The Gallup Polls – Fake or Real? 54% of Americans support gay marriage? (moved)

[theophilus777]

What reason is there not to change the definition of secular marriage to allow homosexuals to take part?

Because its not the same thing and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Armoured]

Because its not the same thing and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Isn't a secular marriage what ever it's defined to be? If we do, in fact, change the definition to include homosexuals, how is it then "dishonest"?

 

[A2SG]

Sorry but words mean things. Staying the same does not mean change, and vice versa. Elementary, my dear Watson. Plus, the only reason anybody ever campaigned to keep SSM illegal (which won by a landslide in most States btw) was because gays had already attempted to CHANGE the law. See that? Change. Not done by those against SSM.

Nope.

States have voted to enact specific bans on marriage, ie limiting it to 1 man/1 woman. This is an attempt to change existing law, which did not specify gender.

So you're wrong.

Sorry.

-- A2SG, of course, every single court that's heard a challenge to those laws has ruled that such bans are UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the 14th Amendment, so.....

 

[theophilus777]

And don't tell me this isn't a religious issue.

Primarily, this is not a religious issue. Its mostly a squicky issue. And that squickiness is directly connected to the legitimate concerns about our society.

I do hope that when this case (or cases) finally make it to the SCOTUS, that the relevant facts are presented well. If they aren't, and it negatively impacts the outcome, I may rue the day when I didn't work harder to make a better post on CF. Until then, I think lawyers will do a better job, and have a more relevant audience than I have here.

What you really should be hoping for is that this does not come before SCOTUS anytime soon, and you have to wait a very long time to have what you should already know spelled out for you. Because the current Court isn't really that friendly to your cause.

 

[theophilus777]

Nope.

States have voted to enact specific bans on marriage, ie limiting it to 1 man/1 woman. This is an attempt to change existing law, which did not specify gender.

So you're wrong.

Sorry.

This was only done because of what gays had already done, which was an attempt to CHANGE things in a way that we the people overwhelmingly don't want. You conveniently want to overlook that fact.

-- A2SG, of course, every single court that's heard a challenge to those laws has ruled that such bans are UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the 14th Amendment, so.....

So every one of those rulings is under a stay, meaning it has 0 effect, until SCOTUS rules. So ... wait.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Primarily, this is not a religious issue. Its mostly a squicky issue. And that squickiness is directly connected to the legitimate concerns about our society.

I do hope that when this case (or cases) finally make it to the SCOTUS, that the relevant facts are presented well. If they aren't, and it negatively impacts the outcome, I may rue the day when I didn't work harder to make a better post on CF. Until then, I think lawyers will do a better job, and have a more relevant audience than I have here.

What you really should be hoping for is that this does not come before SCOTUS anytime soon, and you have to wait a very long time to have what you should already know spelled out for you. Because the current Court isn't really that friendly to your cause.

No. It is a religious issue. And I have faith that the constitution will be upheld and justice will prevail.

The age of tacit Christian theocratic oppression is coming to an end in the US, finally.

 

[scraparcs]

Once majorities in nearly every state approve of gay marriage (give it 5-10 years, not very long), what will the lawsuits mean?

 

[Armoured]

And that squickiness is directly connected to the legitimate concerns about our society.

"squickiness" is a legitimate social concern now?

 

[A2SG]

This was only done because of what gays had already done, which was an attempt to CHANGE things in a way that we the people overwhelmingly don't want.

You're still wrong. There was no previous change to existing marriage laws regarding gender. None. Not by "gays" or by anyone.

You conveniently want to overlook that fact.

Your "fact" doesn't exist.

So every one of those rulings is under a stay, meaning it has 0 effect, until SCOTUS rules. So ... wait.

Again wrong.

Some states, like Arkansas may be under a stay, but most are not. For example my own home state of Massachusetts where same sex marriage has never been banned, and any same sex couple wishing to get married can. And have. For 11 years now.

-- A2SG, if you're going to try and argue this issue, you really need to get your facts straight.....

 

[Marius27]

Sorry but words mean things.

Words change meaning. Marriage only has relevance as a word in the English speaking word, and hasn't always meant what it does today.

What gives them the right to shove their practices down my throat, and that of my children? Keep it behind closed doors where it belongs.

What gives you the right to shove Christian extremism down my throat? Keep it in your church where it belongs.

 

[Marius27]

However, it will have an impact on society. Which is their whole point.

What impact would that be? A boost to the economy due to wedding related purchases, events, services? Lower divorce rates? More loving, committed couples starting families?

Yeah, those impacts sound like armageddon is just around the corner...

In case you're unaware, countries have had same-sex marriage for over a decade and are doing better than we are. Canada hasn't exploded. The Netherlands is doing just peachy. In fact, gays in the Netherlands have much lower divorce rates. I haven't heard any fuss in Spain or Portugal, have you?

 

[Marius27]

What you really should be hoping for is that this does not come before SCOTUS anytime soon, and you have to wait a very long time to have what you should already know spelled out for you. Because the current Court isn't really that friendly to your cause.

SCOTUS isn't friendly to the cause? Despite just overturning DOMA, and the fact that nearly every court ruling in SSM has ruled the same way, under the same legal parameters that are so well reasoned, even the side against gay marriage has no compelling argument?

 

[TheDag]

The problem with that is nobody tells straight people that they have to choose someone of the opposite sex. They're naturally attracted to the opposite sex.

Gays are naturally attracted to members of their own sex. Yet, when a gay couple wants to get married, they're just told, "Sorry, you shouldn't be attracted to the person you're attracted to.... You can't get married like any other couple..... Oh! ....And you're gonna burn in hell. But we don't hate you..."

Care to actually address the comment? No matter what you say it doesn't change that equality is people having the same rights. legalising SSM is not equality but just changing a existing definition. By the way when gay people stop telling others who they can and can't love then you can talk about this stuff.

Did I imply it's wrong? Can you answer the questions in my hypothetical, please?

Seemed to me that you implied its wrong. Why should I answer the hypothetical when you did not address my post but rather answered the question you wanted to see.

Perhaps committed was not the right word... But what you quoted wasn't directed at you and really, had nothing to do with commitment in relationships.

you need to learn a bit more about internet forums if you think other people shouldn't reply just because a comment was not directed at them.
In any case your response here is utter nonsense. Commitment in a relationship does not come from being married. I already explained this and you failed to address it. Strange how you then want me to answer your hypothetical. I'm sorry if you misunderstand commitment and think it comes from some ceremony but thats simply not the case.

Justify my position?

14th Amendment All fifty states must recognize same-sex marriages that happen in states where it is allowed. It's only a matter of time until every state follows suit.

The definition of marriage is not set in stone. It can AND will change and what that means in the future, I don't know nor do I really care.

My personal gripe in this debate is that Christians don't get to dictate how our society works. No single group of like-minded individuals has that right.

Just like how Muslims don't get to tell our women how they should dress, and Jews don't get to outlaw all food that isn't kosher, Christians don't get to outlaw same-sex marriage.
If you don't approve of it, that's fine. Don't marry a gay man. Tell everyone you love not to be gay, but don't impose your religion's commandments on the rest of society through law. Another part of the constitution covers that as well.

preaching to the choir bud

And don't tell me this isn't a religious issue. This is almost entirely the work of the religion of love that has been so influential on western culture and even more on American culture.

Well if its a religious issue then the religious definition of marriage is relevant. I don't think you want to go down that path.

 

[TheDag]

However, it will have an impact on society. Which is their whole point.

You really need to stop claiming this or actually support the claim. I see no way it will have a negative impact that does not already exist. If it was obvious then we would see it. If it has an impact then we should have seen a difference already.

Sorry but words mean things. Staying the same does not mean change, and vice versa. Elementary, my dear Watson. Plus, the only reason anybody ever campaigned to keep SSM illegal (which won by a landslide in most States btw) was because gays had already attempted to CHANGE the law. See that? Change. Not done by those against SSM.

What gives them the right to shove their practices down my throat, and that of my children? Keep it behind closed doors where it belongs.

WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SHOVE YOUR PRACTICES DOWN ANYBODY ELSES THROAT? I used caps because you refused to answer previously and you once again made this claim. If SSM is legalised then it will not be shoved down anyones throat.

If it belongs behind closed doors then make sure no churches or church groups campaign on the issue including taking donations. However if any church group does these things then they are guilty of not keeping it behind closed doors.

i already explained how you are attempting to change things. if you can't or couldn't be bothered addressing that then don't mindlessly repeat comments please.

 

[A2SG]

By the way when gay people stop telling others who they can and can't love then you can talk about this stuff.

When did that happen? Care to cite a single example?

Well if its a religious issue then the religious definition of marriage is relevant. I don't think you want to go down that path.

The religious definition of marriage is relevant only within that particular religion. Since the only thing in question for this issue is the LEGAL definition of marriage (which is not based on any religion) the legal definition applies.

So any objection to the law based on religious principles is invalid.

Also, one more point: same sex marriage was never actually illegal in the US up until about 20 years ago when the first law was enacted to ban it. The legal definition of marriage in the US is only changed when same sex marriage is banned, not when it isn't.

To ban same sex marriage one has to create a new law; to legalize it, you simply don't ban it.

-- A2SG, so if you object to changing the legal definition of marriage, don't vote to ban same sex marriage....

 

[Strathos]

This is a very silly and flimsy argument. This is not even 1 generation, let alone several. The magnitude of the experiment you're willing to start warrants more caution.

So then, how long do we have to wait before the doom-and-gloom predictions start coming true, and what, specifically, should we be on the lookout for?

Just so I know in advance.

 

[szechuan]

Primarily, this is not a religious issue.

That is the funniest thing I heard all day, first these Christians call Science a religion, and now they are backtracking on Gay Marriage claiming it isn't a Religious issue or it's not even a big issue when everybody knows it is.

 

[Skaloop]

Care to actually address the comment? No matter what you say it doesn't change that equality is people having the same rights. legalising SSM is not equality but just changing a existing definition. By the way when gay people stop telling others who they can and can't love then you can talk about this stuff.

How is SSM being legal not equality? If equality is, as you suggest, having the same rights, and that there is currently equality, then legalizing SSM will maintain that equality, as everyone will have the same rights. You'll have the right to marry a man just like the everybody else.

 

[Queller]

Same-sex attraction is a disorder, and people are born with disorders.

In fact from a Christian point of view, with are ALL disordered in various ways due to original sin.

You cannot just flat out say people are not born gay, period. Even though some weirdos may choose to "experiment" and for them they are making the choice, nonetheless others are born with such a disorder.


2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

Great, that works for Catholics. Now tell us why the non-Catholic judge down at the courthouse should be bound by that?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Care to actually address the comment? No matter what you say it doesn't change that equality is people having the same rights. legalising SSM is not equality but just changing a existing definition. By the way when gay people stop telling others who they can and can't love then you can talk about this stuff.

Say what, now? Gays are being told they cannot marry the person they've just spent years in a relationship with because a religion decided marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. Sorry but your religion does not dictate our society. End of discussion on that point.

Seemed to me that you implied its wrong. Why should I answer the hypothetical when you did not address my post but rather answered the question you wanted to see.

It's not wrong. If a dude wants to do his sister, or mother or aunt or even his brother, that would be between them and is of no concern to me. Why is it an issue to you?

You don't have to answer it, that's why I wasn't originally directing the scenario at you. You chimed in and started talking about commitment in relationship, I said my point was not originally about commitment. You keep yammering on about commitment, and I understand your point. But that wasn't the point of my hypothetical that wasn't even directed at you in the first place.

you need to learn a bit more about internet forums if you think other people shouldn't reply just because a comment was not directed at them.

I know plenty about Internet forums. That has nothing to do with me setting up a scenario for someone else to answer an you coming in and not even addressing the point being made by the scenario.

In any case your response here is utter nonsense. Commitment in a relationship does not come from being married. I already explained this and you failed to address it. Strange how you then want me to answer your hypothetical. I'm sorry if you misunderstand commitment and think it comes from some ceremony but thats simply not the case.

Again, that was not the point of my hypothetical. The person it was addressed to hasn't even answered it and I'm not expecting anything, anytime soon so I really don't even care about that comment anymore. Can we just move on now?

Well if its a religious issue then the religious definition of marriage is relevant. I don't think you want to go down that path.

It's a religious issue to religious people who don't understand the meaning of secularism. The debate about gay marriage has always been a secular and legal issue. That is until Christians started trying to make it illegal to be gay and married to a man.

Christians are the ones imposing their beliefs regarding marriage and homosexuality on a society that doesn't want to hear it and doesn't even care what their opinion is on gays. Congress, shall pass NO law respecting an establishment of religion. To pass laws that tacitly imply the establishment of Christianity in our secular society is unconstitutional.

You guys will fail when this gets to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to bet on it.