Gay marriage. Are you for or against it?

[ChristianCenturion]

Glad to hear that.



That's a truly poor answer. Actually, it’s a dodge. It ducks the question completely.

Please provide a good secular reason for why those citizens would think that legal civil gay marriage should be denied. And “Because they don’t like it” is a very poor reason.

Crazyfingers,

That would be another one of your opinions and one where you have to shift the goal posts.

The request was for a secular reason and I provided the obvious one.

Of course, you are free to redefine the request to put up additional restrictions to suit your held opinion.
I'll even help give examples: secular AND displaying immediate, recognizable harm AND harm related only to those that are being married AND true in every instance, etc.
But as soon as you do so, you will be revealing all the little hidden premises and showing exactly how it went from 'reason' to your own values being the standard for what qualifies as marriage instead of the given society's.

BTW - "Because they don’t like it" would by your rephrase that misrepresented what I've posted.

 

[YamiB]

It does in a Constitutional Democratic Republic operating under Rule by Consent principle.

That does not mean that the will of the majority is followed without consideration for minority rights. If people were to vote to make interracial marriage illegal it would no longer be accpeted because of the protection of minority rights.

Here is a logical fallacy for you.

Historic Revisionism (negationism).
There is now Interracial marriage recognition because it was supported by the majority and allowable due to the majority's provisions.
What did you think?
That a minority made a law that didn't exist and forced it on the overwhelming majority?

Unless I'm sorely mistaken on the structure of the Supreme Court they are not the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[YamiB]

Crazyfingers,

That would be another one of your opinions and one where you have to shift the goal posts.

The request was for a secular reason and I provided the obvious one.

Of course, you are free to redefine the request to put up additional restrictions to suit your held opinion.
I'll even help give examples: secular AND displaying immediate, recognizable harm AND harm related only to those that are being married AND true in every instance, etc.
But as soon as you do so, you will be revealing all the little hidden premises and showing exactly how it went from 'reason' to your own values being the standard for what qualifies as marriage instead of the given society's.

The only requirement was that it was secular. After that it is up to evalutation if it is valid or not. Because they don't like it is not a valid reason. I don't like sports video games, does that mean they should be banned?

Edit - I fear that I will have to take my leave now. It is time to head off to college.

 

[crazyfingers]

Crazyfingers,

That would be another one of your opinions and one where you have to shift the goal posts.

The request was for a secular reason and I provided the obvious one.

Of course, you are free to redefine the request to put up additional restrictions to suit your held opinion.
I'll even help give examples: secular AND displaying immediate, recognizable harm AND harm related only to those that are being married AND true in every instance, etc.
But as soon as you do so, you will be revealing all the little hidden premises and showing exactly how it went from 'reason' to your own values being the standard for what qualifies as marriage instead of the given society's.

BTW - "Because they don’t like it" would by your rephrase that misrepresented what I've posted.

It appears that you can provide no good secular reason for denying legal civil marriage to gays.

If you have a good secular reason, please state it. But, because the people want it banned is not an answer.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That does not mean that the will of the majority is followed without consideration for minority rights. If people were to vote to make interracial marriage illegal it would no longer be accpeted because of the protection of minority rights.

Here is a logical fallacy for you.

Great - You read Argument by Popularity.

Now if you would do me the honor of reading what my reply actually said, you will note that I was stating what the basis and boundaries were and that would refer to right being related in that context.
Secularism has issues with Popularity and Relativism. So please don't ask for something based on Secularism only to claim foul when it is given.

I said nothing about absolute morality or truth.
If I had, I would have referenced Christian teaching.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken on the structure of the Supreme Court they are not the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Here are a few facts that you may wish to consider:

1) Virginia is and was united under the U.S. Constitution. The same Constitution that you may want to see the SCOTUS basis for ruling. Virginia as a State did not and does not constitute America's majority. You can even go back further and note America's Civil War. You should also go review the Amendments that the ruling was based on and note the timeline of when they were enacted and what the majority's composition was.

2) Unless you can show documentation that supports Virginia as a State had, at that time, the citizen majority being against Interracial marriage, my point still stands by the fact that Virginia did not dissolve its membership from the Union - a viable option for a majority against force rule. A principle that was the basis for the Revolutionary War. What you are doing is presuming that by evidence of opposition, it is equating majority morality.

 

[TooCurious]

Wow, a lot has happened on this thread since last night! All right, down to business...

im not for gay marriage. marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women. not man man or women women. i just see it as a betray to the naturality of reproducing.

It's only "supposed to be" that way according to a specific set of cultural mores, which are not universally held.

and seeing that so many gay couples want to get married in states that dont allow them to might be violating their rights? why is it a violation to their rights? i dont understand. they do have the right to be together. dont get me wrong. if they want to be together, fine you know. but the right to marry? i think thats just a little over the top.

How is it "over the top" for a pair of romantically-committed consenting adults to want a legal union that grants them so many important legal guarantees, just like so many heterosexual couples have?

i mean, as man and women, i see them, us, as puzzle pieces in the natural world of reproducing and in God's world as well. men and women fit because we both need each to reproduce, but if its women and women and man and man, we just have 2 pairs of people who are incapable of reproducing to carry on the human race. thats just the way i think.

What bearing does any of that have on how we should determine secular law?

However, as a Christian I can't help but care deeply for these individuals and feel great sadness. God will deal with them in His own time.
I love them as I love everyone deeply. Jesus came to this world to save us because He loves us so much!

I'm confused. If you "care deeply for these individuals," why wouldn't you want them to be able to legally solemnize their unions, guaranteeing their rights to emergency hospital visitation, power-of-attorney, and so many other issues that heterosexual married couples take for granted? Can you imagine how a gay person feels when his partner has a car accident and is rushed to the hospital in critical condition, but the hospital personnel refuse to let him visit because he "isn't family," though they would have gotten married years ago had the state allowed it? THAT brings me great sadness.

i never said the human race had a problem with reproducing. what i was saying is that it doesnt go with God's natural plan. God never made a women and women or man and man to get married for no apparent reason. yes, there is love between them, im not saying they shouldnt be together in anyform. but for marriage, i think its going too far.

I still don't understand how it's "too far." What people think God wants has no bearing on the laws of the United States.

and about marriage between whites and blacks, that wasnt a good example for that. being a different color doesnt have any measure to gay marriage. the gay marriage thing is between a women and women or man and man. same sex.

It's very much the same thing. Decades ago, it was thought to be "unnatural" for people of different races to intermarry. Many even said that it was "against what God wanted."

and i dont see why it should be ok to marry the same sex now when like 50 or more years ago it wasnt even thought about.

The idea, "Why should X be okay now, when 50 years ago it wasn't even thought about," just doesn't work. Why should it be okay to allow women to vote in the 1920s, when fifty or so years prior, nobody was talking about suffrage? Progress happens. Inequality endures for a long time, and then someone realizes there's something wrong with it. People talk, the idea spreads, and social change occurs.

ok i see where you are coming from. but no matter what, to me, its not right. you see marriage as you described it as a legal contract. meaning of nothing but words saying this or that agreeing to whatever it may be agreeing to. to me marriage is something God created. for a man and women to be united together as one body. and i go with what the bible says about marriage, not what today's society is trying to do with it.

There are two types of "marriage." There's legal marriage, for which you have to go down to city hall and get a license, and which affects your taxes, etc. Then there's religious marriage, which is recognized by the church or synagogue or your religious institution of choice. These are often conflated in our society, as priests and ministers are granted legal authority to solemnize legal marriages, which take place simultaneously with the religious ceremonies. A religious marriage is up to a religious group to define and determine. A legal, civil marriage, however, is defined and determined by the government, without regard for religious beliefs.

A question to any that feels like answering. Where is the line drawn? If marriage is extended to same sex, then does the slippery slope apply and slide us all down the poligamy (sp?) right? Or what about NAMBLA I think it is. The man-boy org. that see's nothing wrong with exactly that? Does then marriage become OK to anyone or thing one wants? These few I mention can use the same argument that one does for gay marriage, I believe. Is there a line or not? And if so, what should it be if not what is already in place? TYIA.

The line I draw is "consenting adults." If you cannot legally give consent to enter a contractual relationship, then you cannot marry. It might also be reasonable to draw the line at multiple-partnerships (marriages involving more than two people) for reasons of legal logistics, but I honestly haven't decided yet--there are decent arguments for either side.

One such secular reason would be that the citizens don't wish to include that model in their government's recognition. It would be a secular reason that varies by government and the citizens' values/morality.

The personal preference of the majority is not sufficient reason to deny anyone equality under law--at least, not in a Constitutional Republic.

 

[prayerbone]

I think that you are making a massive jump.

yea i know thats what i said in a later post

 

[JohnLocke]

There are a number of reasons that argue for gay marriage:

Marriage is a stabilizing influence, married folks tend to go to work, avoid committing crimes, pay their taxes etc.
Marriage between any two persons is legally quite the same, the only hinky business comes when one or both of the marriage partners are under the age of majority, but each state has adopted rules for that (generally, granting immediate emancipation of any said minors).

Personally, I can't see any reason against it, except the idea that certain persons find it distasteful, immoral, etc. And hurting folks feelings in that way doesn't seem to be a sufficient justification in my book.

 

[Blackness]

Am I the only Christian here that approves of Gay marriage?

 

[Uberbeliever]

I personally am against it. One thing I'd like to clear up, however, is that I'm not homophobic. Most of my life people have called me a "crazed homophobe". I am NOT homophobic. I do not fear them, I just do not like them!

 

[crazyfingers]

Am I the only Christian here that approves of Gay marriage?

There are a lot of christians on this discussion board to support the right of gays to have legal civil marriage. There are also certainly some who approve of gays having religious marriages as well.

 

[crazyfingers]

I personally am against it. One thing I'd like to clear up, however, is that I'm not homophobic. Most of my life people have called me a "crazed homophobe". I am NOT homophobic. I do not fear them, I just do not like them!

Can you provide good secular reason for denying gays civil legal marriage?

 

[TooCurious]

I personally am against it. One thing I'd like to clear up, however, is that I'm not homophobic. Most of my life people have called me a "crazed homophobe". I am NOT homophobic. I do not fear them, I just do not like them!

Just to address the definitional issue:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

homophobia: (4 entries)

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

(Emphasis added.)

That said, can you enumerate any valid legal reason that gay couples should not be allowed to have legal, civil marriages equal to those permitted heterosexual couples?

 

[Uberbeliever]

A good reason? Of course! Gays violate the sanctity of marriage, and the relationship God intended people to have.

 

[Skaloop]

A good reason? Of course! Gays violate the sanctity of marriage, and the relationship God intended people to have.

That's at best a reason against Christian gay marriage. It has no relevence to civil marriage.

 

[crazyfingers]

A good reason? Of course! Gays violate the sanctity of marriage, and the relationship God intended people to have.

That's a religious reason. I asked if you have a good secular reason. Sorry. You can keep your religion for yourself. Don't try to impose it upon others using civil law.

 

[eddieJ]

The State has a duty to protect what you call "civil" marriage. A child is best raised by his or her biological mother and father. Opening the door to gay marriage, opens the door to bi-sexual marriage (three people), and then to heterosexual three or more people marriage. Marriage is for the stability of the children. Gays do love each other but marriage is not necessary nor is it discriminatory. Gay people could be allowed to have all the other rights they want and they should have equal protection under the law. They should not be harassed or harmed by anyone. But gay marriage is step one toward making all marriage meaningless. I love my parents very much but I do not want to have sex with them.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[Skaloop]

The State has a duty to protect what you call "civil" marriage. A child is best raised by his or her biological mother and father. Opening the door to gay marriage, opens the door to bi-sexual marriage (three people), and then to heterosexual three or more people marriage. Marriage is for the stability of the children. Gays do love each other but marriage is not necessary nor is it discriminatory. Gay people could be allowed to have all the other rights they want and they should have equal protection under the law. They should not be harassed or harmed by anyone. But gay marriage is step one toward making all marriage meaningless. I love my parents very much but I do not want to have sex with them.

If a biological mother and father is best, and the state should protect that at the expense of the rights of some, then divorce should be outlawed, no?

If a lesbian has custody of a child, getting married to her girlfriend would offer the stability you seek.

And your last sentence is absurdly irrelevent and unrelated to anything we're discussing.

 

[YamiB]

The State has a duty to protect what you call "civil" marriage. A child is best raised by his or her biological mother and father. Opening the door to gay marriage, opens the door to bi-sexual marriage (three people), and then to heterosexual three or more people marriage. Marriage is for the stability of the children. Gays do love each other but marriage is not necessary nor is it discriminatory. Gay people could be allowed to have all the other rights they want and they should have equal protection under the law. They should not be harassed or harmed by anyone. But gay marriage is step one toward making all marriage meaningless. I love my parents very much but I do not want to have sex with them.

God bless,
Eddie

I'm sure that it is really best that we only let children be raised by their biological parents. Afterall biological parents are never incompentent or abusive. If it is not discriminatory to deny marriage to homosexual couples was it to deny marriage to interracial couples?

Current studies have shown homosexual couples to be just as able to raise children. If children were the only reason for marriage then it would follow that there would actual be some kind of requirement involving children attached to marriage.

 

[Parmenio]

I will support the rights of EVERY suitable couple, regardless of orientation, to adopt a child out of foster care. Too many children don't have the option of being with their biological parent. As soon as we have enough straight couples to pick up the slack, I might consider the argument that children should be with their biological parents valid.

To counter the sin should be law argument: Are you insane? Would you want lustful thoughts to be against the law? Cursing to be met with fines? Getting overly intoxicated at your house to merit jail time? Laws have a secular purpose within our society. That is how it should be. Sins should not necessarily have a corollary within secular law.

Gay people cannot make marriage more meaningless than the people that actually participate in the heterosexual marriage. Say a 50% divorce rate.

I love my parents very much but I do not want to have sex with them.

I don't even know what to say to you. Therapy maybe?