For anyone who opposes same-sex marriage

And this has nothing to do with marriage

 

so if i just decide not to recognise the catholic religions beliefs as a religion can i take away their tax exempt status? can i refuse to think of heterosexual marriages as a valid marriage and refuse to serve anyone that believes different than i? no, i cannot. you like your rights, and the fact that your marriage has those protections, so why don't they get any protections? if it's because you have some moral hatred against something that, when thought about rationally, doesn't mean much, then i find you guilty of being a bigot.

 

??? Actually it is the process of marriage that makes men and women into husbands and wives.

 

The best solution is to get government out of marriage all together. Get rid of special benefits for married couples or extend them to everyone. In a legal sense, marriage is simply a contract. That legal sense is all the government has any businesses dealing with. The social/moral/religious aspects of marriage should be left entirely to society, individuals, and religions to define themselves. There is no reason everyone should have to agree on the same definition (religions have differing views on marriage even between a man and woman).

In the meantime, allowing more people to marry is one step closer to this ideal. If religious groups don't like it, they should lobby to repeal the marriage license. That would completely remove government from the equation of defining marriage, and it would only interpret the legal aspects of marriage contracts as defined the by individuals and their respective beliefs or religions.

 

As used by liberals, the adverb usually implies a thought process that is devoid of any connection to objective morality - which, in any context involving human interactions, makes about as much sense as thinking about celestial mechanics while assiduously avoiding any consideration of gravity.

 

this............

has nothing to do with marriage.

 

However I am not surprised to see that you respond with a personal insult which usually means that you are wrong and you can't argue the point coherently. We can go back and forth calling each other stupid if you want or we can have a civil discussion of our opinions. Recognize, that anything I say will probably not change your opinion, nor you, mine.

Federal laws define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Dictionaries used to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman until the recent pressure put upon them by the LGBT club. We'll see what the SCOTUS says.

Bob Barr change his mind. I think he was running on the Libertarian ticket. Surprise? Are you claiming that more than 25% of the country is gay? That is the highest number I have heard yet. Those elementary and high school gay recruiters and teachers must be doing a heck of a job.

I know three gay men that were in a long term relationship. Like 30 years. One just passed away. Using your stated requirements for marriage, why could the not be wed as husband and husband and husband? They are all consenting adults, in a long term relationship, and should be allowed to marry the person of their choice. What is your opinion? Should they be married, or does one of them get excluded?

Same sex marriage is already infringing on the churches first amendment rights.
http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/
If same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, will the Catholic church have to pay for medical benefits for a janitor's same sex partner who works at a Catholic elementary school? Will the Church be exempted because it has religious objections and exemptions for them will be enacted in these laws?

It's not that it goes against the purpose of the law, it is the fact that sexual diviation is not mention at all in the constitution.

No it was not a part of the Constitution's original purpose to desegregate America or legalize interracial marriage. But then, the Republicans passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. The Democrat party responded by creating poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, segregation laws, the terrorist wing of the democrat party the KKK and ending Reconstruction.

 

Gays can marry whoever they want. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two boys playing house is not.

 

If I have a real bottle of wine in California and I take it to Arizona, it is still a real bottle of wine. You can take that same bottle of wine to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it is still a real bottle of wine. If you take a same sex marriage certificate from one state to another, then it may not be a marriage certificate, then it isn't a real marriage certificate. Not straying from my point, you are just not getting it.

 

Well there is the 19th Amendment. Congress does have the power under the Constitution to write laws. Many laws have been written by congress to protect the rights of women. You act as if those laws don't exist.

 

So if a same-sex couple does all the things that a married opposite-sex couple does, it's just "playing house"?

I don't call that an argument, I call it being disrespectful. I call that an irrational belief in one's own superiority.

And I call it the sort of thing that gets a person permanently ignored.

 

And the fact that only men and women can become "husband and wife" has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.

 

Freedom of religion is the first thing mention in the Bill of Rights. You seem to have no problem ignoring that. If you are going to force people to accept gay marriage to include preclude them from refusing to recognize them as valid, preclude them from refusing to hire them, preclude them from refusing to give benefits to them if they are employed by a church owned school or hospital or other charitable organization, then you are in fact being intolerant of their beliefs, forcing them to either give up those beliefs, or pay fines or even criminally prosecute them and send them to jail.

Calling people of faith racist and homophobic demonstrates your bigotry towards people of faith. Your willingness to throw out their rights to believe as they wish under penalty of law shows your lack of respect for the Constitution.

 

The government needs to protect people's freedom of religion. What do you have against religious people? Why on the one hand do you say that we are imposing beliefs on people when in fact it is you who wants to impose your beliefs on others? Are you minding your own business when you tell me I have to accept a same sex marriage as if it were the same as a heterosexual marriage? Do I have to remind you that this is a new thing. Thirty years ago, nobody was talking about the poor gay people and how awful it is that they can't get married. Nobody was claiming that they had a right to get married. This is all a recent canard.

 

Did you put me on ignore? Cause if you did, I can put you on ignore too and it will be like we don't exist. Sorry if you think it is disrespectful, but the truth is, until recently, being gay was considered a psychological disorder. There are some who still consider it a psychological disorder. I don't think I have any irrational beliefs, to believe that two men is somehow magically a family is fantasy, but if true, then I am the King of Siam.

 

your argument has already found you as hypocritical. you say that my argument lacks objective morality. however your argument is that gays shouldn't be able to get married because according to your belief, it is intolerable. my argument is that, if everyone were to get rid of their belief structures, excepting that of a pure sense of equality, that everyone should be allowed the same freedoms, such as marriage. feel free to message me if your further confused by my comments

 

Saying someone's understanding of an issue is lacking isn't the same as calling someone thick. There was no "personal attack" in what I said, however your frequent suggesting that I should seek mental help for my sexuality amounts to a disgusting attack on myself (regardless of how generalised it was) that I haven't actually responded to in kind... yet.

The comment I was responding to was your illogical assertion that SCOTUS would be "writing laws", or legislating from the bench if they rule DOMA unconstitutional. What I was pointing out was that in the absence of DOMA, same-sex marriages are automatically recognised by the federal government - it is simply because DOMA exists that legally married same-sex couples are denied federal benefits. Undoing that law (well, a part of it) isn't writing anything new, it's simply going back to basics as it were.

And words gain and lose meanings all the time and have done throughout history in every language known to man. You know this is a lot more than a semantics debate. Besides that, I think you'd be surprised if you Googled "marriage" and looked at just how many well-known, respected dictionaries now list same-sex marriage under their definition. The meaning of words are nothing more than a consensus on language - and generally speaking when there's numerous jurisdictions across different continents legislating SSM and polls showing solid majorities supporting it in much of the western and English-speaking world - as well opponents recognising that it does indeed exist (even though some like to put same-sex "marriage" in apostrophes to denote their disagreement with the term), there is certainly enough consensus to recognise it linguistically. "Marriage" in another sense can simply mean the "joining of two things" - e.g. "a marriage of flavours". It wouldn't make sense therefore to call it anything else.

It's telling if one of the most ardent supporters of the law and the Rep. who introduced it to the House, and the President who's signature is at the bottom of the bill have totally abandoned their support and have called for its repeal. It's testament to the fact that public opinion on the issue of SSM has shifted drastically and over a remarkably short period of time.

And no, I'm not saying 25% of the country is gay. Silly. -_- I'm saying should California resume it's same-sex marriage law, 28% of the country will live in places where SSM is recognised and accessible. That's a huge ****ing deal in the words of Joe Biden

I seriously doubt you do, but given that example and your wading into the issue of polygamy (again nothing to do with bisexuality as you originally suggested), I can say that this is perhaps another issue for another thread. But polygamy is different to SSM since there are far greater questions as to its feasibility - such as how many you could reasonably limit it to once you include a third person, how much all the legal rangling would cost the state, how divorce would work, how immigration would work (could you simply marry a thousand people from Mexico and allow them US citizenship?)... the list goes on and on. Not that I have anything against people in polyamorous relationships, but the practicality and potential consequences far outweigh any benefits there would be if we as a society allowed it. Although opinions change with time so who knows, really? All I know is that same-sex marriage fits rather easily into the current model of marriage with no real negative effects.

An elementary school, Catholic or not, isn't a church. They are an educational establishment. That they are managed by those espousing or with direct connections to the Catholic Church is immaterial. Most receive federal funds and tax-benefits. If gay people are paying taxes which are helping to fund said schools then they should absolutely be "forced" to follow the law like everyone else is expected to and give the same benefits to said employee. How far do you think First Amendment rights go? What if a person's religion espoused the belief that a certain race is insuperior and they were sued for refusing to do business with anyone from that race?

Churches are another thing and should definitely be exempt, but schools that receive federal funding paid for in part by LGBT taxpayers should NOT have the right to deny them spousal benefits, period. And if they want to be all immature about it? Then stop accepting tax payer dollars. That simple.

And nor are women's rights, interracial marriage, or desegregation...

What party did or didn't do what is irrelevant. But thank you for acknowledging that the Constitution wasn't intended to allow interracial marriage and desegregation. Glad you subscribe to the idea of a living Constitution.

You should probably also know that most of southern Democratic racist of course migrated to the Republican party - which is why the South is solidly Republican (not that everyone is a racist there but historically that's the reason).

 

Actually I said nothing about your argument. I merely noted an operating definition preferred by most liberals.

Is it now?

Verbatim quote and link, please.

Congratulations. You have just legitimized the Carousel in Logan's Run, along with an infinite number of other dystopian scenarios.

Trust me, I'm not the least bit confused by your confusion.

 

You can mince words anyway you wish, your intention was to insult my intelligence.

The fact that you are gay went unnoticed by me until the moment you just pointed it out. What part of what I said was a disgusting attack? The part where I pointed out that being gay was considered a psychological disorder a few decades ago? Facts are facts, sorry if they hurt your feelings. My hope is that someday science will find a cure for homosexuality and that the entire same sex marriage issue will be moot.

Well I'm sure that you were happy that they upheld the ACA even though several courts found that unconstitutional. Marriage was defined by federal law as a union between a man and a woman long before DOMA. So, what you are saying is just not true.

I understand this for you is about building consensus. All you need is to convince 50% of the people to join you in destroying the freedom of religion for the 49% that remain. You are well on your way. You got the 50.1% needed to put obama back into office so he can force his new found belief in gay marriage on the rest of us. Just remember that you are the 1 to 2%. Just as in NAZI Germany or modern day Iran or Saudi Arabia, gays are murdered for being gay. So go after the Christians, they'll come for you next. For some this is just a game. They are mad at the world for the lot that they have drawn so they lash out at those they feel are persecuting them.

Exactly my point. What has change over the last 40 years? Political correctness. Family is still the same, marriage is still the same, homosexuals are not gay if they are unhappy, mental disorders are still the same as they were 50 years ago, and the only thing that has change is opinions.

Well let's see what the court thinks of Prop 8 and DOMA.

So you are a hypocrite too. You would deny the right of them to marry whomever they choose.

I doubt most receive federal funds, most are private schools. Their parents pay tuition, then they pay taxes to put other people's children through public school. I know I am one of those parents that put mine through private Catholic school. Regardless if it is a school or a hospital, the point is that many religions have money, and they use that money for the good of the comunity. But you would deny them the right to do this, you would close the schools, the childrens hospitals, the senior centers, and the adoption agencies, just to have your selfish consensus for same sex marriage. And they will close. They already closed them in (NY?) or some other state. (I got called a liar last time I got the state wrong, but I was going from memory)

Now you are concerned about taxpayers? What about the majority of the taxpayers that are Christians? They have been paying for abortions for years against their will.

Uh huh and then the republicans passed the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, I thought we went over this?

I believe in the Constitution as written. I believe in limited government. I believe that if you want to change the law, you need to amend it, not reinterpret and find hidden meanings in it.

Well I do know that you will never find any proof of that because it is a falsehood. I have been through this argument over and over in another thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/222393-democratic-partys-record-race.html
You should read it. If you think that the democrats became republicans and the republicans became democrats, then someone has been lying to you. It is probably because you are a product of a public education system which is run by leftist teachers, administrators and unions which will not tell you the truth.
I have challenged anyone to provide proof that republicans became democrat and visa versa, while providing proof that there was no party switching at all. Nobody every presented one once of proof if you read the threads.

 

Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not always and increasingly less so.

We all get one life and one life only. If two people share that life committing everything to each other then they sure as heck aren't "playing" anything. That's real!

 

"You can mince words anyway you wish, your intention was to insult my intelligence.

The fact that you are gay went unnoticed by me until the moment you just pointed it out. What part of what I said was a disgusting attack? The part where I pointed out that being gay was considered a psychological disorder a few decades ago? Facts are facts, sorry if they hurt your feelings. My hope is that someday science will find a cure for homosexuality and that the entire same sex marriage issue will be moot."
i have a question. where does a person get the self important image of themselves that what they believe, and are interested in, is perfectly healthy and everyone elses interests are a disease that need to be cured? first of all, what is there to cure? homosexuals don't harm anyone, they aren't running around raping little boys (like a few priests that have popped up in the past few years) and they aren't making anyone else gay. when you think about it, christianity is more of a disease than homosexualiity. the members all try to make you join their church (contagious). they ask you to give money, (parasitic) it alters your personality, (that's one of the symptoms!), and it makes people that don't have the same belief avoid you like the plague.

 

Oh stop it with the victim mentality. You showed a total lack of understanding on some of the legal issues as well as relying on 50 year old "research" to write off gay people as merely "ill" and have expressed your hope of finding a "cure" so that the same-sex marriage issue goes away. This is a LGBT rights forum and you well aware that there are several gay posters and lurkers here. And you knew that by REPEATEDLY (I counted 4 or 5 times including use of the word "perverts") referencing us in such a way you were baiting and causing offense. Did anyone get mad? Did anyone state how thoroughly disgusted they were by an assumption that you have made almost the central theme of your posts in this thread? Hardly. No one responded in kind. So if we can put up with that kind of crap, I think you needn't get your little panties in a twist when someone suggests you have a painfully poor grasp of some of the issues. That's probably the kindest thing I could have said...

And you can call it a fact all you like but it doesn't make it so. The evidence it was a "mental illness" is actually based on little but the widespread belief at the time. Homosexuality doesn't bear any of the hallmarks or features of a mental disorder, and cannot be shown conclusively to be "cured" by therapy beyond repression techniques.

The fact is you have no facts, and you can call it PC all you want but considering the APA changed their position in the 70's when vast swaths of society were still very much hostile to homosexuality means they did so not in response to public pressure but in light of new evidence and increased levels of research on the subject. They caved in to nothing but reality itself. Your repeated characterisations of gay people are nothing more than an attempt to mock the gay rights movement using old beliefs that hold no weight among qualified psychologists and psychiatrists - even Communist China which is FAR from gay friendly recently changed their position on it. Who's pressure did they cave into? Obviously not the Chinese government or the Chinese population.

The difference between Obamacare and DOMA is that at least half the federal courts the Affordable Care Act was presented to actually upheld it's provisions, whereas with DOMA at least 8 federal court have ruled it unconstitutional - even Republican judicial appointees. There has been an almost unanimous and bipartisan consensus on it so far. Conservatives should hate it for the impact it has on states rights and the clear government overreach, but many put that on the back burner to continue legislating morality and social issues that are no longer politically helpful to their cause. Such hypocrisy from the Right doesn't go unnoticed.

And I'm unaware of any federal legislation prior to DOMA being adopted that explicitly limited marriage to one man and woman. To my knowledge it's the first time the federal government has EVER defined marriage on the national level.

I think most people know that Obama has supported same-sex marriage since he was a state senator in Illinois and probably long before that. In 1996 he answered a survey stating that "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages". Since assuming the office of the Presidency to the point he officially "came out" in favour of it, he has literally done EVERYTHING that a pro-SSM president would have done - stopped defending DOMA, denounced Proposition 8 and North Carolina's constitutional amendments, repealed DADT, passed hate crime legislation that includes crimes motivated by sexuality and gender identity, and used an executive order to ensure partners of federal employees can claim certain spousal benefits. He did all that PRIOR to his "no ****!!" announcement this year. He should have come out for it as candidate in '08 IMO, he still would have beat McCain. But in the world of politics you sometimes have to "alter" your positions as Mitt Romney knows all too well.

Anyway, the President who came out for same-sex marriage won handily by some 3 to 4 million votes. He survived the referendum on his policies, showing that polls indicating majority support for same-sex marriage are likely to be correct.

As for the "49% who remain" I can't see how religious freedom and First Amendment rights are being trodden on by something that simply gives a minority equal rights under the law. Wedding photographers and civil registrars work in the private and public sectors respectively. If the civil registrar doesn't want to marry gay people they have the exact same choice that someone who worked as one in the 60's and opposed interracial marriage had - either put up with it or find a new job. There's no infringement on religious beliefs to be found there since we do not have to pamper everyone's purported "right" not to deal with people they find undesirable. Are we infringing for example on a teacher's first amendment rights if an openly gay student is admitted to their class and they do not wish to teach them because of their religious beliefs? You're stretching the First Amendment far beyond what it was intended to be. It is NOT an way of ensuring people do not have to work with or serve people they find undesirable to be around. And you want to interpret it that way you're setting a dangerous precedent and creating a society divided even more so by ideology. On the other hand the wedding photographer may or may not be able to refuse the same-sex couple their services based on which anti-discrimination laws exist. If a state or city have made it illegal to refuse people goods or services on account of their sexual orientation then they would be breaking the law. If there are no protections in place then they aren't. That one varies.

Your final point about gays pushing Christians so hard that they retaliate Hitler/Middle Eastern style doesn't even warrant a response quite frankly.

 

You've condensed this to such a basic level of logic that it almost sounds like I'm the one who's the bigot here. How amusing.

We could go into polygamy here but it honestly is such a huge issue it warrants its own thread. But I've already stated my reasons for opposing it, and if you still think I'm a hypocrite feel free to create a topic about it and I'll debate you there.

Religious schools don't receive federal funding? Er...
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/05/liberty_university_federal_money/

That's probably one of the most notoriously evangelical schools in America and it received more funding than NPR in 2010 according to that article. As I said before so long as the college or school funds itself it becomes a fully private organisation free to admit or employ whomever it chooses. And I have no problem with that. The Boy Scouts of America have Supreme Court approval for their anti-gay policy so I would imagine that the same applies to Catholic schools who receive no federal funds.

As for religious schools, hospitals and adoption agencies closing because they are required by law to provide basic family planning, admit gay students/employees and place kids with same-sex couples, the only people closing them down and being selfish is THEMSELVES. Think about it - we would rather close down our hospital which helps thousands upon thousands of sick people simply because we are required to provide contraception. We would sooner shut down our adoption agency which looks after poor parentless children and finds them loving homes because we can't bear to place them into the care of a same-sex couple. We prefer to close down our school which provides children with their educations than give the same spousal benefits to gay employees as our heterosexual ones... Who is being selfish?

Well that's true, but the majority does support abortion being legal, and the majority it seems also supports same-sex marriage.

Show me anything in those amendments that EXPLICITLY guarantees equal rights for women, interracial marriage, or the end of segregation.

My point is that you whine about the Constitution being twisted beyond what it was intended to do, but going by that logic that's exactly what happened in Brown and Loving. It was simply interpreted from the equal protections clause. Now this is exactly what is happening with gay rights. Lawrence V Texas and Romer V Evans took us half way there, but I believe DOMA will create either a quasi or full-on class for gay people.

Then you oppose the interracial marriage and segregation rulings?... Oh wait.

Then you oppose DOMA and wouldn't dream of supporting an amendment to the Constitution that takes away states rights to define marriage?... Oh wait.

This is slightly off-topic but I can't see how it isn't true given the fact that the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's passed by President Johnson and opposed by just under half of his party and half the Republican party (opposition was roughly equal) was SOLID Democrat territory. Look at how the electoral map shifted on Wikipedia after that. First the Dixiecrats formed, then suddenly Republicans take the south and have held it ever since. Nixon COURTED the pro-segregationist vote under the guise of "states rights". If you disagree with this widely accepted piece of history feel free to argue your point but we are very much digressing.

 

*correction to my first point, I DID say it was a "disgusting attack" but I didn't get worked up about it in the way others may have done. The response to it has been calm and rather muted, probably because it barely deserves a response.

 

So are you going to tell the child born by surrogacy or artificial insemination, or the adopted child placed with the only two loving parents they have ever known that they don't have a real "family"? Wow.