This is what happens when you oppose same-sex marriage in Maryland...

[LoAmmi]

SINCE WHEN DO SEXUAL FETTISHES EQUAL "RIGHTS"?????

Ignoring marriage for a second, shouldn't people have a right to privacy as to what they do within their own home, behind closed doors?

If a man and his wife has a sexual fetish, do you think you have the right to order them to stop because you disagree with it? What about a couple in an "open relationship". Do they have a right to live the way they choose?

 

[AMDG]

Ignoring marriage for a second, shouldn't people have a right to privacy as to what they do within their own home, behind closed doors?

If a man and his wife has a sexual fetish, do you think you have the right to order them to stop because you disagree with it? What about a couple in an "open relationship". Do they have a right to live the way they choose?

Hypocrisy much? Then why are the rest of us expected to pay for "what goes on behind closed doors" if we need to stay out of "what goes on behind closed doors"?

And what about the children's rights? (They have a "right" to both a female mother and a male father--role models.) And what about society's rights? (That's why government can stick it's nose into the marriage arguement in the first place--government has a responsibility toward the family which provides and raises future citizens.)

 

[LoAmmi]

Hypocrisy much? Then why are the rest of us expected to pay for "what goes on behind closed doors" if we need to stay out of "what goes on behind closed doors"?

What are you paying for in what I said?

 

[Texan40]

Ignoring marriage for a second, shouldn't people have a right to privacy as to what they do within their own home, behind closed doors?

If a man and his wife has a sexual fetish, do you think you have the right to order them to stop because you disagree with it? What about a couple in an "open relationship". Do they have a right to live the way they choose?

We all get to choose the way we live in private and as long as we are not breaking any laws we get to continue to choose it. This doesn't mean that everyone will condone the behavior itself. This also doesn't mean that people don't have the right to call our behavior wrong. Aggressive homosexuality advocates are not happy with doing their business in private. They would have what they choose to do in private publicly endorsed by the state and anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle silenced or sanctioned. If you do not agree with homosexuality as a healthy and normal you are labeled a bigot or someone engaging in hate speech.

 

[Wolseley]

We all get to choose the way we live in private and as long as we are not breaking any laws we get to continue to choose it. This doesn't mean that everyone will condone the behavior itself. This also doesn't mean that people don't have the right to call our behavior wrong. Aggressive homosexuality advocates are not happy with doing their business in private. They would have what they choose to do in private publicly endorsed by the state and anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle silenced or sanctioned. If you do not agree with homosexuality as a healthy and normal you are labeled a bigot or someone engaging in hate speech.

Beat me to it---couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Rhamiel]

Ignoring marriage for a second, shouldn't people have a right to privacy as to what they do within their own home, behind closed doors?

If a man and his wife has a sexual fetish, do you think you have the right to order them to stop because you disagree with it? What about a couple in an "open relationship". Do they have a right to live the way they choose?

that is a valid point

that is one reason I am against sodomy laws

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's not behind closed doors when those doing it, go to court to win rights for said behavior.
It's opening the closed door that no one else needs to know about.

 

[LoAmmi]

It's not behind closed doors when those doing it, go to court to win rights for said behavior.
It's opening the closed door that no one else needs to know about.

They go to the state to apply for the rights any other couple has. They already have been shown to have the right to behave the way they want. They want the protections that my wife and I have.

 

[Texan40]

They go to the state to apply for the rights any other couple has. They already have been shown to have the right to behave the way they want. They want the protections that my wife and I have.

Marriage is a covenant (contract) between two people. It is not a "right." There already exist situations where even between two consenting adults the state will not grant marriage. No matter how much you love your sister the state will not allow you to marry and procreate. I'm not advocating that the state "should" do this but merely pointing out that there are moral norms that already limit marriage. Should we do away with morality in government altogether to suit certain individuals?

 

[LoAmmi]

Marriage is a covenant (contract) between two people. It is not a "right." There already exist situations where even between two consenting adults the state will not grant marriage. No matter how much you love your sister the state will not allow you to marry and procreate. I'm not advocating that the state "should" do this but merely pointing out that there are moral norms that already limit marriage. Should we do away with morality in government altogether to suit certain individuals?

Well, the Supreme Court did rule it a right in Loving v. Virginia. However, rights do not mean that there are no restrictions. Free speech is not absolute, after all.

The question to be answered is if two men or two women unrelated by blood should be restricted in the same way we limit blood relatives from marrying? My own understanding of the situation is that there is no good secular argument to prevent this and that it will eventually be legal in all 50 states. There is a good secular reason for blood relatives not to marry.

Morality is a difficult concept when it comes to law. Laws aren't really made for morals but for the good of society. One may think it immoral that I refuse to worship Jesus. But it would be a bad law that made it compulsory or removed the right for people to have other religious beliefs.

 

[Texan40]

Well, the Supreme Court did rule it a right in Loving v. Virginia. However, rights do not mean that there are no restrictions. Free speech is not absolute, after all.

The question to be answered is if two men or two women unrelated by blood should be restricted in the same way we limit blood relatives from marrying? My own understanding of the situation is that there is no good secular argument to prevent this and that it will eventually be legal in all 50 states. There is a good secular reason for blood relatives not to marry.

Morality is a difficult concept when it comes to law. Laws aren't really made for morals but for the good of society. One may think it immoral that I refuse to worship Jesus. But it would be a bad law that made it compulsory or removed the right for people to have other religious beliefs.

Morals are by nature good for society. Why else have them? Morality is only a "difficult concept" when we come against something that challenges them. I choose not to abandon my morality and will use my voice to encourage others to remain true as well. This is not hate against my fellow many but love for God and my fellow man.

 

[LoAmmi]

Morals are by nature good for society. Why else have them? Morality is only a "difficult concept" when we come against something that challenges them. I choose not to abandon my morality and will use my voice to encourage others to remain true as well. This is not hate against my fellow many but love for God and my fellow man.

No it's a difficult concept because morality varies. Who's morality gets to be superior? That's a problem because if yours becomes law, I will then be compelled to fight against those laws if it violates my morals.

Contraception is a great example. I have nothing in my moral code that says the BC pill is a problem. Nothing at all. Catholics do. So, on one hand I see no problem with it being legal and available, Catholics do. Who gets to say who's right in this case?

 

[Rhamiel]

They go to the state to apply for the rights any other couple has. They already have been shown to have the right to behave the way they want. They want the protections that my wife and I have.

you and your wife have that legal protection because you are a family and the state recognizes that you are a family

they have the right to behave as they want, true, but these actions do not make the status of homosexual coupls at the same status as husband and wife

 

[LoAmmi]

you and your wife have that legal protection because you are a family and the state recognizes that you are a family

they have the right to behave as they want, true, but these actions do not make the status of homosexual coupls at the same status as husband and wife

This is where moral systems collide and, well, I'm not sure there is a good resolution to the problem without the Court's intervention. In my opinion, after studying several related cases, the Court will make any law barring homosexual marriage unconstitutional. It would really take an Amendment to the Constitution to bar it going forward, but that would never get the support required to pass.