Your stance on gay marriage

[Moon Cows]

Indeed. Maybe in 2040 you'll have your first gay president.

Given the statistics, I strongly suspect we've had 3 or 4 by now.

By 2040, maybe we'll have our first out President.

That's insane. . .

[Shikkago]

Wait, what are your arguments? "Christian is bad", "God isn't real", "Constitution vaguely touches upon if at all", "14 = stupid". No, I can't take you seriously. .

My argument:

P1. Gay marriage would give a lot of people happiness.

P2. There's no rational, definable way in which gay marriage would cause any sort of real harm to anyone at all.

P3. Everything else is irrelevant. God's opinion on the matter is irrelevant, just like everyone else's opinions. Any bizarre abstractions and other strange nonsense you bring up is irrelevant. Nothing else matters. Morality is all about maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures.

C. Allow gay marriages.

But that's so.... reasonable. *head explodes*

[Venaly]

Neither will I.

Wait, what are your arguments? "Christian is bad", "God isn't real", "Constitution vaguely touches upon if at all", "14 = stupid". No, I can't take you seriously. .

hm...lets see....

1- In the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution i realize that): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal

that line was not written into the Constitution for the simple fact that too many people disagreed with what a "person" was at the time....Remember...colored people were considered property, not human beings. Some had to give in their wants and needs just so they could pass the whole Constitution

2- No one is saying that "Christian is bad", but that closed minded Christians that like to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats are bad... very bad... I am Roman Catholic, one of the strictest sects of the Christian faith, and yet, I can accept all peoples. A priest even told me once that being bisexual was the greatest gift from God, because I can have strong relationships with both men and women... I completely agree

[Marlboro Kid]

I'm gay and of course I want equal rights, but I don't think the govt should have anything to do with marriage in the first place.

I don’t think it belongs in the constitution. Unless something like: “Everyone has the right to marry who he or she wants, both have to be 16 years old”
Specific stuff like gay marriage should be managed in civil laws, which only need a normal majority to modify it.

I’m pro gay marriage, but it’s the people that have the final answer.

The government have to take care about the marriage, else people would start marrying children or their pet. Do not panic, I don't compare gay marriage with these

[Grave_n_idle]

Constitutional protection of rights. 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Loving v's Virginia.

Game. Set. Match.

First of all, you deleted half of my statement. Second of all, none of those say "GAEY RITEZZZ!111!!!1one!!!1"

I deleted half of your statement because it was nonsense. Not just irrelevant.

"Second of all", given the precedent of Loving v's Virginia, the 'right' to marry is firmly protected as Constitutional, and the Constitution does not allow unequal protection before the law.

Thus, recognition of the right for homosexuals to marry is inevitable and utterly Constitutional.

[Austa-scotia]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

I like that you can assume that "gays" annoy the crap out of you because I'm sure that you've met every gay person alive...on the entire earth. Replace "gays" with any other minority and you realize how horrible that statement is (blacks, Jews, Mexicans, etc.) "Those Jews annoy the crap outta me...but maybe we shouldn't put them in ghettoes."

But anyway, thanks for supporting that we should be treated like fucking human beings all why still degrading us. Well done. Well done indeed.

I think your comparison was genuinely disgusting! Im sure he, like i, am making this comment on the gay people we know, majority of whom are annoying, and need to man up. Many gays act very in your face, unlike a run-of-the-mill black, Hispanic or Jewish guy. I am very much in favour of civil partnership, but denying the right to a civil partnership is not in the same league as putting people in ghettos.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I'm gay and of course I want equal rights, but I don't think the govt should have anything to do with marriage in the first place.

I don’t think it belongs in the constitution. Unless something like: “Everyone has the right to marry who he or she wants, both have to be 16 years old”
Specific stuff like gay marriage should be managed in civil laws, which only need a normal majority to modify it.

I’m pro gay marriage, but it’s the people that have the final answer.

The government have to take care about the marriage, else people would start marrying children or their pet. Do not panic, I don't compare gay marriage with these

Negative. The government will probably have to step in and say, "No. Gay marriage is legal, get over it.", for much the same reasons they had to do so for the Civil Rights movement.

[Ceannairceach]

I like that you can assume that "gays" annoy the crap out of you because I'm sure that you've met every gay person alive...on the entire earth. Replace "gays" with any other minority and you realize how horrible that statement is (blacks, Jews, Mexicans, etc.) "Those Jews annoy the crap outta me...but maybe we shouldn't put them in ghettoes."

But anyway, thanks for supporting that we should be treated like fucking human beings all why still degrading us. Well done. Well done indeed.

I think your comparison was genuinely disgusting! Im sure he, like i, am making this comment on the gay people we know, majority of whom are annoying, and need to man up. Many gays act very in your face, unlike a run-of-the-mill black, Hispanic or Jewish guy. I am very much in favour of civil partnership, but denying the right to a civil partnership is not in the same league as putting people in ghettos.

Because you know every gay person.

[Salandriagado]

Constitutional protection of rights. 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Loving v's Virginia.

Game. Set. Match.

First of all, you deleted half of my statement. Second of all, none of those say "GAEY RITEZZZ!111!!!1one!!!1"

Read mine and Unhealthy's posts. Between us we covered both the legal and moral/ethical/common sense arguments. You haven't presented a single logically cohesive argument so far, so you're down 2-0

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm gay and of course I want equal rights, but I don't think the govt should have anything to do with marriage in the first place.

I don’t think it belongs in the constitution. Unless something like: “Everyone has the right to marry who he or she wants, both have to be 16 years old”
Specific stuff like gay marriage should be managed in civil laws, which only need a normal majority to modify it.

I’m pro gay marriage, but it’s the people that have the final answer.

The Constitution is explicit about equal protection before the law, and marriage is a legal contract. Further, the Constitution is explicit about protection of 'rights', even those it doesn't specifically enumerate.

There is no more suitable body in American law, to arbitrate this decision, than the Constitution.

[Marlboro Kid]

I don’t think it belongs in the constitution. Unless something like: “Everyone has the right to marry who he or she wants, both have to be 16 years old”
Specific stuff like gay marriage should be managed in civil laws, which only need a normal majority to modify it.

I’m pro gay marriage, but it’s the people that have the final answer.

The government have to take care about the marriage, else people would start marrying children or their pet. Do not panic, I don't compare gay marriage with these

Negative. The government will probably have to step in and say, "No. Gay marriage is legal, get over it.", for much the same reasons they had to do so for the Civil Rights movement.

I don’t believe in revolutionizing moral & ethical concepts. Better is making room for evolution.
Civil right organisations & politicians should have the right to say what they think and influence the public.

Hypothetical problems, if you don’t:

* Suppose your government would contain some paedophiles in a decision position. Would you like it if they force pro paedophile laws?

* Or suppose your government would contain some flagrant racists in a decision position. Would you like it if they force apartheid once again?

[Shikkago]

I'm gay and of course I want equal rights, but I don't think the govt should have anything to do with marriage in the first place.

I don’t think it belongs in the constitution. Unless something like: “Everyone has the right to marry who he or she wants, both have to be 16 years old”
Specific stuff like gay marriage should be managed in civil laws, which only need a normal majority to modify it.

I’m pro gay marriage, but it’s the people that have the final answer.

The government have to take care about the marriage, else people would start marrying children or their pet. Do not panic, I don't compare gay marriage with these

haha. I don't really care if somebody marries their cat, or has three wives and a husband, or whatever. Animal rape is wrong of course and there's laws about that, the poor thing would certainly be taken away, likewise kids are protected under other laws, like anti-rape laws, so I don't see that as a danger of taking the govt out of marriage. I philosophically/politically don't think coupling should be a legal process - just a social one. That's what I mean. Tho it's something I'm flexible on until I learn more about it. I do live in the real world, however, and I'm not about to start campaigning to strip away people's marriage rights, I got bigger fish to fry. As it stands, we have a right to equal treatment under the law and we're gonna get it by any peaceful means necessary.

I'm into state sovereignty to a degree and all but I certainly don't think it's fair to allow a majority of people to strip the rights of a minority under the guise of "letting the people have the final answer". Sort of like saying the govt shouldn't force public schools to integrate, eh? Not saying that's what you meant, but I've heard it before, and frankly, a majority of people at one point really liked Limp Bizcuit. Doesn't make it right!

BTW I don't think this convo/issue/thread is limited to the U.S., so maybe the constitution is somewhat beside the point here?

[Austa-scotia]

I think your comparison was genuinely disgusting! Im sure he, like i, am making this comment on the gay people we know, majority of whom are annoying, and need to man up. Many gays act very in your face, unlike a run-of-the-mill black, Hispanic or Jewish guy. I am very much in favour of civil partnership, but denying the right to a civil partnership is not in the same league as putting people in ghettos.

Because you know every gay person.

At no point did i say i knew every gay person know its you making assumtions

[Samuraikoku]

Are you looking to find consensus with people who don't want to have consensus?

And are you prepared to drop some demands? Or do you just want it your way?

I can drop demands, except when they border on intolerance. What demands could be dropped in a "gay marriage/no gay marriage" debate? Where's the middle ground?

[Samuraikoku]

That's insane. . .

No argument whatsoever, smart guy. You lose. Again.

[Marlboro Kid]

I don’t think it belongs in the constitution. Unless something like: “Everyone has the right to marry who he or she wants, both have to be 16 years old”
Specific stuff like gay marriage should be managed in civil laws, which only need a normal majority to modify it.

I’m pro gay marriage, but it’s the people that have the final answer.

The Constitution is explicit about equal protection before the law, and marriage is a legal contract. Further, the Constitution is explicit about protection of 'rights', even those it doesn't specifically enumerate.

There is no more suitable body in American law, to arbitrate this decision, than the Constitution.

It seems it isn’t all that clear and well.
If I’m informed well, many states in America don’t accept the gay marriage yet.

Or there’s room for interpretation in your constitution or those states break the fundamental base of your country.

[Samuraikoku]

those states break the fundamental base of your country.

This. And they did the same with slavery back in the day. That's why they even went to war.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Constitution is explicit about equal protection before the law, and marriage is a legal contract. Further, the Constitution is explicit about protection of 'rights', even those it doesn't specifically enumerate.

There is no more suitable body in American law, to arbitrate this decision, than the Constitution.

It seems it isn’t all that clear and well.
If I’m informed well, many states in America don’t accept the gay marriage yet.

Or there’s room for interpretation in your constitution or those states break the fundamental base of your country.

Most states do not yet have equality in marriage.

But then, it took almost a hundred years to abolish slavery. So much for all men being created equal.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

The Constitution is explicit about equal protection before the law, and marriage is a legal contract. Further, the Constitution is explicit about protection of 'rights', even those it doesn't specifically enumerate.

There is no more suitable body in American law, to arbitrate this decision, than the Constitution.

It seems it isn’t all that clear and well.
If I’m informed well, many states in America don’t accept the gay marriage yet.

Or there’s room for interpretation in your constitution or those states break the fundamental base of your country.

Shit happens.

[Katganistan]

I will pray for you and hope that a gay couple would rescue you from the animal shelter.

well GOD go stop that prayer!!! my pals go pray that never happens( counter attack) who even was the first gay person. if i had a time machined i would go back and kill him with my 44 magnium.

That's QUITE enough of trolling and flaming.

*** three day ban for continued trolling and flaming ***

[Hartert]

You know, I have to say, I have never seen a good LEGAL argument against same sex marriage.

I think I should be allowed to marry who I love, end of story.

[Shikkago]

I like that you can assume that "gays" annoy the crap out of you because I'm sure that you've met every gay person alive...on the entire earth. Replace "gays" with any other minority and you realize how horrible that statement is (blacks, Jews, Mexicans, etc.) "Those Jews annoy the crap outta me...but maybe we shouldn't put them in ghettoes."

But anyway, thanks for supporting that we should be treated like fucking human beings all why still degrading us. Well done. Well done indeed.

I think your comparison was genuinely disgusting! Im sure he, like i, am making this comment on the gay people we know, majority of whom are annoying, and need to man up. Many gays act very in your face, unlike a run-of-the-mill black, Hispanic or Jewish guy. I am very much in favour of civil partnership, but denying the right to a civil partnership is not in the same league as putting people in ghettos.

What if you were suddenly forced to wear a dress and act feminine? Don't you think that would bother you and run contrary to your nature? Those "flamers" are just being their fabulous selves. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Why is it so important to you that all men act the same way (gender-wise)? Do you feel the same way about women? Saying men have to be men is kinda insulting to women.

"flamers" are also more visible to you than the more masculine gay guys that you won't know
unless they're holding hands with their boyfriends. And there is such a thing as effeminate and even transgendered straight males. Not to mention masculine women and hermaphrodites. Lotta variety in humans.

Finally, LOTS of people annoy me, like squares, jerks, and bigots, but I don't hate on them or deny their rights! Frankly, some really "flame-y" gay guys annoy me, too; I get that, nothing wrong with that really in and of itself. Other femmy boys I quite enjoy. As a lesbian, I find male sexuality kinda gross. That doesn't mean that I think that men shouldn't be allowed to have sex, though.

[Samuraikoku]

You know, I have to say, I have never seen a good LEGAL argument against same sex marriage.

There is none.

[Marlboro Kid]

And are you prepared to drop some demands? Or do you just want it your way?

I can drop demands, except when they border on intolerance. What demands could be dropped in a "gay marriage/no gay marriage" debate? Where's the middle ground?

There are several solutions. Look, if the people of a country really oppose the gay marriage, you can invent a temporary interim solution.
Eg. do not talk about marriage but a “civil partnership”, which is possible between anyone (male - female, male - male, female - female).

Give that “civil partnership” the same legal benefits and disadvantages as the marriage.
In short there’s no real difference between this and the marriage, but it doesn’t upset a religious majority who correlate the marriage with something religious.
Later, if people are used to the idea, you can start with a real marriage available for all.

Sometimes you have to climb over obstacles to reach your destination. This is better than not reaching your destination at all.

[Samuraikoku]

There are several solutions. Look, if the people of a country really oppose the gay marriage, you can invent a temporary interim solution.
Eg. do not talk about marriage but a “civil partnership”, which is possible between anyone (male - female, male - male, female - female).

Give that “civil partnership” the same legal benefits and disadvantages as the marriage.
In short there’s no real difference between this and the marriage, but it doesn’t upset a religious majority who correlate the marriage with something religious.
Later, if people are used to the idea, you can start with a real marriage available for all.

Sometimes you have to climb over obstacles to reach your destination. This is better than not reaching your destination at all.

I live in a secular state where (FORTUNATELY) religious communities' opinions don't matter in the slightest. Marriage is marriage and it's exclusively made by the law.

To add, Argentina is gay friendly.