For or Against Gay Marriage

[Speedy Boarder]

Toronto's a very nice city. Great shopping, nice people, good theaters. Just stay away from the annoying street urchins. They're everywhere downtown.

[Grey]

How many S/S couples do you personaly know that have been together for 26 years? I'm raising the BS Flag on that one.

For some. For MANY others, it's a religious ceremony and sacrament. Just ask the 23 Million US Catholics.


No, but they damn sure care if your spouse-to-be is the same sex as you are in my state.

[zezzzell]

Then neither are you. The list in Romans isn't a laundry list so you know who you will and will not share the kingdom with. Go read Romans again.



Your ill-informed opinion and personal prejudices are not "the truth."





That using the Bible to justify discrimination is misuse of the Bible. Whatever God may or may not feel about homosexuality he NEVER gave you a free ticket to hurt anyone. To discriminate against anyone. To make judgement calls about anyone. THAT is what the book Romans is telling you.





I rock on Tuesday nights - it always sets me straight again.

[carrcarr010100]

As I would have to qualify under Civil Union myself, as I do not have a marriage 'license' - who neeRAB to ask permission (and from whom I might add) to get married??!! I want neither the 'benefits' (legal ability to divorce??) of a marriage license, nor it's governances (state and federal agencies' legal access to your life - and children - by said contract...)

I think the problem we get into is when we 'test our rights', as compared to simply 'excercising our rights'. When we go out of our way to make people take notice of our excersise of basic rights, that's when the "sheeple" perk up and say "hey, via mob-ocracy, we say 'h@|| no'", and flex their (relatively) ignorant political muscle. And quickly realize who REALLY runs the country when things are removed from the people's hanRAB and enforced by federal govt. via Supreme Court fiat.



Interesting how Matt got it right in the first part of his quote, but then he applies for the Supreme court to 'make it right' based on the federal Constitution...when, in the attendant Bill of Rights (IX & X) it states:



Marriage is not enumerated therin, so it must be reserved to the people (local municipalities) to decide regulation


If a power (to determine the definition of marriage?) is NOT explicity delegated to the federal government, and not explicitly prohibited to the states, that ability is governed by the States' or the peoples' (local) regulations respectively.

Now, since the US Constitution took no effort to enumerate 'marriage' rights AT ALL, the individual States (should) have the power to pass such amendments to their constitutions or generate such laws as they deem necessary (as some have, good or bad), or the people may create regulations at a local level if the State chooses not to.

If we as a society try to push 'gay' marriage (or any other personal choice issues) through Supreme Court interpretation of some 'inferred' right or federal power that does not follow the 9th and 10th Amendments' directive, we open the floodgates (figuratively) for any group to push for similar protections. We then have the "putting up of basic rights to a popular vote" at the Federal level so to speak, as anyone with enough backing can (repeatedly, with slight change to the premise) bring suit to the US Supreme Court and vie for an 'acceptable interpretation' of their 'issue'.

Removing the decision from the people's hanRAB and placing it in the hanRAB of an influencable few - when you get right down to it - is the intent of the PACs involved anyhow...

[zach p]

do you know how often he mentioned men laying with men?

[Nina Lee]

While my post had a point, and pointed out the fact that research into this topic is sparse. Doesn't the above excerpt apply equally to the dump of information you provided?

If you can't beat them, pour enough useless and spurious information out there to distract from the statements that may damage your position? (Delphi Principle)...

A link and relevant quotations would have been better suited to this forum, unless your intent is to distract from that which makes a bit TOO much rational sense?

[fitnessluvr]

The state justifies "denial of access" to me with respect to AA because I don't fit the established criteria. There's no difference, IMO.
That said, I do think that it sucks that you can't receive equal rights sans the term "marriage".

[V-Z]

If that is so true, why bring up the topic of pediphiles within the Catholic Church ? I thought that this thread was about S/S marriage. As JimsTrucking mentioned Gay parents can and have done a good job in parenting. But, like a marriage, many gay couples would want to have families. So the idea of bringing up the priests in the Church is moot.

[Gothic rose]

No group of unjustly oppressed people would obtain equal rights, if the onus was on them to justify their rights. The onus is on those limiting rights to provide justifcation, with a logical reason.



If there is no logical reason why I can't be accepted as a diplomat, I would say that is discrimination.



However, there is a rational reason for the discrimination. It's not a series of scare tactics, logical fallacies, diversionary tactics, majority oppression, and simple prejudice, as is the case when denying gay people equal rights.



Marriage is a human construct. It is not objectively perceived and natural, like the differences in sex organs. Humans construct marriage, and humans change it. Marriage wouldn't survive in society, if it didn't change as the society that constructs it changes.

[cindy-lu-who]

You certainly won't have to worry about a population explosion. The combination of no kiRAB and AIRAB reducing gays life expectancies will certainly stem the human explosion all right.