belive it.

[post="1052680"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

:blink: :blink: :blink: Imagine they banned marrige for black people, for disabled people, for short people, for Muslims, for blondes. People are so stupid.

Jai

 

[Kewii]

Dont use this religion stuff on me.  I can't stand religion.

Heterosexuality has to be natural becasue of pro-creation.

[post="1052644"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Actually, the religion comment wasn't directed at you, it was more for go_w2004 and anyone else who has used religion as the basis for their prejudice.

 

[AliasHombre]

Actually, the religion comment wasn't directed at you, it was more for go_w2004 and anyone else who has used religion as the basis for their prejudice.

[post="1053473"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

okedoke then.

 

[InezG]

While obviously not everyone in America is Christian, the nation was founded on Christian values and principles, and that should be respected. We live in a time where people are always trying to be “politically correct,” all the while ignoring the moral and ethical values of the country.

I have to disagree that America was found on "Christian values and principles" alone. Many of the founding fathers were atheists who believed in philosophies of Voltaire, Locke, deMontesque, etc..., the philosophies that emphasized the freedom of people to live their lives without persecution for their religious or non-religious philosphical beliefs. The reason they developed the separation of church from state is so that people could be free to practice or not practice religion as they sought fit.

By opposing gay marriage, we are not trying to offend people, we are simply standing up for the Godly principles that America was founded upon.

I respect your beliefs but I don't agree with anyone imposing their beliefs on others, which is what I think happens with legislation that discriminates against gay people. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for Caucasians to marry people of other "races." I think the situations are very similar. I'm sure some will disagree, but in my opinion the ideas behind the anti-marriage policies against gays and people of different races are similar.


I have more thoughts but not enough time to finish them right now.

Peace,

InezG

 

[ms.katejones]

I really think the issue of same sex marriage will work itelf out in the long run. Just like it took time for women and minorities to get the vote, it will take time for people to put aside their prejudices on this matter. Eventually, we, as a country, will see that same sex marriage hurts no one and legalize it. I wish we could realize this right away, but reform is slow.

 

[Scarlet Crystal]

i hope you're right.

 

[tippinlover]

Although many of the founding fathers were not considered Christians, the Puritans were the ones to first establish religion as a role in American society, and I think that foundation they established is still celebrated and supported by many today...also the Puritan's were such a powerful and influential group in early America, that many of the founding fathers found it extremely advantageous to back their beliefs and morals through legislation, that may not have always included the word God, but were based on the morals established by the Purtians...

I think same-sex marriage is wrong and I fail to see how having such a belief means you're not progressive...I don't see the problem with having fundamental, and traditional beliefs. Being that this is America, it's still OK to be traditional and/or progressive depending on the issue, right?

Also whether fairly or unfairly we force our beliefs on people everyday...that's how the legal system was formed...people draw lines with what they think is right and what they think is wrong...that is forcing beliefs...I understand that many people believe that b/c these beliefs are sometimes religiously based, they should not be allowed...but I think it's naieve to think that most, if not all of our moral code is based on Christian fundamental values...and that's America...we're not France or The Netherlands...

I respect those countries and how they've decided to legislate is their business, but it's just not who we are as a people and I think the votes on Tuesday confirm that...

 

[agnes bean]

Being that this is America, it's still OK to be traditional and/or progressive depending on the issue, right?

Yes, but you can not force those belifes on the rest of America if it goes against the constitution. And the constitution, up until thise point, agrentees EVERYONE equal rights, including the right to marry. Not just heterosexuals.

After all, there are still people out there who don't think black people or women should have equal rights. But I don't see anyone saying that would be constitutional.

 

[Natalia]

Imagine they banned marrige for black people, for disabled people, for short people, for Muslims, for blondes. People are so stupid.

That rules me out in two categories!! :lol: :lol:

Good thing I don't live in America.

QUOTE
Being that this is America, it's still OK to be traditional and/or progressive depending on the issue, right?

Yes, but you can not force those belifes on the rest of America if it goes against the constitution. And the constitution, up until thise point, agrentees EVERYONE equal rights, including the right to marry. Not just heterosexuals.

After all, there are still people out there who don't think black people or women should have equal rights. But I don't see anyone saying that would be constitutional.

VERY good point.

Bush and co are fine with imposing this discrimination because so far it hasn't effected them in a negative way. As soon as somebody wants to ban Christianity, I'm sure he would be the first person up there saying it is going against the constitution.

 

[InezG]

That rules me out in two categories!! :lol: :lol:

Good thing I don't live in America.
Yes, but you can not force those belifes on the rest of America if it goes against the constitution. And the constitution, up until thise point, agrentees EVERYONE equal rights, including the right to marry. Not just heterosexuals.

After all, there are still people out there who don't think black people or women should have equal rights. But I don't see anyone saying that would be constitutional.

VERY good point.

Bush and co are fine with imposing this discrimination because so far it hasn't effected them in a negative way. As soon as somebody wants to ban Christianity, I'm sure he would be the first person up there saying it is going against the constitution.

[post="1054358"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

[/quote]
Exactly. I can respect a person's viewpoint that gay marriage is wrong. And there should be respect for people who think that gay marriage is not wrong.

When one group of people has a certain belief does that mean they can overrule everyone who does not share those beliefs? The US governement is supposed to treat everyone equally. People used to think that people of color marrying whites was "wrong." No one is hurting anyone by getting married. It bugs me when any group tries to dictate what someone should or shouldn't do just because they believe it's wrong. If people aren't intentionally hurting someone, I don't understand the need to stick their nose in the the privacy of others. Just my opinon.

 

[cinders]

being heterosexual isnt a choice, being homosexual isnt a choice, marriage is when you love someone you and care for them enough you want to do something to prove it to the world. Athiests marry, and its by god isnt it? so why is it so wrong for homosexuals who havent done anything wrong, let people do what they want, who are we to confine it? -_-

 

[Agent_Tippin]

I think same-sex marriage is wrong and I fail to see how having such a belief means you're not progressive...I don't see the problem with having fundamental, and traditional beliefs. Being that this is America, it's still OK to be traditional and/or progressive depending on the issue, right?

There is nothing wrong with having traditiona beliefs, so long as you don't push those beliefs on others, who do not agree with said beliefs.

What does a homosexual marriage do a heterosexual marriage? How does two people pledging their love to one another demean the institution of marriage? Is not marriage the coming together of two kindred spirits for a "lifetime" (in quotes because we've all read the statistics on divorce)?

I would think people taking the institution of marriage for granted (i.e. people who marry every other year, etc.) would demean it more than two people wanting to get married with their heart of hearts.

As said, in another thread - the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights - when you allow one group to marry and deny it to another, you are violating their equal rights.

 

[tippinlover]

There is nothing wrong with having traditiona beliefs, so long as you don't push those beliefs on others, who do not agree with said beliefs.

What does a homosexual marriage do a heterosexual marriage?  How does two people pledging their love to one another demean the institution of marriage? Is not marriage the coming together of two kindred spirits for a "lifetime" (in quotes because we've all read the statistics on divorce)?

I would think people taking the institution of marriage for granted (i.e. people who marry every other year, etc.) would demean it more than two people wanting to get married with their heart of hearts.

As said, in another thread - the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights - when you allow one group to marry and deny it to another, you are violating their equal rights.

[post="1055125"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Traditional beliefs are forced on us everyday of our lives...I can understand people not wanting other people's beliefs to be forced on them, but it's impossible not to have this happen...whether my belief or your belief is substantiated, either way, it's being forced on the other...

Marriage is a bond between man and woman...I don't really know what else to say about that...I will say that I have no problem with civil unions, b/c I think that certain economic and proprietory rights given to those that are married should also be given to a person's life partner

Denying marriage may or may not be a denyal of equal protection under the Constitution. Once could argue that as long as civil unions give the same legal rights as marriage, there would be no denial of equal protection or due process.

I already know some will argue that this is similar to a separate, but equal legislation, but it's not for several reasons:

(1) separate but equal was problematic not b/c of the separation of the races, but b/c of the economic consequences and inequalities as a result of this legislation, which I don't think apply in the case of civil unions
(2) also, there is no physical separateness of any portions of the population...all this legislation would do is allow homosexuals an opportunity to do things like add their partner on to health insurance, or do away with problems of probate by allowing their partner to receive life insurance or property automatically upon their death, etc...

There are more reason why I think its different, but basically I think that allowing civil unions is the best solution and I believe it would upheld judicial scrutiny as well; although I'm not sure that an out right federal amendment denying marriage to homosexuals will survive the 14th amendment

 

[Agent_Tippin]

Denying marriage may or may not be a denyal of equal protection under the Constitution. Once could argue that as long as civil unions give the same legal rights as marriage, there would be no denial of equal protection or due process.

The Ohio amendment prohibits civil unions.

IMO, the only difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage ceremony' is that the civil union is performed by a civilian whereas a marriage ceremony is performed by a member of the clergy in a church. So, I don't really see a issue with the 'separate but equal' argument, as long as both are recognized equally and both are afforded the same rights and privileges.

 

[Existentialist]

(1) separate but equal was problematic not b/c of the separation of the races, but b/c of the economic consequences and inequalities as a result of this legislation, which I don't think apply in the case of civil unions

I was taking a drink of water when I read this and almost choked. Separation of the races was not the problem of separate but equal? Are you kidding me? You think it's okay to segregate by color as long as the economy stays equal and stable? Blacks, whites, asians, native americans, middle easterners can all be separated and that really wouldn't be a problem? That is saying that skin color DOES make people different. Do you know that ethnicity does not exist? My DNA is no more different from a white person's than another, unrelated asian. The only differences are culture and skin color.

Segregation, no matter how equal it is, still states that two people are radically different just because of their skin color. And that breeds the outgroup homogeneity effect, which breeds group favoritism, which breeds stereotypes, which breed prejudice and discrimination.

As for same-sex marriage... I just don't see how allowing a homosexual couple to get married is such a problem. How does it affect you? Will it demean your own marriage?

 

[tippinlover]

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that we did not over turn this legislation b/c we thought it was morally wrong to have the races separated, similar to what happened with slavery, this country made the decision to overturn both of these concepts for economic reasons...this country did not strike some sort of moral conscious when it decided to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson...what we realized is that economically, the races were not being treated equally and blacks were clearly getting the short end of the stick, thus the law was not and could not be promoted and was then overturned in Brown v. Board...

And, unfortuatnely, in many parts of the world the races choose to live separate....hell, even in this country we choose to live separately...people don't care unless their pocket books are being affected...and unfortunately group favoritism, and superiority are inevitable and can't be legislated away...

And again, I know it's a circular argument, but marriage is between a man and a woman...I realize it's a traditional belief, but it is my belief and it is a belief shared by most in this country

 

[agnes bean]

but marriage is between a man and a woman

Why do you think this, though? Honestly, I’m curious. Is it anything beyond the Bible?

 

[AliasHombre]

That's not what I'm saying at all.  What I'm saying is that we did not over turn this legislation b/c we thought it was morally wrong to have the races separated, similar to what happened with slavery, this country made the decision to overturn both of these concepts for economic reasons...this country did not strike some sort of moral conscious when it decided to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson...what we realized is that economically, the races were not being treated equally and blacks were clearly getting the short end of the stick, thus the law was not and could not be promoted and was then overturned in Brown v. Board...

[post="1055218"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

It actually was a...change in values...if you will, becasue the dissenting opinion in Plessy V. Fergie was the majority opinion in Borwn v Board.

 

[tippinlover]

Yes, my belief on marriage comes strictly from what the bible says...

Re: the dissent in Plessy: Actually the Board decision only outlawed desegregation in educational facilities, b/c they are considered to be inherently unequal and did not provide blacks an equal opportunity in future economic endeavors...

The Supreme Court based its decision on inequality in education and it's consequences, not a change of values...otherwise they would have outlawed segregation in other areas like segregation of restaurants and/or restrooms...

ETA...I just realized my answer reads a little bit snippy...I certainly didn't mean it that way