US Supreme Court to Hear Case on Same-Sex Marriage

[Vanyali]

A few pages back someone said they'd rather abolish marriage altogether instead of having these little movements. At this point, I'd just about agree. Marriage has completely lost its meaning, especially considering the big fuss is over financial aspects. Next we'll have friends who aren't even romantically interested in each other getting married for those benefits, and nobody will think anything of it.

This already has happened and has happened for... oh, I don't know, all of human history.

Marriage for love is very, very new.

[semaphore]

I'm feeling threatened over nothing.

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

I just do not like this sudden push for 'gay rights'. Gays are people. People have rights. Leave it at that. There is no need to go and change everything because you want to be with the same sex.

Yes, people do have rights. And part of that right is equal protection under the law, which means that they should be able to marry anyone they damn well pleases.

[Thage]

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

And yet you feel that Christian doctrine belongs in governmental proceedings, perverting everything the Founding Fathers stood for when they established the separation of Church and State, moreover, perverting others' freedom of religion and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on the gender of their lover.

Also, why do you keep bringing the Vatican into play on this? Who honestly cares what the Vatican or the Pope says? Because someone with some power like the Pope said that he does not promote doctrine to oppress homosexuality, why do you use it to keep speaking out on this matter. Because quite honestly, what the Pope says, is rather irrelevant. He is just another person. And people are flawed.

I bring the Vatican in because the Roman Catholic Church is infamously among the most conservative branches of Christianity. If the Roman Catholic Church of all things is willing to acknowledge evolution does not run counter to Christian teachings, I think it's high time to smell the coffee.

I do not judge anyone. I just do not agree with things that certain people do. I do not and I am not judging gays in any way. I am simply speaking out my opinion and beliefs on the subject.

You do judge, by demanding they be denied equal rights to fit your faith. You do judge, by making your disagreement the center of why you seek to deny them the right to pursuit of happiness.

I notice you said nothing on every other point I made. Is it because your "opinions" are indefensible in the face of the reality of what gays face on a daily basis in an atmosphere of oppression? Is it because you don't want to believe that gays are fighting for basic human rights and for the right to feel safe to express their love in public as a straight couple does without fear of being assaulted for it? Is it because you don't want to believe things aren't all roses and cupcakes and that everyone has rights when it's glaringly obvious just by this case's existence that the opposite is true?

[semaphore]

Defining homosexuals as a class is a whole other story, but I think it is very possible to define them as such. Anyway the point is by not recognizing civil unions and gay marriages we're economically discriminating against a class of citizens, and historically such things have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Well, homosexuality is already a protected class too.

[Sackman]

are you suggesting our gay overlords will force gayness upon us poor, hapless heteros? seems to be the path your posts are following

For some reason just heard "oh noooo" in the voice of that one armed teacher man from family guy.

[semaphore]

I am not in favor of discrimination of anyone.

Except against homosexuals when it comes to exercising their fundamental right to be married to someone they love.

[rawdude]

You're using your religious beliefs to justify prohibiting the right to marry to others. Do you see a problem with this? Also, of course humans are animals and it speaks of your arrogance that you feel otherwise.


How about we give you some perspective? Islam says your wife cannot go to school, or show her face in public. So, break her the bad news

I am using my religious beliefs to justify my opinion.

Also, of course humans are animals and it speaks of your arrogance that you feel otherwise.

That is your opinion. You can be an animal if you want. I'm sorry that I believe that man is better than an animal. There is no need to call me arrogant for what I believe. I could do the same to you, yet I am not.

[Endus]

But why does the entire definition of marriage have to be changed to appease homosexuals?

Because they aren't changing the entire definition of marriage. It's remaining almost completely untouched, they're just removing gender-specific terminology. Your argument is kind of like claiming they're redefining what it means to vote by allowing women to vote. People made that argument too, and it was just as bigoted then.

The simple truth is that "marriage" is a primarily legal construct. It wasn't even a Christian sacrament until the Middle Ages; for more than half of Christianity's existence, the Church had very little influence or control over marriages. Marriage is primarily a legal construct having to do with inheritance and taxation. There's no law that you have to love your spouse, for instance.

Nor is any reference to "traditional" marriage at all relevant, since they inevitably want to refer to a Christian "traditional", and specifically use the Bible as a reference. The Bible, a book which also lauds Solomon, a man with dozens of wives, not to mention concubines. A book which supports the right of a rapist to marry his rapee to have the crime be anulled (and no, she doesn't get a choice in the matter).

While I can understand why Christians may not like the idea of gay marriage, as their text has a very few, very minor anti-homosexual references within it, that's a reason for Christians to not get gay married. It should NOT have ANY bearing on anyone who isn't Christian, is a Christian of a sect that ignores those passages for the same reason every Christian sect ignores so many others, or someone who simply doesn't care what their faith says on the matter.

That's what "separation of church and state" means. Your church is YOUR choice. It should have absolutely zero legal impact on anyone, for any reasons, ever.

[Thage]

A few pages back someone said they'd rather abolish marriage altogether instead of having these little movements. At this point, I'd just about agree. Marriage has completely lost its meaning, especially considering the big fuss is over financial aspects. Next we'll have friends who aren't even romantically interested in each other getting married for those benefits, and nobody will think anything of it. I wonder how long it'll be before incest goes through this same movement, trying to force people to accept it as normal just because it happens. I feel bad for the next generation who won't have any sort of guidelines to live by except, don't kill people, and don't say anything that might come off as offensive or you'll be taken to court.

Loveless marriages have been around since the Mesopotamians.

[Zalavaaris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

I feel this should be known.

[rawdude]

You keep saying "in MY opinion" while saying things that you well know cannot stand up and all I can think of is Douglas Adams.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”

I keep saying "in MY opinion" because it is MY opinion. It isn't yours, or any one else's here most likely. If I simply stated that " Humans are not animals," then I would be imposing my opinion and beliefs on you, would I not?

[semaphore]

I am using my religious beliefs to justify my opinion.

Religious beliefs are not a reasonable justification for any opinion.

That is your opinion. You can be an animal if you want. I'm sorry that I believe that man is better than an animal.

You are an animal by definition, whether you want it or not.

[nnelson54]

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

No, they didn't. That's just one of the things that the Religious Right tries to claim ownership of after the fact and all it does is show how ignorant they are of what the Constitution actually says and where objective morality comes from(hint: it's older than the Bible). People of the Religious Right read those quotes about the "creator" and other words and immediately associate them with the Christian God when most of the founding fathers were Deists who believed in a God, but not organized religion and certainly not the Church most of them just fought a war to escape from(in simple terms).

Thomas Jefferson - the man more responsible for the creation of this nation than anyone else - who actually wrote most of the early documents was a Deist who thought organized religion was useless and borderline dangerous. He has many, many, many famous quotations on the subject. Such as, "Lighthouses are more useful than Churches." And my favorite, "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone." He didn't believe in organized religion and he wrote most of the things you people say state the country was founded on Christian principles.

Hell, the very first treaty this country ever signed(with Morocco, which is a Muslim country and was the first country to recognize our government as the legitimate government of the colonies) states in plain English that we are not founded on Christian principles.

[Sackman]

How do they push it down your throat? Wouldn't you agree that it is some of us (incl you) hetro people shoving it down their throat.
After all gays dont get the same rights as us hetro people. It is not hetro people getting descriminated, violated or beat up by gays is it?
So, HOW, in your perception of the world is it us hetro that suffer from the actions of gay people?


As far as unnatural, no it is not, it is more uncommon but not unnatural.
In your paranoid fear of anything not white & hetro you need to learn the difference between the two words.

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.

[semaphore]

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.

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

[Itisamuh]

Well whatever happens happens. It's not as if our opinions on it will affect the outcome, or change based on the ruling. People who don't support gays on a social level still won't. I wonder how long it'll be before I start seeing gay main or supporting characters in every television show to fill the invisible quota of diversity. I just can't wait...

[rawdude]

If you are arguing a Theological rejection of Gays being married you are taking the simpletons way out, which is neither sophisticated or supported in logic.
There is no logic when faith is on the table.

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.

[Thage]

Well whatever happens happens. It's not as if our opinions on it will affect the outcome, or change based on the ruling. People who don't support gays on a social level still won't. I wonder how long it'll be before I start seeing gay main or supporting characters in every television show to fill the invisible quota of diversity. I just can't wait...

Neither can I, it'll be nice to be recognized as a human being for a change rather than quietly swept under the rug and told to go be in my gay corner so I don't breathe up your clean straight white air.

[Sackman]

Yes, fear the gay uprising, breeders! Mwahahahahahaha!!!!!

That's not fair, I do my nails myself. Hate bad nails. But obviously I do it with the most mucho emery board possible, a concrete block.

[link4117]

Well, homosexuality is already a protected class too.

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 federal anti-discrimination law, though some gay people have won discrimination cases under Title VII I believe.