Your stance on gay marriage

[Wikkiwallana]

I jus don't agree with gay marriage at all. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve so I doubt that gay marriage is good. But I don't know. I can't juds, I'm not god. But it is against my personal philosophy.

Derp. Hellow Pawpet.

Wait. Do people still actually use the phrase "Adam and Steve" seriously, and not just to mock fundies?

[Franco-Philia]

Derp. Hellow Pawpet.

Wait. Do people still actually use the phrase "Adam and Steve" seriously, and not just to mock fundies?

Sadly, yes. I've seen it on protest signs at my old university.

[The Black Forrest]

I do not plan to get one in the near future.

I read "do not" as "do" and "gay marriage" as "lesbian orgy".

That is SO much better then what I was going to write.

[The Black Forrest]

Wait. Do people still actually use the phrase "Adam and Steve" seriously, and not just to mock fundies?

Sadly, yes. I've seen it on protest signs at my old university.

I heard it used in a aregument over prop 8.

[Wikkiwallana]

Right there.

You mean the sentence that starts with, No state...?

Yes, the one that continues on to say that those states may not deny rights to individuals. Or are you asking a different question?

[Trollgaard]

My stance?

None.

I don't care either way.

[Wikkiwallana]

Sadly, yes. I've seen it on protest signs at my old university.

I heard it used in a aregument over prop 8.

Ok, then they need gay people to throw things out when they get outdated and tacky, if for no other reason.

[Wikkiwallana]

My stance?

None.

I don't care either way.

Then why post in the thread?

[Trollgaard]

My stance?

None.

I don't care either way.

Then why post in the thread?

Because it asked my stance.

Duh.

[Distruzio]

You mean the sentence that starts with, No state...?

Yes, the one that continues on to say that those states may not deny rights to individuals. Or are you asking a different question?

A different question. I was asking how the 14th amendment could feasibly be used to regulate individuals getting married. I'm aware that it mandates a regulation of state laws. As despicable as that is, it is the law now. My original hypothesis was that the federal gov't having an opinion on marriage period was unconstitutional as it violated the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments. GNI insisted that none of that was relevant b/c: a) marriage is not religious, b) marriage is not religious, and c) the 14th amendment supersedes the others. She, due to my own failure to appropriately articulate my position, did not understand my purpose. I was making clear that if marriage is religious, then regulation and intervention on its behalf violates the 1st and 10th amendment. For those who do not consider religious, such legislation violates the 9th and 10th amendments. If one were to consider it gov't business under the commerce clause, then once more, regulation of marriage is unconstitutional as it is not the exchange of goods across state lines.

Eventually, GNI argued that the 14th amendment authorized regulation. Since the legislation only applies to states and their activities, I don't know that it could be applied to individual contracts of exchange. Marriage, so far as I can see, is beyond the constitutionality of the gov't.

Now, taxation is a different matter altogether.

It's a working thesis. If you can offer any critiques, they would be appreciated.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, the one that continues on to say that those states may not deny rights to individuals. Or are you asking a different question?

A different question. I was asking how the 14th amendment could feasibly be used to regulate individuals getting married. I'm aware that it mandates a regulation of state laws. As despicable as that is, it is the law now. My original hypothesis was that the federal gov't having an opinion on marriage period was unconstitutional as it violated the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments. GNI insisted that none of that was relevant b/c: a) marriage is not religious, b) marriage is not religious, and c) the 14th amendment supersedes the others. She, due to my own failure to appropriately articulate my position, did not understand my purpose. I was making clear that if marriage is religious, then regulation and intervention on its behalf violates the 1st and 10th amendment. For those who do not consider religious, such legislation violates the 9th and 10th amendments. If one were to consider it gov't business under the commerce clause, then once more, regulation of marriage is unconstitutional as it is not the exchange of goods across state lines.

Eventually, GNI argued that the 14th amendment authorized regulation. Since the legislation only applies to states and their activities, I don't know that it could be applied to individual contracts of exchange. Marriage, so far as I can see, is beyond the constitutionality of the gov't.

Now, taxation is a different matter altogether.

It's a working thesis. If you can offer any critiques, they would be appreciated.

Well, my argument is and has been that whether it a state matter or a federal matter, the 14th amendment says that if we have a law about marriage it must apply equally to all citizens. And as others have pointed out, there is Loving v. Virgina. Even if you disagree with it's decision that marriage is a protect right, despite that forming legal precedent for the country, it would still mean that insofar as their is any right to marriage, it is not a for [x] right to marry [y] but a right to marry, period, end of sentence. Thus if any level of government has laws regarding marriage, they must allow same sex marriage as well as opposite sex marriage.

[Mauldale]

Two years ago, I would have relentlessly supported gay marriage. I would have questioned those who did not support it. I would have, in fact, launched a crusade for gay rights and such, citing how we all need to be equal, discrimination needs to stop, etc. It was one of my most passionate issues. I did, in fact, plan on one day going to a rally of some sort, because I felt like it was THAT important. I aggressively pressed my friends, family, or anyone I met who did not support gay marriage, in fact. I had questions for these people...for example:

"They're not asking YOU to marry them. They just want to have the right to do it - nobody's asking you to go and see them etc. Why is it so bad?"

"How can we claim to have equal rights in this country if homosexuals don't have equal rights?"

"Are you aware of how many gay people commit suicide because of the discrimination they face and the lack of rights they have? Gay marriage is an important step forward so that all of society can finally begin to recognize that they're PEOPLE, not animals."

"What right do you have to dictate how others live their lives?"

"What right do you have to judge them?"

"Did you know that plenty of children are raised happily in gay homes?"

"Just because they think differently than you doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights you have, you know?"

"Why are you so closed minded?"

"The Bible? Well 1) screw your Bible and 2) that book, assuming it has truth to it, which I don't think it does, was written millions of years ago...we've kind of changed a little bit since then, as in...we no longer stone our wives if they cheat on us for example...jeez...stop being such a homophobe/bigot."


Thankfully, this was before, when I felt suffocated by the religious values that my family held on to and sought the truth for myself by using logic and rationality. This period of time lasted for about 5 years.

My life has changed since then. I felt God calling me to Him, and I began to increasingly be drawn to the Church above all things. It was not the religion my family wanted me to follow, but I did not care. I continued to delve into it all, and I felt myself more at peace than I ever had in my life. I felt like I was a part of something bigger than myself, and that love, the way it was portrayed by the Church, was the most beautiful thing to exist on this Earth.

Wishy-washy emotional stuff aside (sorry about that, I felt the need to produce some background here), I believe this conflict boils down to this:

Everyone wants their values reflected in the world. If you value economic equality for example, you're going to fight for it to exist in society. It is your personal value, but multiple people will be affected by it. It is what you believe in. It is the world that you wish to live in.

If you value social freedom (freedom from religion and prejudice, etc.), then you're going to fight so that everyone has social freedom. If you value people being free to dress, act, and be whoever they want to be, then that's what you're going to fight for...so that your values are reflected in society. This works out kind of nice, because your values reflected in society include everyone being able to do their own thing, provided it doesn't interfere with the societal values you believe (for example, if somebody had wearing red shirts as one of their values and tried to get everyone in society to wear red shirts because THOSE are the values he wants reflected, that probably wouldn't fall well with you would it?).

The point I'm trying to make is that even if what you believe in involves letting everyone believe or do what they want, or something like that, that idea is still one of your values.

It would be great if we could have our values exercised within our home only. It would be nice if we all lived in our own cave with our own ideas and didn't care if society shared them or not. Unfortunately, that's not the case because we are all part of society and society can affect who we are, or who our kids are, for example.

If I valued not being limited by religious prejudice or something like that, then I'd probably want to live in a world where that occurred. I'd WANT to live in a world where nobody has any right to tell me who I can marry, or how I can dress, etc.

Similarly, if I valued principles of my religion, which included prohibiting same sex marriage, then I'd probably want to live in a world where that is case. I'd WANT to live in a world where homosexual marriage does not occur.

All in all, everything comes down to people with opposing opinions fighting for what they want to see in the world.

Note that the purpose of this whole post is not to CONVINCE anyone of my opinion, but to put my two cents in on the whole topic.

With that said, I do not support gay marriage.

I apologize if this was rather long and redundant...

[Wikkiwallana]

Two years ago, I would have relentlessly supported gay marriage. I would have questioned those who did not support it. I would have, in fact, launched a crusade for gay rights and such, citing how we all need to be equal, discrimination needs to stop, etc. It was one of my most passionate issues. I did, in fact, plan on one day going to a rally of some sort, because I felt like it was THAT important. I aggressively pressed my friends, family, or anyone I met who did not support gay marriage, in fact. I had questions for these people...for example:

"They're not asking YOU to marry them. They just want to have the right to do it - nobody's asking you to go and see them etc. Why is it so bad?"

"How can we claim to have equal rights in this country if homosexuals don't have equal rights?"

"Are you aware of how many gay people commit suicide because of the discrimination they face and the lack of rights they have? Gay marriage is an important step forward so that all of society can finally begin to recognize that they're PEOPLE, not animals."

"What right do you have to dictate how others live their lives?"

"What right do you have to judge them?"

"Did you know that plenty of children are raised happily in gay homes?"

"Just because they think differently than you doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights you have, you know?"

"Why are you so closed minded?"

"The Bible? Well 1) screw your Bible and 2) that book, assuming it has truth to it, which I don't think it does, was written millions of years ago...we've kind of changed a little bit since then, as in...we no longer stone our wives if they cheat on us for example...jeez...stop being such a homophobe/bigot."


Thankfully, this was before, when I felt suffocated by the religious values that my family held on to and sought the truth for myself by using logic and rationality. This period of time lasted for about 5 years.

My life has changed since then. I felt God calling me to Him, and I began to increasingly be drawn to the Church above all things. It was not the religion my family wanted me to follow, but I did not care. I continued to delve into it all, and I felt myself more at peace than I ever had in my life. I felt like I was a part of something bigger than myself, and that love, the way it was portrayed by the Church, was the most beautiful thing to exist on this Earth.

Wishy-washy emotional stuff aside (sorry about that, I felt the need to produce some background here), I believe this conflict boils down to this:

Everyone wants their values reflected in the world. If you value economic equality for example, you're going to fight for it to exist in society. It is your personal value, but multiple people will be affected by it. It is what you believe in. It is the world that you wish to live in.

If you value social freedom (freedom from religion and prejudice, etc.), then you're going to fight so that everyone has social freedom. If you value people being free to dress, act, and be whoever they want to be, then that's what you're going to fight for...so that your values are reflected in society. This works out kind of nice, because your values reflected in society include everyone being able to do their own thing, provided it doesn't interfere with the societal values you believe (for example, if somebody had wearing red shirts as one of their values and tried to get everyone in society to wear red shirts because THOSE are the values he wants reflected, that probably wouldn't fall well with you would it?).

The point I'm trying to make is that even if what you believe in involves letting everyone believe or do what they want, or something like that, that idea is still one of your values.

It would be great if we could have our values exercised within our home only. It would be nice if we all lived in our own cave with our own ideas and didn't care if society shared them or not. Unfortunately, that's not the case because we are all part of society and society can affect who we are, or who our kids are, for example.

If I valued not being limited by religious prejudice or something like that, then I'd probably want to live in a world where that occurred. I'd WANT to live in a world where nobody has any right to tell me who I can marry, or how I can dress, etc.

Similarly, if I valued principles of my religion, which included prohibiting same sex marriage, then I'd probably want to live in a world where that is case. I'd WANT to live in a world where homosexual marriage does not occur.

All in all, everything comes down to people with opposing opinions fighting for what they want to see in the world.

Note that the purpose of this whole post is not to CONVINCE anyone of my opinion, but to put my two cents in on the whole topic.

With that said, I do not support gay marriage.

I apologize if this was rather long and redundant...

Well, let me star by saying that it's fine to have faith, I'm Christian as well. But the US isn't Christian, and is in fact prohibited from passing religious laws of any sort, even though it has sadly done so in the past. Further, Christ himself specifically talks about not forcing your ways on others. You are allowed to talk someone's ear off, but you may not coerce them to act as you would see fit. He goes to some length to make it clear that God, and God alone, may judge a man's worth, and that even those we consider our enemy are to be treated with love and kindness, lest we face His wrath when our turn before him comes. Thus, as there is not a singular secular justification for prohibiting people from marrying their own sex, there are to be no laws against it.

[Dark Side Messiahs]

In the words of Richard Jeni; "This is America, gay people should have the same right to loose half their shit in a divorce like the rest of the population"

[DaWoad]

*snip*

I don't think your argument is sound primarily for the following reasons
1-theocracies just simply don't do very well. The rules of ancient religions are not, as a rule, particularly good today. Practically, saying "I want to ban gay marriage because my religion says so" is tantamount to asking for a theocratic form of government and that's simply one that does not work
2-It is very possible to hold beliefs that are personal but do not apply to society at large. I, for example, have certain personal values that I would never try to apply to anyone else. As such, the claim that "my religion tells me to live in way x therefore everyone has to" is false.
3-last, and most important, you don't get to treat some people as second class citizens just because you want to. I'm sorry but it's not something you (assuming you live in one of the more developed countries out there) can do. It's why constitutions and bills of rights exist. It's the same thing that prevents me from passing a law that boils down to "all Christians are idiots and don't deserve to vote". Even if christians are the minority, they are accorded the same rights everyone else is, ditto every other religion, creed and culture as long as they stay within the laws of the country that apply to everyone. I'm not sure I understand how you can justify singling out homosexuals for this kind of treatment when, were it you you'd be screaming bloody murder.Seems a mite hypocritical to me.

[Suffoletta]

I personally am against it. I dont have a problem with gay people, but I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the bible firmly states that. I will say that if anything bothers me about the whole gay thing, is just how TV is trying to nationalize it. With all these shows where gay people are main characters and commercials out everywhere. Call me ignorant or old fashioned, that’s fine, that’s your opinion, this is mine.

[Norstal]

I personally am against it. I dont have a problem with gay people, but I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the bible firmly states that. I will say that if anything bothers me about the whole gay thing, is just how TV is trying to nationalize it. With all these shows where gay people are main characters and commercials out everywhere. Call me ignorant or old fashioned, that’s fine, that’s your opinion, this is mine.

Too bad, you don't live in a Christian world.

You're welcome to join the Muslims and their Shari'a laws though. Or is that too oppressive?

[Grave_n_idle]

The Equal Protection clause.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, where does this apply to individuals?

Emphasis, especially on the last.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you under the impression, perhaps, that there are no laws governing transactions on ebay?

No. I'm am also not under the impression that the gov't regulates the behavior of each individual client Ebay has. Ebay regulates that behavior as far as it can. Furthermore, neither Ebay, nor the gov't, are much involved with the individual transactions that individuals choose to participate in. Like I said, hundreds of thousands of exchanges spontaneously occurring at any given moment nominally without the threat of gov't coercion.

Hundreds of thousands of exchanges - all bound by the rules of ebay, itself, and whatever rules it operates under within the specific confines of certain local markets, and more generalised ether between markets.

[Wikkiwallana]

I personally am against it. I dont have a problem with gay people, but I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the bible firmly states that. I will say that if anything bothers me about the whole gay thing, is just how TV is trying to nationalize it. With all these shows where gay people are main characters and commercials out everywhere. Call me ignorant or old fashioned, that’s fine, that’s your opinion, this is mine.

Not just nationalize it, it's already global. Gay people were already out in the world long before the first gay character appeared on TV. These shows are simply adding to their demographics and making themselves more representative of the real people.

[Grave_n_idle]

Eventually, GNI argued that the 14th amendment authorized regulation. Since the legislation only applies to states and their activities, I don't know that it could be applied to individual contracts of exchange. Marriage, so far as I can see, is beyond the constitutionality of the gov't.

I was going to reply to an earlier one, but replying here serves just as well.

Look at, for example: "...nor shall any State deprive..."

If any state does "deprive", the Constitution demands that that be redressed. Further, if the law is thus established in one state, there's strong argument that it must apply to all. Both of those criteria make this a Federal 'oversight', if you will, because of the requirements on individuals and individual states to act Constitutionally.

[Distruzio]

Well, my argument is and has been that whether it a state matter or a federal matter, the 14th amendment says that if we have a law about marriage it must apply equally to all citizens. And as others have pointed out, there is Loving v. Virgina. Even if you disagree with it's decision that marriage is a protect right, despite that forming legal precedent for the country, it would still mean that insofar as their is any right to marriage, it is not a for [x] right to marry [y] but a right to marry, period, end of sentence. Thus if any level of government has laws regarding marriage, they must allow same sex marriage as well as opposite sex marriage.

Hmmm...

[Soheran]

*snip*

Wait, really? Seriously?

Because you feel that your religious beliefs are personally beneficial to you, and makes you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself, you feel perfectly entitled to support denying rights to other people?

Since when did your feelings trump other people's rights?

[Grave_n_idle]

I personally am against it. I dont have a problem with gay people, but I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the bible firmly states that.

This much is true.

Lot, for example. Happily married to his... mineral deposit.

Okay, bad example.

Okay... Solomon. Bound solely to his... um... 700 wives. And... 300 concubines.

Uh...

David then. "Beloved" and chosen servant. He's got to be a good example. He lived happily with his eight wives. Including the widow of one of his enemies, and the widow of one of his friends he had murdered. And his concubines, of course.

Crap, that didn't really help, either.

Okay. Abraham. He only had the one wife, right? Yeah. He married his sister, had a kid with her servant, and then took a concubine when she died.

Thinking about it... that's not a great example either.


Sorry, what was the question again?

[Wikkiwallana]

I personally am against it. I dont have a problem with gay people, but I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the bible firmly states that.

This much is true.

Lot, for example. Happily married to his... mineral deposit.

Okay, bad example.

Okay... Solomon. Bound solely to his... um... 700 wives. And... 300 concubines.

Uh...

David then. "Beloved" and chosen servant. He's got to be a good example. He lived happily with his eight wives. Including the widow of one of his enemies, and the widow of one of his friends he had murdered. And his concubines, of course.

Crap, that didn't really help, either.

Okay. Abraham. He only had the one wife, right? Yeah. He married his sister, had a kid with her servant, and then took a concubine when she died.

Thinking about it... that's not a great example either.


Sorry, what was the question again?

Well to be fair, the Lot example is like calling someone a necrophiliac because their spouse died.

And Solomon had 1000 mates? I know he was given more wisdom than any other man will ever have, but damn, how did he keep that from turning into a 24/7 feud of jealousy/small civil war? And since women who spend a lot of time together tend to sync up, did he just flee the country one week a month, or what?