Gay Marriage

[Exorcet]

Show me where this "separation of church and state"

You mentioned it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Rights exist regardless of religious belief?

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." -US Declaration of Independence

Yes. Even if you're religious and take it to mean that the founders believed that God was the source of rights, that phrase clearly applies to all people. And just before that line, it says "all men".

 

[Quackjack]

You mentioned it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"



Yes. Even if you're religious and take it to mean that the founders believed that God was the source of rights, that phrase clearly applies to all people. And just before that line, it says "all men".

This. This isn't a christian theocracy. Get over it.

 

[Famine]

But like I said, I could care less what they call a civil union, or a marriage, or whatever they wanna call it. None of my business. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, they shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on me.

It's hardly a belief to say that governments should treat all citizens equally.

Marriage is just a contract. It has no reason to be limited to religious institutions nor be recognised by government to be valid. That's the Libertarian view, not this hokey stance you seem to have taken that allows you to define marriage as you wish.

Incidentally, the full text of the second sentence is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It says nothing of religion. My "Creator" was my parents. By creating my existence they endowed me with certain unalienable Rights.

 

[hogger129]

So because this isn't a Christian theocracy, that means it's okay to redefine marriage and force everyone to respect it?

 

[Exorcet]

So because this isn't a Christian theocracy, that means it's okay to redefine marriage and force everyone to respect it?

Marriage isn't religious. There is nothing to redefine.

 

[Quackjack]

Marriage isn't religious. There is nothing to redefine.

Marriage is a secular thing. If you don't think so then go ahead and force every atheist, agnostic and the like to divorce.

 

[Famine]

So because this isn't a Christian theocracy, that means it's okay to redefine marriage and force everyone to respect it?

Marriage isn't religious. There is nothing to redefine.

The redefinition already occurred. We'd just like our word back where it belongs - and not in the hands of people who'd define it to exclude us.

 

[Scaff]

So because this isn't a Christian theocracy, that means it's okay to redefine marriage and force everyone to respect it?

Given that marriage has been redefined countless times already I don't see what the issue is, unless you still believe that if a man gets caught raping a virgin he has to pay her dad 50 silver and marry her?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Now if you don't want a redefinition of a part of Christian marriage then you have to accept the above, if you don't accept the above then don't complain if marriage is redefined, because one part of the Christian definition of marriage is between a rapist and his victim (and an enforced one at that so throw in forced marriage as well).

 

[Villain]

So because this isn't a Christian theocracy, that means it's okay to redefine marriage and force everyone to respect it?

Get with the times, dude. It's an inevitability at this point so you might as well start being respectful and accepting or risk living out the rest of your days in bigotry and denial.

Society changes. America does too. That's why the Consititution has so many Amendments (and why the Constitution allows itself to be amended).

 

[hogger129]

-

 

[hogger129]

The union represented by marriage emerged from the Church, since the vast majority of Americans belonged to some version of a Christian organization. The word came from the religion, and the civil rights naturally were given the same name as the sacred ones. Marriage should be entirely a religious rite with no legal significance, and unions by another name should be the only ones recognized in the courts of the United States of America.

Get with the times, dude. It's an inevitability at this point so you might as well start being respectful and accepting or risk living out the rest of your days in bigotry and denial.

Society changes. America does too. That's why the Consititution has so many Amendments (and why the Constitution allows itself to be amended).

I am being respectful. Respecting someone's opinion and accepting it are two different things. I am not forcing my opinion on anybody. However, I feel like others' opinions are being forced on me. That's what's happening when people like you say "start being respectful and accepting or risk living out the rest of your days in bigotry and denial." Just because I oppose something or share a different view, that makes me a bigot and living in denial? I also disagree that it's an inevitability. In your "Golden State" of California, referendums on same-sex marriage were voted down. 37 other states have voted down the same types of referendums.

Society changes, as does America. You are correct. That does not mean I should be forced to accept popular opinion. As far as the Constitution goes, yes the Constitution was allowed to be amended, but so long as it is within the original intent of the document. Either way, that hardly has anything to do with this. First Amendment, again, remember was all about free speech. That means I am allowed to have a different opinion and I don't have to accept anyone else's.

 

[Villain]

The union represented by marriage necessarily emerged from the Church, since the vast majority of Americans belonged to some version of a Christian organization.

Marriages have been around much longer than Christianity, bub.

The word came from the religion, and the civil rights naturally were given the same name as the sacred ones. Better to give to Christ what is Christ’s and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Marriage should be entirely a religious rite with no legal significance, and unions by another name should be the only ones recognized in the courts of the United States of America.

Now this I agree with. I don't think that the government should even been involved with marriage in the sense that it is now. I think marriages should be left to religious institutions. That being said, I prefer the idea of the government enforcing legal contracts entered into by non-coerced adults which can have whatever rules said group of people wishes (much like a pre-nuptial agreement). I further prefer these legal contracts to be possibly entered into by two men, two females, one of each, or even a collective as seen in polyamorous relationship (sister-wives, anyone?).

As it stands today, however, marriage is a government entity and it will remain a government entity. For the goverment to deny a group of the population the same rights as the rest of the population is simple discrimination and the ramifications go beyond what the Church deems holy. A homosexual partner is denied some of the essential rights enjoyed by heterosexual partners (including hospital visition in a "next-of-kin" situation).

I am being respectful. Respecting someone's opinion and accepting it are two different things. I am not forcing my opinion on anybody.[. However, I feel like others' opinions are being forced on me. That's what's happening when people like you say "start being respectful and accepting or risk living out the rest of your days in bigotry and denial." Just because I oppose something or share a different view, that makes me a bigot and living in denial?

You are not opposing a different view. You are opposing a perfectly legitimate lifestyle and denying rights to a minority population. Yes, it is discrimination to deny rights to a fraction of the population. Rights that are perfectly available to you.

 

[Dennisch]

bub.

I lolled.

 

[hogger129]

As it stands today, however, marriage is a government entity and it will remain a government entity.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are not opposing a different view. You are opposing a perfectly legitimate lifestyle and denying rights to a minority population. Yes, it is discrimination to deny rights to a fraction of the population. Rights that are perfectly available to you.

A perfectly legitimate lifestyle? I could care less where people stick their hoo-ha, but it ain't a "perfectly legitimate lifestyle." Also, how is it discrimination? Marriage is a religious institution - I explained that for you earlier, therefore if marriage is not a right, how can it be discrimination?

Why aren't civil unions good enough? What's wrong with taking a civil union, giving it the same legal standing as a traditional marriage, and calling it whatever you want? Again, I don't view it as marriage, but I could give two 🤬 less what people call it.

I don't even understand why I'm here continuing this conversation. It's just like the anti-gun nuts.

 

[Villain]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That is irrelevant. This is the world we live in. These are the laws we must live with.

A gay couple getting married does nothing to affect your life negatively.

 

[hogger129]

That is irrelevant. This is the world we live in. These are the laws we must live with.

A gay couple getting married does nothing to affect your life negatively.

I agree, it does not affect me. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the moral issues associated with it and not condemn it. Civil rights are based on moral rights. It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant, or using public bathrooms based on skin color. Likewise, the union of two people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral. If you disagree, then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral issue.

 

[Famine]

Marriage is a religious institution - I explained that for you earlier

Only it was explained to you that it isn't.

Marriage is just a contract. For some reason religious groups have got involved and decided that it's limited to some things they say, while government is also involved for reasons that escape me. The suggestion that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman - or only valid if a religious ceremony - is a corruption of the word and concept by religious groups.

 

[Villain]

I agree, it does not affect me. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the moral issues associated with it and not condemn it.

The only moral issue I see right now is that we are denying a small percentage of the population the same rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.

There is nothing immoral (or even illegal) about a homosexual couple living together for the majority of their adult lives. Why deny this couple the same government seal of approval (and rights) that a heterosexual couple wishing to be legally married enjoys?

Just because you think it is icky and gross, it doesn't become immoral.

 

[Scaff]

I agree, it does not affect me. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the moral issues associated with it and not condemn it. Civil rights are based on moral rights. It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant, or using public bathrooms based on skin color. Likewise, the union of two people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral. If you disagree, then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral issue.

What moral issues?

Oh and speaking of morals I'm awaiting your thoughts on the Christian inclusion of rape and forced partnership within marriage as well.

 

[hogger129]

The only moral issue I see right now is that we are denying a small percentage of the population the same rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.

There is nothing immoral (or even illegal) about a homosexual couple living together for the majority of their adult lives. Why deny this couple the same government seal of approval (and rights) that a heterosexual couple wishing to be be legally married enjoys?

Just because you think it is icky and gross, it doesn't become immoral.

Morality is determined by how people are personally affected. But something is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone. Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths. For example, it is wrong to murder. It is wrong to torture babies for your personal pleasure. It is wrong to divide society based on skin color. It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage "partner" and then break that promise. It is wrong to hate someone without a cause. It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don't like them. If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes -- but only when they are acted on, not when they are felt. But this is problematic because if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply believing it? Am I morally right? Or is there no moral value to the belief? If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone based on skin color or "sexual orientation" isn't wrong, is it? See how morality based "only" on how someone is affected is wrought with problems?

 

[Villain]

Morality is determined by how people are personally affected.

And we already established that gay marriage effects you negatively by a grand total of zero. What are we doing here, again?

But something is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone. Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths. For example, it is wrong to murder. It is wrong to torture babies for your personal pleasure. It is wrong to divide society based on skin color. It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage "partner" and then break that promise. It is wrong to hate someone without a cause. It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don't like them. If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes -- but only when they are acted on, not when they are felt. But this is problematic because if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply believing it? Am I morally right? Or is there no moral value to the belief? If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone based on skin color or "sexual orientation" isn't wrong, is it? See how morality based "only" on how someone is affected is wrought with problems?

Nothing you have said lends anything to the arguement you made about homosexual marriage being morally wrong.

Point remains: To deny one portion of the population the same rights enjoyed by the rest of the population is morally wrong.

 

[hogger129]

And we already established that gay marriage effects you negatively by a grand total of zero. What are we doing here, again?




Nothing you have said lends anything to the arguement you made about homosexual marriage being morally wrong.

Point remains: To deny one portion of the population the same rights enjoyed by the rest of the population is morally wrong.

Nothing you have said lends anything to the arguement you made about homosexual marriage being morally wrong.

Yes it does. Just because you're at a low level of reading comprehension doesn't mean you get to deny logic and reason.

As far as denying rights; that is because, again, you're failing to realize that marriage is not a "right." It is a religious status, and should never have been recognized in civil law to begin with, on the grounds of the First Amendment.

Like I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. The government should not redefine marriage, and civil law should not even be involved with a religious status such as marriage.

The only reason anybody supports gay marriage to begin with is because they think they're being a good, "progressive" person, kind of like all the other smug people.

 

[Famine]

Yes it does. Just because you're at a low level of reading comprehension doesn't mean you get to deny logic and reason.

Nothing you said was a moral argument against preventing religious institutions having a stranglehold on "marriage" due to their own definitions. Do not address another member in this fashion again.

And no, there is no innate moral value to belief.

As far as denying rights; that is because, again, you're failing to realize that marriage is not a "right." It is a religious status, and should never have been recognized in civil law to begin with, on the grounds of the First Amendment.

Marriage predates the USA. It predates Christianity. It even predates monotheism. The definition that it's a religious status and between a man and a woman only is a redefinition itself.

 

[Villain]

Nothing you have said lends anything to the arguement you made about homosexual marriage being morally wrong.

Yes it does. Just because you're at a low level of reading comprehension doesn't mean you get to deny logic and reason.

Okay then, dumb it down for me. I want you to draw a nice, clear "if, then" line that establishes gay marriage as being immoral.

And then I'll try to stop laughing (or crying, as it were).

As far as denying rights; that is because, again, you're failing to realize that marriage is not a "right." It is a religious status, and should never have been recognized in civil law to begin with, on the grounds of the First Amendment.

Like I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. The government should not redefine marriage, and civil law should not even be involved with a religious status such as marriage.

But it is, and it will be. We're going in circles now. Marriage is a right. The libertarian dream of a marriage not existing in the eyes of the government is a fantasy. The fact remains that a monogamous homosexual couple living their life together is being denied rights available to monogamous heterosexual couples living their lives together.

 

[hogger129]

Nothing you said was a moral argument against preventing religious institutions having a stranglehold on "marriage" due to their own definitions. Do not address another member in this fashion again.

Do not address another member in this fashion again? All I did was question his level of reading comprehension because he obviously did not understand what I wrote. You want to ban me over that, go right ahead, I welcome it.

And no, there is no innate moral value to belief.

Yes there is, read what I wrote again. Thanks.

Marriage predates the USA. It predates Christianity. It even predates monotheism. The definition that it's a religious status and between a man and a woman only is a redefinition itself.

The union represented by marriage emerged from the Church, since the vast majority of Americans belonged to some version of a Christian organization. The word came from the religion, and the civil rights naturally were given the same name as the sacred ones. Marriage should be entirely a religious rite with no legal significance, and unions by another name should be the only ones recognized in the courts of the United States of America.

 

[Villain]

The union represented by marriage emerged from the Church.

No it did not.

 

[hogger129]

No it did not.

Yes it did...

 

[Tornado]

The word came from the religion

"The design of this coffee table is the perfect marriage of form and function."

 

[Villain]

Yes it did...

History fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture

 

[Famine]

Do not address another member in this fashion again? Why? All I did was question his level of reading comprehension because he obviously did not understand what I wrote.

You address arguments. You do NOT address people.

You want to ban me over that, go right ahead, I welcome it.

What a curious thing to say.

Yes there is, read what I wrote again. Thanks.

You wrote a lot of conjecture. There is no innate moral value to any belief. Morality is objective, not subjective - or it is without merit. Please go read the "Rights" thread. Thanks.

The union represented by marriage emerged from the Church, since the vast majority of Americans belonged to some version of a Christian organization. The word came from the religion, and the civil rights naturally were given the same name as the sacred ones. Marriage should be entirely a religious rite with no legal significance, and unions by another name should be the only ones recognized in the courts of the United States of America.

Nope. Marriage predates the USA by several thousand years. It predates the Christian church in the USA by just as much. It predates the Christian religion. It predates monotheism.

The word itself comes from Latin (and slightly earlier Greek). It means "to supply with a husband or wife" (and makes no mention of the gender of the person to whom this individual is supplied). Though the existence of the English term merely predates the USA by five times its own age, the concept is considerably older than that.