From Wiki on Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage only within a race was “considered to be the natural order of things” not very long ago. Now we know how ignorant and hateful that attitude was.
It is a new right creation, not a right taken away in the case of the OP. But you can’t stop people from marrying (without physically restraining them in some way), just state recognition of that marriage. Some people get additional power/rights/freedoms/choices from restricting others rights.
As for the case of gay marriage, is it truly a marriage at all - I do believe so, which is a spiritual union, which God does allow to happen, so why should man try to stop it? Where is the love and where is the hate on the issue.
I was thinking about the comparison to abortion in regards to this issue of one class of people taking away another class of people’s rights, Then I read the second post. :eek:
I’m an atheist. Are you saying that if you were in charge I wouldn’t be allowed to be married, because I don’t belong to any church? That I’m not really married in your eyes?
This is silly semantics. The state already does what you want. It does not conduct any religious ceremonies. The state gives everyone civil unions, and it happens that these civil unions are called “marriages”. If you want to pretend that people who weren’t married under your particular religious rites aren’t really married but only pretending, then feel free. But the rest of us don’t have to go along with that sort of nonsense.
Wait…did I read that correctly or did Kanicbird just state that he supports gay marriage? :eek:
Absolutely. Since marriage is an exclusively Christian institution, invented by learned Christian theologians (who were no doubt inspired by the Holy Spirit), secular humanists like me have no business telling Christians how they should or should not define their sacramental institution, anymore than we would have the right to tell Christians whether they should sprinkle babies or dunk teenagers.
It does kind of astonish me how all those non-Judeo-Christians through history managed to keep their civilizations going without the sacred institution of marriage that the Christians invented. All those poor pre-Christian pagans and unenlightened heathens around the world (before the missionaries got there), never knowing the sacred and exclusive institution of marriage! The men and women of Babylon and Egypt, the ancient Greeks, Imperial Rome, the mighty civilizations of the East–I guess none of them could invent anything as lofty and sublime as “marriage”, seeing as how none of them was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Another this argument is ridiculous is because it is not going to happen , not today, not tomorrow, not ever. So we can figure out was is the correct practical solution or hide behind a purity canard. The correct practical position is that SSM should be legalized not necessarily because of a rights issue (although I think that is the case) but because there is no state interest in not allowing it. Period. Now why do people vote for to disallow it? Because they are confused about the proper role of government, and this is waht I truly believe.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”-Anatole France
Please be more specific as to what precisely this means. I’m a fairly-newly-married straight man. I have two coworkers (both, comically, named Dave) who are a gay couple. How does it in any way affect my marriage, its value, its “specialness”, if they are legally allowed to marry?
Again, please be more specific. What possible “other agenda” could there be?
Here’s a real test of whether the anti-gay-marriage people are actually anti-gay-marriage because they fear that traditional marriage will be destroyed:
Are they fighting as hard for an end to divorce-on-demand? Are they fighting as hard for adultery to become an actual crime again?
If those two questions are answered “No”, then they don’t really care all that much about marriage as an institution. They just want to push some fag faces in.
I spent some time this morning reading the comments on the Bangor Daily News site. For quite a few it was a triumph of God’s will over the evil corruption of our moral fiber. Some felt it was protecting children in some way. :rolleyes: For quite a few others it was something like what you’ve described. Some people feel for reasons that don’t make sense to me, that legalizing SSM somehow cheapens the institution as a whole.
It’s an odd trick of the mind and heart as far as I can see. How does a SSM cheapen the institution any more than the high divorce rate. How does an abusive relationship accross the street define your marriage as something less? It simply doesn’t and can’t possibly.
If marriage has any sacred or holy qualities they are carried in the quality of love and committment in the individuals involved, period. The idea that gays should have all the same rights but use a different word is another trick of the mind and emotions. Perhaps gays shouldn’t be allowed to use the word love,or committment or family because that will somehow dimish your use of those words? Does interracial marriage somehow sully same race marriage? People used to think so.
The suggestion of civil unions rather than marriage is equality only if all couples get civil unions reflecting legal rights from the state and marriage from the church of their choice. It’s all so a ludicrious waste of time and resources that only serves to cater to unfounded unreasonble fear and prejudice.
It’s like saying to someone, I’m going to give you something very similar to equal rights that isn’t really equal rights , and you should be satisfied with that. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why that ultimately isn’t acceptable.
Over and over again in the BDN comments people ranted about the gay agenda being forced on them. Nobody is forcing anything on them, but rather asking for equal rights , while they are actively denying those rights to others.
Marriage and civil unions bestow a variety of legal rights on people. They let people share health care, pensions, visit each other in the hospital, etc.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Banning gay marriage is not the same as banning gay sex or gay cohabitation. Several decades ago engaging in gay relationships was still a crime. Now you can do that, but the government will not legally recognize the union.
Bans on marriage seem to violate the 14th amendment of the federal constitution, while they also violate various state constitutions which is why the courts in California, Iowa, Mass, CT, and other states have overturned public on the issues. So there is already a strong precedent for bans on gay marriage being unconstitutional.
A ban on republican marriage would be just as unconstitutional.
My dad’s one of what you might call the right wing base. His opposition to homosexuality is based on the premise that homosexuals don’t want to raise families like good, God-fearing folks do, but just want to have promiscuous, consequence-free sex. The reason they’re homosexual, the reasoning goes, is that sex is fun no matter whom you’re having it with, but gay sex removes the possibility of reproduction, so these degenerates who don’t want to be fruitful and multiply choose to be gay so as to avoid doing the will of God.
But then, gays organize and lobby to try to get their marriages recognized by the state. Clearly, this goes against the very foundation of someone like my dad’s beliefs. If he were to acknowledge that most gay folks, like most straight folks, really do want to start families, that would imply that he’s wrong. And he can’t accept the idea that he’s wrong, so he therefore can’t accept the idea of gay marriage.
Take your back of the bus and cram it where the sun don’t shine. I want my gay friends and family up the front of the bus with me. If that cheapens your marriage, then your marriage is worthless.
Might I suggest less hostility towards **yorick **and more, well, persuasive debating? I don’t see that vilifying him/her is productive.
Yorick: Do you understand that gay people don’t choose to be gay, and that they can’t just choose to love someone of the opposite sex any more than you could choose to love someone of the same sex? We’ve learned a lot since the 1960s, when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It’s not. Gays are just like you, except they happen to be attracted to the same sex.
Expanding marriage to gays doesn’t in any way cheapen it. MA is the same as it always was, except that it’s more accepting of gays. The thing is, no matter how you try to create a separate category for gays (ie, civil unions), it simply cannot make it equal to marriage without calling it marriage.
Ask yourself seriously, what do you have to lose by allowing two adults who love each other to get married?
It’s damned hard to reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
While I think voting away people’s right is a dick move, every time one of these laws is overturned by voters I can’t help but wonder how much the ways the laws were enacted in the first place encourages it. Why don’t they ever put gay marriage to the voters first, rather than pass the laws and then allow people to vote on whether or not to keep them?
It seems to me, anyway, by enacting the law before getting the people’s imput is asking for it to be repealed. Not only do you face opposition from people who things that God hates fags, you also face opposition from people who feel resentful that their government forced the law upon them without asking for their imput.
Is it really any better to force a law through for a year or two and then suffer the heartbreak of having it overturned than to put it to voters in the first place? They’re definitely not winning over any bigots the way they’re going, so maybe a new tactic is needed.
I’m afraid that this is going to keep happening, and that it’s only a matter of time before voters in my state do the same thing. I hope they don’t because I want my best friend from high school and his SO to move back home, but I don’t blame them for assuming that the law isn’t going to last. sigh.
True. I think a lot of people react emotionally to SSM rather than intellectually. But if someone has at least gotten to the point of accepting Civil Unions for gays, it really is only a small step to get to being OK with calling it marriage. Accepting yorick’s posts at face value, he/she is at the Civil Union phase. That’s almost there.
Well, we do elect them specifically to enact laws, so where do you draw the line? Is it OK to enact tax increases? How about speed limit laws?
This is crazy. After all the time of telling people not to “impose” gay marriage by judicial fiat, and to do it through legislative action, the cry is now don’t do it through the legislature, do it through referendum?
What other laws do you think this should be done for? Gay marriage is different because there are bigots out there who hate it?
Should interracial marriage have waited for referenda? Desegregated schools? Decriminalization of sodomy? The right to use contraceptives?
I dunno.
It won’t happen in one thread but ideas have a way of percolating in the back of our head and can lead to slow changes over time (for the intellectually honest anyway).