US Supreme Court to Hear Case on Same-Sex Marriage

[Endus]

The Found Fathers did indeed oppose a certain religion from controlling the nation. Which is why they made the separation of church and state. So that government could not rule in church affairs, and so that the church could not control the government. Like the Roman Catholic Church did.

Oh, bollocks. The Americans were primarily British pre-Revolution. The British had been pretty antagonistic to the Roman Catholic Church for centuries by that time. The Anglican Church was a major factor in that decision, since the Monarch is also the head of the religion, which is why Anglicanism was the state religion.

However, they did use Biblical principles in their actions and scripture is found throughout the establishment and foundation of our nation.

Also bollocks. The Constitution of the United States is so secular it doesn't even mention God, let alone any specific faith's interpretation. The Declaration of Independence is exceedingly careful to not be Christian, but refers to "Nature's God" and such.

And there's people like Thomas Jefferson;

The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free. ... By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom.

Jefferson hated the idea that religion would have any say in legal matters, and referred to such as "religious slavery". And that the USA should stand against such religious tyranny.

If you think they were terribly pro-Christian, you haven't read much.

[Belize]

"I don't get the problems with same-sex marriages, everyone knows once you get married it's always the same sex!"

HAHAHA... Omg I'm stealing that. Thank you! ^.^


Anyways, biggest case of our time? What generation are you from, because a lot of people probably think Segregation is one of the biggest cases :P

[rawdude]

Because for once in history, being gay won't have you burned at the stake by the mass populous.

Because people use to have standards. They use to have morals. People lack both of those in these days. Now I will say that that, is a fact.

Just gunna add that I highly disagree with burning people at the stake.. Because I know someone will say that I do not have a problem with it..

[Bakis]

There is gay on straight crime. Not as much as the reverse but it does exist, some don't want to be gay, and take it out on those who are straight. Others seek to get revenge on those that oppressed them and target the opposite sexuality as a whole.

I am sure there is. Put it into context vs violence commited by hetro(?) people vs gays.
If we want to, we can find violence made against people wearing funny hats as well, point is,
it is non-existant compared to the opposite.

[nnelson54]

As I have said before, I am not imposing anything on anyone. Believe what you want. I am simply arguing against something I feel is morally wrong, even without the Bible coming into play.

I seriously wonder if you're all there upstairs. What do you think it means to deny someone a basic right of civilization based upon how you feel? Imposing your will on them.

[Thage]

That is your opinion, and I will leave it at that. As I have said before, I am not imposing anything on anyone. Believe what you want. I am simply arguing against something I feel is morally wrong, even without the Bible coming into play.

You're arguing against people having basic human rights with nothing to stand on if you remove the Bible from the equation because scientific studies have shown that a) homo- and bisexuality, as well as transgenderism, are all genetic, b) children raised by homosexuals have a higher success rate than those brought up by straights, c) science has demonstrated that humans are highly-evolved animals related to great apes, and d) there are no credible studies that show homosexuality as having a negative impact on a civilization. In fact, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome (the two most famous ancient civilizations), as well as Ancient Egypt, all had loose views on homo- and bisexuality. Even Alexander the Great, one of the greatest conquerors and leaders of the ancient world, had a male lover.

[nnelson54]

Oh, bollocks. The Americans were primarily British pre-Revolution. The British had been pretty antagonistic to the Roman Catholic Church for centuries by that time. The Anglican Church was a major factor in that decision, since the Monarch is also the head of the religion, which is why Anglicanism was the state religion.



Also bollocks. The Constitution of the United States is so secular it doesn't even mention God, let alone any specific faith's interpretation. The Declaration of Independence is exceedingly careful to not be Christian, but refers to "Nature's God" and such.

And there's people like Thomas Jefferson;

The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free. ... By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom.

Jefferson hated the idea that religion would have any say in legal matters, and referred to such as "religious slavery". And that the USA should stand against such religious tyranny.

If you think they were terribly pro-Christian, you haven't read much.

I really hope you were born or educated in the US because if not I'm terribly embarrassed for him that someone from Canada knows more about his country's history than he does.

[Endus]

Because people use to have standards. They use to have morals. People lack both of those in these days. Now I will say that that, is a fact.

No, it's not. If anything, the Western world has moved to a more morally upstanding place every decade. That's why they keep introducing new legislation attacking social injustices to bring about greater equality.

There's nothing more immoral than hatred.

[Dispersedshadow]

HAHAHA... Omg I'm stealing that. Thank you! ^.^


Anyways, biggest case of our time? What generation are you from, because a lot of people probably think Segregation is one of the biggest cases :P

Brown v. Board of Education was handed down on May 17, 1954. You'd have to be 58 for that case to apply.

[Zoldor]

Fag used to mean bundle of sticks, but most straight people have no problem using it as a derogatory term to define homosexual people. Thats cool, but lets not tread on something so "sacred" as the word marriage, in a country where you can get married and divorced 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...well you get the point. That word is just tooooo "sacred" to change the meaning. Ohh words and your perfect meanings please never change.

Btw, biggest case of our time was passed in 2010, and its Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission.

[Endus]

I really hope you were born or educated in the US because if not I'm terribly embarrassed for him that someone from Canada knows more about his country's history than he does.

No, totally Canadian, but I'm a big fan of Jefferson and I'm a history teacher, focusing on medieval and early North American history. So there's that.

[Sackman]

It would be a massive exaggeration to treat it as though it's an actual problem though.

I think any crime is a problem. :P

[Hyve]

Personally I am against Gay Marriage, but not because I am ignorant or a fool, but because I feel there needs to be a mutual respect for all parties.

Marriage has in recent history been part of a religious ceremony, that bound Man & Women together for life. While much of the way Marriage is dealt with has changed, many people still value Marriage as a union between Man & Women.

I feel what would be best is if Churches offered Civil Partnerships, and Governments recognised Civil Partnerships on the same level of authority as Marriage. It came with the same perks, preferences and capabilities. This way, Gay couples get the same security and protection of a Marriage, and with the ceremonial events that they potentially want, and the Churches get to maintain their religious ceremony.

You could argue that, the point of having two identical systems is stupid, and that there should be one unified system in order to have true equality. That said, trying to break the boundaries of gay marriage has been going on for years now, and I feel that if the efforts were better put into what I just said, the Church would slowly over time come to accept Gay Marriage, rather then Civil Partnerships.

[semaphore]

No it is not. Sexual orientation is only protected for hate crimes under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Act. They are not yet a protected class under anti-discrimination law, though some gay people have won discrimination cases under Title VII I believe.

My mistake, you're right it's not a protected class under Title VII. Though it seem to be getting advanced as such through jurisprudence, in addition to the stereotype of gender traits that gay and lesbians had used to assert claims successfully under Title VII previously.

[nnelson54]

Personally I am against Gay Marriage, but not because I am ignorant or a fool, but because I feel there needs to be a mutual respect for all parties.

Marriage has in recent history been part of a religious ceremony, that bound Man & Women together for life. While much of the way Marriage is dealt with has changed, many people still value Marriage as a union between Man & Women.

I feel what would be best is if Churches offered Civil Partnerships, and Governments recognised Civil Partnerships on the same level of authority as Marriage. It came with the same perks, preferences and capabilities. This way, Gay couples get the same security and protection of a Marriage, and with the ceremonial events that they potentially want, and the Churches get to maintain their religious ceremony.

You could argue that, the point of having two identical systems is stupid, and that there should be one unified system in order to have true equality. That said, trying to break the boundaries of gay marriage has been going on for years now, and I feel that if the efforts were better put into what I just said, the Church would slowly over time come to accept Gay Marriage, rather then Civil Partnerships.

Because "separate but equal" has worked so well for the US in the past.

[Zalavaaris]

Personally I am against Gay Marriage, but not because I am ignorant or a fool, but because I feel there needs to be a mutual respect for all parties.

Marriage has in recent history been part of a religious ceremony, that bound Man & Women together for life. While much of the way Marriage is dealt with has changed, many people still value Marriage as a union between Man & Women.

I feel what would be best is if Churches offered Civil Partnerships, and Governments recognised Civil Partnerships on the same level of authority as Marriage. It came with the same perks, preferences and capabilities. This way, Gay couples get the same security and protection of a Marriage, and with the ceremonial events that they potentially want, and the Churches get to maintain their religious ceremony.

You could argue that, the point of having two identical systems is stupid, and that there should be one unified system in order to have true equality. That said, trying to break the boundaries of gay marriage has been going on for years now, and I feel that if the efforts were better put into what I just said, the Church would slowly over time come to accept Gay Marriage, rather then Civil Partnerships.

So.... basically... we have changed the meaning of marriage to mean man and woman exclusively but we changed it first so now you can't? I feel strongly that your argument is very ignorant. Im not saying that you are ignorant but that argument certainly is and you would be if you continue to believe that.

[rawdude]

Right, you're just being incredibly and irrationally over-defensive over nothing.

Again, no. I am stating my opinion on this subject just like you are. There is no need to call me irrational and over-defensive. I could say the same to you about how you are defending gay rights, could I not?

We are having an argument. I am accepting your opinions, yet you are criticising me for mine.

And you might say that my opinions are ridiculous and irrational, yet I could say the same for yours. We believe different things, and because of that, our opinions will differ and no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to move one another on this subject.

[Gothicshark]

1. Judging me and my opinions on my post count? Nice.
2. Anyways.. Humans are not animals (In MY opinion).
2.The Bible says that God made man from the dust of the earth. Which is different than how he made animals (simply speaking them into existence).
3. Also, if you believe what the Bible says, then you would believe that God placed man over dominion of animals and that man is significantly more important than animals.
4. With how far humans have come in technological advances and other things, I do not believe that man-kind is just simply an 'accident' and something that happened by chance.
5. There is obviously something greater at work (In MY opinion). But I had these opinions long before I became a Christian or 'religious person'.
6. I simply used common sense to realize that humans are greater than animals, and that there is absolutely no possible way that all that we know around us just so happened by chance.

I am not being rigid in my faith, rather I am using my common sense (which I'm sure someone will bash me for) and the things that I know to determine what I believe.

"but do not impose your faith on others."

I could say the same thing about homosexuals and them sticking their sexual orientation in my face. I am simply stating my opinion and what I believe. I am imposing nothing on no one.

1. After 8 years of WOW, which this forum was dedicated to, and because your account has been around for 6 months. It seems likely that your post count being low is because this is not your primary account, and leads me and many others in a forum based community to wonder why you need more than one account. Usually people start out posting in the other places before jumping in to boiling hot topics in General-Off-toppic.
2. IMO, is not a valid answer to anything relating to science. In my opinion humans are seeded by space aliens, in my opinion humans where created by the gods as play things, in my opinion .... yah Science looks at the evidence and basis it's conclusions on what is provable. Science can prove humans are apes, apes are animals.
3. The bible is one of many books of religion in our world, it is a fairly accurate history of the Jewish people. Thanks to my mom I'm one of those peoples, and I can assure you that most Jews think of genesis as a nice poem.
4. Might makes Right... well I'm not going to argue that it is true that humans can do what they want with the world it doesn't make it moral or right, but the people with power make the rules.
5. IMO- yes we get that. Doesn't change the facts though.
6. Common sense, according to my family the least common thing in humans. Common sense is different to different people so it is not really common. In Iran Common sense is that it takes a woman to prove her innocence in a court of law the testimony of four Islamic men, where as an Islamic man only needs 2. Common Sense in a cannibal tribe is that the fat guy in the next village would make a good BBQ. Common sense is irrational thought based on perspective observation. Reason, logic are not the same as Common Sense.

[rawdude]

No, it's not. If anything, the Western world has moved to a more morally upstanding place every decade. That's why they keep introducing new legislation attacking social injustices to bring about greater equality.

There's nothing more immoral than hatred.

Your opinion of a morally upstanding place is different than mine.

Yes, there are people who do hate. If you think I am one of them, then you have failed to read my posts correctly since I have repeatedly said I do not hate homosexuals.

[Hyve]

Because "separate but equal" has worked so well for the US in the past.

I'm not saying it worked well in the past, or that it will work well now. But having a system where gay people are not even equal because of their sexual preference is wrong. I think (and many friends of mine, of which a few are gay) that what would be best is to get the security in place first, and worry about the parade later.

There are gay couples who are paying more money, struggling to get mortgages or are in other forms of financial worry, because the Civil Partnership is not deemed to be equal to marriage.

So.... basically... we have changed the meaning of marriage to mean man and woman exclusively but we changed it first so now you can't? I feel strongly that your argument is very ignorant. Im not saying that you are ignorant but that argument certainly is and you would be if you continue to believe that.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, but my point is I am for Gay Marriage, but to break down the barriers is going to take a very long time. As I just said above, I know a few gay couples who would much rather have the benefits of marriage now, and then work on getting the same ceremonial rights later.

I don't pretend to know all the facts and desires of the gay community because I have a few friends, but personally also, I would much rather just ensure I get the same treatment, even if it is labeled something different.