Opinions on Gay Marriage

[AAFitz]

My vote - I don't care; men can have sex with men, women with women, men with horses, men with multiple women; states should do what they want.

Could one of you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage? Further, could you please find where in the Constitution there is a right to homosexuality? I can't seem to find it, but I may be looking in the wrong place. Finally, if gay marriage is Constitutional, could someone explain to my why polygamy is not constitutional? I can't seem to find that one either.

On a sort of related note, does it bother anyone that there are a boatload of Catholics on the Supreme Court, and we may be adding one more?

The constitution does not specifically mention the right for people to go into walmart either, but sure enough, Walmart cant stop anyone from entering their store based on race or sexual preference. The Constitution does prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public. It protects our civil rights. All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto. Marriage is being blocked for an entire group of people based on their ideology, which may be biological, and some would argue, is as biologically decided as race. In other words, people are possibly born homosexuals, or at the very least decide to be in their pursuit of happiness. Hetero people are allowed to spend their lives together in a Union recognized by the state. There really is no justification for blocking two people from being joined. The only reason, is because other people dont like it.

The Constitution has nothing to do with why Walmart can't discriminate my friend. There are federal and state laws preventing Walmart from discriminating. The Constitution does not prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public. It prevents discrimination by US, state and local governments. Not sure where you're getting your ideas from.

Well theres your answer Paisan. "It prevents discrimination by US, state and local governments." It is the state laws against homosexual marriages that will be decided to be unconstitutional as you said, because its discrimination of a group by a state government.

As far as where my ideas come from, this time it was from you.

[thegreekdog]

Here's what I'm referring to - You cannot find, in the Constitution or in any Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution, a reference to gay marriage.

In any event, I just want to make sure you understand that the Constitution is not what permits someone to walk into Walmart. State law permits someone to walk into Walmart (and not a state constitution, actual state law).

Someone else had this idea (neoteny maybe?), and I think it would work. Let's say Pennsylvania passes a law banning gay marriage. I think someone brings a case and argues that it's a violation of the separation of church and state for a state to pass a law prohibiting gay marriage because any prohibitions on gay marriage rely purely on religion. That's going to be my Constitutional argument; not equal protection.

[AAFitz]

All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto.

This is what people are debating. Is marriage a fundamental human right, a religious institution, or merely a convention recognized by the state that might or might not have religious significance? In the first and the last, there is no reason to deny homosexual marriage. It is only if you define it as a solely religious institution that it becomes an issue.

Well since you do not need religion to get married, there is no issue. I can go to vegas and get married in the eyes of the state of las vegas. they dont care one bit about religion, and it is in fact illegal for them to do so. The religious part is just a ceremony. The legal part is the license which is a legal contract in the eyes of the state. They dont care how you perform the ceremony, hand gliding, skydiving, bungie jumping, worshiping God, cats, or Elvis... They just care about the legal union of two people, which in the eyes of the state is all that it is.

All religions differ when it comes to marriage, so its completely irrelevant from a legal stand point, which is why eventually all laws against it will be abolished and deemed unconstitutional. My opinion is that it is unconstitutional to block it. Beyond that I honestly dont care one way or the other. To be perfectly honest, I dont fully understand it, but that doesnt mean I wont stand up for the rights of people to have access, especially since they are only being blocked out of prejudice and malice at times.

[thegreekdog]

All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto.

This is what people are debating. Is marriage a fundamental human right, a religious institution, or merely a convention recognized by the state that might or might not have religious significance? In the first and the last, there is no reason to deny homosexual marriage. It is only if you define it as a solely religious institution that it becomes an issue.

Well since you do not need religion to get married, there is no issue. I can go to vegas and get married in the eyes of the state of las vegas. they dont care one bit about religion, and it is in fact illegal for them to do so. The religious part is just a ceremony. The legal part is the license which is a legal contract in the eyes of the state. They dont care how you perform the ceremony, hand gliding, skydiving, bungie jumping, worshiping God, cats, or Elvis... They just care about the legal union of two people, which in the eyes of the state is all that it is.

All religions differ when it comes to marriage, so its completely irrelevant from a legal stand point, which is why eventually all laws against it will be abolished and deemed unconstitutional. My opinion is that it is unconstitutional to block it. Beyond that I honestly dont care one way or the other. To be perfectly honest, I dont fully understand it, but that doesnt mean I wont stand up for the rights of people to have access, especially since they are only being blocked out of prejudice and malice at times.

I agree completely. I'll stand up for the rights of people to have access as well. I just won't say it's because of the Constitution, because that's not necessarily true in most cases.

[AAFitz]

Here's what I'm referring to - You cannot find, in the Constitution or in any Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution, a reference to gay marriage.

In any event, I just want to make sure you understand that the Constitution is not what permits someone to walk into Walmart. State law permits someone to walk into Walmart (and not a state constitution, actual state law).

Someone else had this idea (neoteny maybe?), and I think it would work. Let's say Pennsylvania passes a law banning gay marriage. I think someone brings a case and argues that it's a violation of the separation of church and state for a state to pass a law prohibiting gay marriage because any prohibitions on gay marriage rely purely on religion. That's going to be my Constitutional argument; not equal protection.

Well, you cant find many things in the constitution many things that are specifically mentioned, that have been deemed unconstitutional. And I never said the Supreme court has said anything about gay marriage. I said they were going to in the future. Sorry you missed that, but I said it every time as a future event.

I just want you to understand that if the State law you are refering to that permits someone to walk into walmart, was changed to prohibit them from walking into Walmart based on their race, thats when it will be deemed unconstitutional. It is the state that prohibits the marriage of people that is unconstitutional. I said nothing about permiting anything.

You answered the question yourself in your own words, and its in black and white. I find it humorous that you are implying you know this better than me, when it is your own words that are proving the point. Try reading a little better.

Once again, so there is no confusion: State laws prohibiting homosexual marriages will be deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that they discriminate against a group of people.

[AAFitz]

All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto.

This is what people are debating. Is marriage a fundamental human right, a religious institution, or merely a convention recognized by the state that might or might not have religious significance? In the first and the last, there is no reason to deny homosexual marriage. It is only if you define it as a solely religious institution that it becomes an issue.

Well since you do not need religion to get married, there is no issue. I can go to vegas and get married in the eyes of the state of las vegas. they dont care one bit about religion, and it is in fact illegal for them to do so. The religious part is just a ceremony. The legal part is the license which is a legal contract in the eyes of the state. They dont care how you perform the ceremony, hand gliding, skydiving, bungie jumping, worshiping God, cats, or Elvis... They just care about the legal union of two people, which in the eyes of the state is all that it is.

All religions differ when it comes to marriage, so its completely irrelevant from a legal stand point, which is why eventually all laws against it will be abolished and deemed unconstitutional. My opinion is that it is unconstitutional to block it. Beyond that I honestly dont care one way or the other. To be perfectly honest, I dont fully understand it, but that doesnt mean I wont stand up for the rights of people to have access, especially since they are only being blocked out of prejudice and malice at times.

I agree completely. I'll stand up for the rights of people to have access as well. I just won't say it's because of the Constitution, because that's not necessarily true in most cases.

Well, I didnt really mean it was only because of the constitution, but we got caught up in constitutional talk...lol. I simply dont see how a group can be discriminated against, especially when there is no gain by doing so, except to force thier ideas onto someone else. Its no different then the many other forms of discrimination this country has suffered since its birth.

[Snorri1234]

All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto.

This is what people are debating. Is marriage a fundamental human right, a religious institution, or merely a convention recognized by the state that might or might not have religious significance? In the first and the last, there is no reason to deny homosexual marriage. It is only if you define it as a solely religious institution that it becomes an issue.

Well since you do not need religion to get married, there is no issue. I can go to vegas and get married in the eyes of the state of las vegas. they dont care one bit about religion, and it is in fact illegal for them to do so. The religious part is just a ceremony. The legal part is the license which is a legal contract in the eyes of the state. They dont care how you perform the ceremony, hand gliding, skydiving, bungie jumping, worshiping God, cats, or Elvis... They just care about the legal union of two people, which in the eyes of the state is all that it is.

All religions differ when it comes to marriage, so its completely irrelevant from a legal stand point, which is why eventually all laws against it will be abolished and deemed unconstitutional. My opinion is that it is unconstitutional to block it. Beyond that I honestly dont care one way or the other. To be perfectly honest, I dont fully understand it, but that doesnt mean I wont stand up for the rights of people to have access, especially since they are only being blocked out of prejudice and malice at times.

I agree completely. I'll stand up for the rights of people to have access as well. I just won't say it's because of the Constitution, because that's not necessarily true in most cases.

I think that because it isn't mentioned in the constitution that to block it is unconstitutional. Basically, any attempt to make it illegal would be against the constitution so by default it would be legal to go do it.

The constitution doesn't mention it, but it mentions in a way that you can't actually ban it on constitution-arguments. So there could in fact be no federal ban on gay marriage.

[AAFitz]

All that has to be done, is to define marriage as an inherent civil right, and it will be legal defacto.

This is what people are debating. Is marriage a fundamental human right, a religious institution, or merely a convention recognized by the state that might or might not have religious significance? In the first and the last, there is no reason to deny homosexual marriage. It is only if you define it as a solely religious institution that it becomes an issue.

Well since you do not need religion to get married, there is no issue. I can go to vegas and get married in the eyes of the state of las vegas. they dont care one bit about religion, and it is in fact illegal for them to do so. The religious part is just a ceremony. The legal part is the license which is a legal contract in the eyes of the state. They dont care how you perform the ceremony, hand gliding, skydiving, bungie jumping, worshiping God, cats, or Elvis... They just care about the legal union of two people, which in the eyes of the state is all that it is.

All religions differ when it comes to marriage, so its completely irrelevant from a legal stand point, which is why eventually all laws against it will be abolished and deemed unconstitutional. My opinion is that it is unconstitutional to block it. Beyond that I honestly dont care one way or the other. To be perfectly honest, I dont fully understand it, but that doesnt mean I wont stand up for the rights of people to have access, especially since they are only being blocked out of prejudice and malice at times.

I agree completely. I'll stand up for the rights of people to have access as well. I just won't say it's because of the Constitution, because that's not necessarily true in most cases.

I think that because it isn't mentioned in the constitution that to block it is unconstitutional. Basically, any attempt to make it illegal would be against the constitution so by default it would be legal to go do it.

The constitution doesn't mention it, but it mentions in a way that you can't actually ban it on constitution-arguments. So there could in fact be no federal ban on gay marriage.

I used more words, but thats exactly what I said.

[JJM]

The Bible flat out forbides it.

[Frigidus]

The Bible flat out forbides it.

At what point does it do that?

[JJM]

I have been reading the Bible. I've finished about a third of it. I have come across it saying that homosexuality is a sin. I'll look for but be patiente this might take a while.

[JJM]

Wow it didn't take me half as long as I thought it would. Ok here it is Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a women. It is a detestable sin." Can't argue with that.

[JJM]

Sorry I mean chapter 18.

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

The Bible flat out forbides it.

At what point does it do that?

Better question: How is that relevant? the US government is seperated from the Church, and it is illegal to make any decision based upon religion. I will point at now that there is no way to force homosexuals to be married by someone who does not wish to do it, barring they are not a government official. However, marriages are given many benefits by the state, and to withhold these benefits from homosexual couples while providing them to heterosexuals is unconstitutional based upon the fact that the Constitution forbids discrimination against groups by the government. As such, homosexual couples must be granted a union recognized by the state providing the same benefits as marriage. If homosexals still wish to be married, then they could of course go form their own church, but that is only aesthetics.

Know what ticks me off the most about the Gay Marriage debate? The fact that those who use the arguement "The Bible forbids it," could just as easily have the same arguement used against them to prevent them from doing such and such. The same part of the constitution protecting the Christians right from being discriminated against by the government is the same one that protects gay marriage. If they say they don't like it, then they could also be persecuted, as well as any other group if it were removed.

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

Wow it didn't take me half as long as I thought it would. Ok here it is Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a women. It is a detestable sin." Can't argue with that.

Sure I can. That still does not forbid marriage between two people of the same sex...

[JJM]

The Bible flat out forbides it.

At what point does it do that?

Better question: How is that relevant? the US government is seperated from the Church, and it is illegal to make any decision based upon religion. I will point at now that there is no way to force homosexuals to be married by someone who does not wish to do it, barring they are not a government official. However, marriages are given many benefits by the state, and to withhold these benefits from homosexual couples while providing them to heterosexuals is unconstitutional based upon the fact that the Constitution forbids discrimination against groups by the government. As such, homosexual couples must be granted a union recognized by the state providing the same benefits as marriage. If homosexals still wish to be married, then they could of course go form their own church, but that is only aesthetics.

Know what ticks me off the most about the Gay Marriage debate? The fact that those who use the arguement "The Bible forbids it," could just as easily have the same arguement used against them to prevent them from doing such and such. The same part of the constitution protecting the Christians right from being discriminated against by the government is the same one that protects gay marriage. If they say they don't like it, then they could also be persecuted, as well as any other group if it were removed.

I was trying to git across the point thaat it was moaraly wrong in that post not legaly wrong. However I do also believe it should be legaly wrong because freedom of religion means that we got to be respectful and welcomeing of each religion. The Bible is Christianities holy book and it flat out forbids homosexuality.

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

The Bible flat out forbides it.

At what point does it do that?

Better question: How is that relevant? the US government is seperated from the Church, and it is illegal to make any decision based upon religion. I will point at now that there is no way to force homosexuals to be married by someone who does not wish to do it, barring they are not a government official. However, marriages are given many benefits by the state, and to withhold these benefits from homosexual couples while providing them to heterosexuals is unconstitutional based upon the fact that the Constitution forbids discrimination against groups by the government. As such, homosexual couples must be granted a union recognized by the state providing the same benefits as marriage. If homosexals still wish to be married, then they could of course go form their own church, but that is only aesthetics.

Know what ticks me off the most about the Gay Marriage debate? The fact that those who use the arguement "The Bible forbids it," could just as easily have the same arguement used against them to prevent them from doing such and such. The same part of the constitution protecting the Christians right from being discriminated against by the government is the same one that protects gay marriage. If they say they don't like it, then they could also be persecuted, as well as any other group if it were removed.

I was trying to git across the point thaat it was moaraly wrong in that post not legaly wrong. However I do also believe it should be legaly wrong because freedom of religion means that we got to be respectful and welcomeing of each religion. The Bible is Christianities holy book and it flat out forbids homosexuality.

OOOHHHHHHH! NOW I GET IT! So equality is only for Christians! That is totally sensible! Well, you have just turned my opinion around 180 degrees!{/endsarcasm]

If Gay Marriage should be illegal because Christians do not like it, than Alcohol and Pork products should be illegal too, accounting for the Jews and Muslims. But I geuss you and your black shirt buddies would take care of them and the homosexuals with a little Zyklon B, eh?

Read the bolded part.

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

teensy bump

[joecoolfrog]

Aside from the leggal part of gay marriage I do not understand how any christian can not believe it is morraly wrong. It is directly forbiden by the Bible.

You are either a Troll or a complete Moron,for the sake of your family I hope its the former.

[Captain_Scarlet]

Aside from the leggal part of gay marriage I do not understand how any christian can not believe it is morraly wrong. It is directly forbiden by the Bible.

You are either a Troll or a complete Moron,for the sake of your family I hope its the former.

so Jim show me in the Bible where it says it is forbidden - the Bible talks of love for fellow man etc in fact if you had actually read the Bible carefully you will know it contains a manual

I vote Troll

[oVo]

Since wedding vows grant special rights to couples, then those same rights should be legally available to all citizens regardless of their sexual preference. As has been made abundantly clear in several posts, the moral tenets of a select religious group can't be applied to law when it restricts equal rights to others.

[thegreekdog]

Fitz, I don't mean to be rude, but here's what you said:

"The constitution does not specifically mention the right for people to go into walmart either, but sure enough, Walmart cant stop anyone from entering their store based on race or sexual preference. The Constitution does prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public."

The Constitution does NOT prevent discrimination against groups of people for services that are available to the public. State law (and federal law) says that a shop (or business) cannot discriminate based on race. Many state laws say a store cannot discriminate based on sexual preference. However, the Constitution does not say any of those things. Therefore, while I agree with your points, the Constitution is not what is stopped the stores/businesses. It's nitpicky, but, well, I'm a nitpicky kind of guy.

[JJM]

The Bible flat out forbides it.

At what point does it do that?

Better question: How is that relevant? the US government is seperated from the Church, and it is illegal to make any decision based upon religion. I will point at now that there is no way to force homosexuals to be married by someone who does not wish to do it, barring they are not a government official. However, marriages are given many benefits by the state, and to withhold these benefits from homosexual couples while providing them to heterosexuals is unconstitutional based upon the fact that the Constitution forbids discrimination against groups by the government. As such, homosexual couples must be granted a union recognized by the state providing the same benefits as marriage. If homosexals still wish to be married, then they could of course go form their own church, but that is only aesthetics.

Know what ticks me off the most about the Gay Marriage debate? The fact that those who use the arguement "The Bible forbids it," could just as easily have the same arguement used against them to prevent them from doing such and such. The same part of the constitution protecting the Christians right from being discriminated against by the government is the same one that protects gay marriage. If they say they don't like it, then they could also be persecuted, as well as any other group if it were removed.

I was trying to git across the point thaat it was moaraly wrong in that post not legaly wrong. However I do also believe it should be legaly wrong because freedom of religion means that we got to be respectful and welcomeing of each religion. The Bible is Christianities holy book and it flat out forbids homosexuality.

OOOHHHHHHH! NOW I GET IT! So equality is only for Christians! That is totally sensible! Well, you have just turned my opinion around 180 degrees!{/endsarcasm]

If Gay Marriage should be illegal because Christians do not like it, than Alcohol and Pork products should be illegal too, accounting for the Jews and Muslims. But I geuss you and your black shirt buddies would take care of them and the homosexuals with a little Zyklon B, eh?

Read the bolded part.

It does not harm Jews and Muslims for us to have pork but it is not right to make a preist go against his beliefs.

[Snorri1234]

It does not harm Jews and Muslims for us to have pork but it is not right to make a preist go against his beliefs.

Priests are not the only people who marry others. You don't even have to go to church to get married. Gay people aren't asking for weddings in a church, they are asking for a marriage-license from the government.

[Captain_Scarlet]

It does not harm Jews and Muslims for us to have pork but it is not right to make a preist go against his beliefs.

what universe do you inhabit? wait better still are you even old enough to consider marriage of any type?