Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Aldebaran]

Your religious beliefs have no bearing on the secular law of the US. You do not get to deny people equal protection on the basis of your religion.

Are you implying that gay people, using secular law, get to deny people equal protection under the law based on who they choose to have sex with?

That was not even pertinent to my question. The question was are couples who have children by non traditional means less likely to split up.

Maybe you should try actually READING the article before deciding it's not pertinent to your question.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I think everyone ought to shove their orientation into the closet.

Then straight people should put away the wedding rings, pictures of their husbands/wives, pictures of the family with kids. Stop having big wedding ceremonies.

Lets face it, if we are honest with ourselves, there is a double standard much of the time. We have people who say "gays should still be in the closet" or even "everyone should shove it in the closet". These same people aren't likely to be willing to not wear that wedding ring - in a country were the majority (for now) of gay coupe can't get married yet, what does that ring do but show your orientation? Or that wedding ceremony? That definitely puts your orientation right out on display.

How many people who will say everyone should shove it in the closet see a picture of a straight couple they don't think twice, that is just normal, but see a picture of a gay couple kissing or holding hands and say that they are "shoving it in our face"?

Telling people to just "shove it int he closet" doesn't work, and we know this. Nor is it feasible to tell straight people to do so. Which they shouldn't hve to, just as gays should not have to. And trust me, until you truly have to keep it all hidden and in the closet, you have no idea what that is to ask of someone.

 

[bhsmte]

I think everyone ought to shove their orientation into the closet.

Remember how we're supposed to judge people on their character?

Why? How would that help you?

 

[grayeagle48]

Christian haters lack credibility.

 

[Aldebaran]

How many people who will say everyone should shove it in the closet see a picture of a straight couple they don't think twice, that is just normal, but see a picture of a gay couple kissing or holding hands and say that they are "shoving it in our face"?

Because it IS just normal. It has been for thousands of years. Only recently has Hollywood and Washington propaganda made people even question simple truths, such as whether or not 2+2=4 or not, or what the definition of marriage is.

I think the reason there is so much debate about things like this is because of Christians bowing down to the idea that we have to compromise our morals about right and wrong. When we read the bible, do we see Christ compromising? Do we see God the Father compromising on judgement day? Yet we justify away pretty much everything until the line between right and wrong is nothing but an expanding gray area.

Note to all Christians here: Don't look to the mainstream media to see what we should think or feel about topics like this. Look to the bible and pray about it.

 

[bhsmte]

Because it IS just normal. It has been for thousands of years. Only recently has Hollywood and Washington propaganda made people even question simple truths, such as whether or not 2+2=4 or not, or what the definition of marriage is.

I think the reason there is so much debate about things like this is because of Christians bowing down to the idea that we have to compromise our morals about right and wrong. When we read the bible, do we see Christ compromising? Do we see God the Father compromising on judgement day? Yet we justify away pretty much everything until the line between right and wrong is nothing but an expanding gray area.

Note to all Christians here: Don't look to the mainstream media to see what we should think or feel about topics like this. Look to the bible and pray about it.

How are you compromising your personal morals? No one is telling you who you should marry, correct?

How does what other people do, have anything to do with your personal beliefs and morals?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I think everyone ought to shove their orientation into the closet.

Remember how we're supposed to judge people on their character?

Your username identifies you by your marital status. Granted, you could be the lesbian wife of a female preacher, so your username does not delineate your sexual orientation, but my point is that people find their identity as a married person to be important enough to make it a part of their names. Married people may use Mrs. as an honorific or introduce or refer to their spouse as such. Keeping it in the closet would not be easy, nor very satisfying.

It think it would be interesting for heterosexual people who feel that one's orientation should be closeted to spend maybe a week being very, very careful not to reveal by their actions or what they say that they are heterosexual. It would involve censoring themselves many times a day.

 

[Aldebaran]

How are you compromising your personal morals? No one is telling you who you should marry, correct?

My morals dictate that I speak out against it. I'd be compromising my morals if I sit back and stay silent about it. Yet, that's what Christians are expected to do, lest we labeled "homophobes", or other childish names.

How does what other people do, have anything to do with your personal beliefs and morals?

I thought the same thing when the issue was simply about gay people doing what they wanted amongst themselves. I didn't agree with it, but it's their choice. But they couldn't leave it there. They wanted to redefine what marriage is and have our government and laws change it so they could then use the force of law to impose upon Christians the obligation to recognize it, or get sued in court. That's where it goes from something that personally doesn't affect me to a situation where it suddenly does.

My convictions tell me to speak out about it. But now that gets labeled as "hate speech", and laws are made to keep me silent about my convictions based on that. That also affects me.

 

[bhsmte]

My morals dictate that I speak out against it. I'd be compromising my morals if I sit back and stay silent about it. Yet, that's what Christians are expected to do, lest we labeled "homophobes", or other childish names.



I thought the same thing when the issue was simply about gay people doing what they wanted amongst themselves. I didn't agree with it, but it's their choice. But they couldn't leave it there. They wanted to redefine what marriage is and have our government and laws change it so they could then use the force of law to impose upon Christians the obligation to recognize it, or get sued in court. That's where it goes from something that personally doesn't affect me to a situation where it suddenly does.

My convictions tell me to speak out about it. But now that gets labeled as "hate speech", and laws are made to keep me silent about my convictions based on that. That also affects me.

When the actions of others restrict your personal choice to live your life as you so choose, let us know.

I always thought Christians were not supposed to judge others. You know, the whole, log in the eye thing?

 

[Desk trauma]

My convictions tell me to speak out about it. But now that gets labeled as "hate speech", and laws are made to keep me silent about my convictions based on that.

Please site a case of such laws in the US.

 

[bhsmte]

Please site a case of such laws in the US.

I guess he isn't familiar with the Westboro Baptist church.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That whooshing noise was y'all missing the point.

A 'ring' does not mean someone is married, nor does it mean I'm heterosexual, just like my name doesn't automatically mean I'm a heterosexual.

I haven't made any statement to the press about my sexuality. Nor should gay people.

You keep saying it's none of my business what you do in the bedroom...I agree! So STOP broadcasting it.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

That whooshing noise was y'all missing the point.

A 'ring' does not mean someone is married, nor does it mean I'm heterosexual, just like my name doesn't automatically mean I'm a heterosexual.

I haven't made any statement to the press about my sexuality. Nor should gay people.

You keep saying it's none of my business what you do in the bedroom...I agree! So STOP broadcasting it.

When the law disallows you to do the same as your peers for no valid reason, you do something about it. It has nothing to do with airing what someone does in the bedroom - since, lets face, we don't actually KNOW the people wanting to get married do anything but sleep in the bedroom, we only assume so (likely correctly, but that is not the point).

But to say "shove it in the closet" when you yourself do not, is hypocritical. And yes, the wearing of a wedding ring DOES say something about your orientation in a country where the majority of gay couples cannot get married. Your forum name (I didn't see anyone talk about an RL name meaning anything, i may have missed it though, I guess), "preacherswife" DOES tell us something about your orientation - unless, as someone else said, we assumed (as we know is wrong from what you have said prior on the forum) that you are a lesbian.

It doesn't have to do with what anyone does int he bedroom - anyone who talks about that at random or in public is just crass, and that applies to ANY orientation - it has to do with what is legally permissible and what is discrimination.


[I could go deeply into the issue of presence and the point of announcing sexuality in a one-sided culture, but I think it would be too far off-topic and likely no one that didn't already get it would actually care to consider it, so I won't say more than this: there is a reason most people announce they are gay as opposed to just letting people assume what they want and it has to do with both comfort of that person and visibility leading to further chances for equality.]

 

[PreachersWife2004]

When the law disallows you to do the same as your peers for no valid reason, you do something about it. It has nothing to do with airing what someone does in the bedroom - since, lets face, we don't actually KNOW the people wanting to get married do anything but sleep in the bedroom, we only assume so (likely correctly, but that is not the point).

Blah blah blah. You trumpet that you're gay because the government doesn't let you be gay?

But to say "shove it in the closet" when you yourself do not, is hypocritical. And yes, the wearing of a wedding ring DOES say something about your orientation in a country where the majority of gay couples cannot get married. Your forum name (I didn't see anyone talk about an RL name meaning anything, i may have missed it though, I guess), "preacherswife" DOES tell us something about your orientation - unless, as someone else said, we assumed (as we know is wrong from what you have said prior on the forum) that you are a lesbian.

Most of my gay friends wear rings.

And there ARE female preachers.

The fact that I have called my husband a HE would be the only way you'd know I was heterosexual. That's not trumpeting it.

It doesn't have to do with what anyone does int he bedroom - anyone who talks about that at random or in public is just crass, and that applies to ANY orientation - it has to do with what is legally permissible and what is discrimination.

It has everything to do with it, because that's what I am told. What you do in the bedroom is not my business, right? I agree...so stop going on news channels and saying "I'M GAY!"

I don't care if you're gay, honestly. I don't care if you're celibate. I DON'T CARE.

[I could go deeply into the issue of presence and the point of announcing sexuality in a one-sided culture, but I think it would be too far off-topic and likely no one that didn't already get it would actually care to consider it, so I won't say more than this: there is a reason most people announce they are gay as opposed to just letting people assume what they want and it has to do with both comfort of that person and visibility leading to further chances for equality.]

With this logic, it's like me living in a black neighborhood and going to my neighbors' houses and leaving a leaflet that says "I'm WHITE! RESPECT ME!"

Ridiculous.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

What I posted is at the heart of the issue. I think. I could be wrong about that but I doubt it.

The heart of the issue here (by which I mean the issue with the court case under discussion) is really a legal one rather than a moral one.

While it's perfectly legally acceptable to consider homosexuality to be morally wrong and to consider a same-sex marriage to be an artificial construction, that view is based off of a religious belief. The United States, despite all arguments made to the contrary by a handful of fringe groups, is a secular country. Because we are citizens of a secular state, we are supposed to be governed by laws that have a secular purpose that can be clearly articulated.

In the case of arguments against same-sex marriage, the secular purpose being proposed is clearly a post hoc justification constructed to cloak a religious concept in the language necessary to make it part of the law of the land. Other secular justifications for banning same-sex marriage (potential harm to children being the major one, along with harm to other married couples, which is just a strange one) have fallen through upon being thoroughly researched, so this sort of reasoning has become all that's left.

Since this secular reasoning could be applied to bar marriages between infertile or impotent heterosexuals, though, and since no one is arguing that it should be applied in that way, it loses all credibility.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The heart of the issue here (by which I mean the issue with the court case under discussion) is really a legal one rather than a moral one.

While it's perfectly legally acceptable to consider homosexuality to be morally wrong and to consider a same-sex marriage to be an artificial construction, that view is based off of a religious belief. The United States, despite all arguments made to the contrary by a handful of fringe groups, is a secular country. Because we are citizens of a secular state, we are supposed to be governed by laws that have a secular purpose that can be clearly articulated.

In the case of arguments against same-sex marriage, the secular purpose being proposed is clearly a post hoc justification constructed to cloak a religious concept in the language necessary to make it part of the law of the land. Other secular justifications for banning same-sex marriage (potential harm to children being the major one, along with harm to other married couples, which is just a strange one) have fallen through upon being thoroughly researched, so this sort of reasoning has become all that's left.

Since this secular reasoning could be applied to bar marriages between infertile or impotent heterosexuals, though, and since no one is arguing that it should be applied in that way, it loses all credibility.

 

[Glass*Soul]

That whooshing noise was y'all missing the point.

A 'ring' does not mean someone is married, nor does it mean I'm heterosexual, just like my name doesn't automatically mean I'm a heterosexual.

I haven't made any statement to the press about my sexuality. Nor should gay people.

You keep saying it's none of my business what you do in the bedroom...I agree! So STOP broadcasting it.

I match your whoosh and raise you a dull thunk.

 

[hedrick]

Do you really think you can support any of your claims? Marriage does not make a relationship more stable, nor more monogamous. And kids will be kids, regardless of who is raising them. They really aren't too concerned with if those folks happen to be married or not. By the time they even think to ask such questions, their formative years are past.

In the end, a couple will either remain together, or they won't. A piece of paper will not change that, either way. Having kids together sure changes things though! Something a same sex couple can never experience. Couples that go through the whole process of natural childbirth together have a new reason to stay together. No, it doesn't always work long-term, but there is a decided effect.

You're arguing against marriage as a whole. The only reason I can think of for marriage is that having a formal commitment, with support of friends and community, encourages a stable relationship, and many cultures (including ours) think that having stable sexual relationships is a good thing. If marriage makes no difference, why bother having it, at least for non-Christians?

The arguments made by the State in this particular case were stupid. It's hard to blame the State. They felt that they should defend the laws their people have passed. I think that's a reasonable understanding of their responsibility. But most arguments have consistently been rejected by Federal courts. That leaves only stupid arguments to try.

 

[Aldebaran]

When the actions of others restrict your personal choice to live your life as you so choose, let us know.

I just did, in the post you were quoting (post #88). Short memory?

Please site a case of such laws in the US.

Granted, a poor choice of words on my part implying that such laws are already enacted. But the "politically correct" in this country are trying their best at enacting them. But already, we have "hate crime" laws that attempt to use a person's beliefs (excluding Christians), or race (excluding whites), or who they have sex with (excluding heterosexuals) as a means to indicate motive and increase the chances of a person being convicted when a crime is committed.

When the law disallows you to do the same as your peers for no valid reason, you do something about it.

Oh sure! Maybe white people should start a magazine that based on race. You know, like black people can have all of these: http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_african_american_magazines.shtml

Let's see white people have something like that and not be called racist!

Or how about heterosexuals having a "Straight Pride" parade without the gays coming out and saying it's about hating gays. Or maybe the Tea Party without people claiming they hate black people. (TEA means "Taxed Enough Already").

 

[bhsmte]

I just did, in the post you were quoting (post #88). Short memory?



Granted, a poor choice of words on my part implying that such laws are already enacted. But the "politically correct" in this country are trying their best at enacting them. But already, we have "hate crime" laws that attempt to use a person's beliefs (excluding Christians), or race (excluding whites), or who they have sex with (excluding heterosexuals) as a means to indicate motive and increase the chances of a person being convicted when a crime is committed.

You didn't explain yourself well.

How does two gay people wanting to get married, impact your personal life directly, in a negative way?

Does two gay people who want to get married, take away your ability to worship the God of your choosing? Does it prevent you from going to the church of your choosing? Does it take away your ability to believe whatever it is you want to believe? Does it prevent you from making a living?

Do you also choose to talk out against people who believe in different Gods, besides the one you believe in?

Lastly, it would benefit you to look up the definition of a "hate crime".