[Deepblue]

If you don't believe me go and check (it will do you a ton of good).

[SadisticSid]

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

If that's your definition of the human right of marriage then it seems ambiguous whether or not it is being denied. At first glance to me, it's only an endorsement of heterosexual marriage. If this right were meant to be extended to gays then surely this would have been qualified?

I don't care much for gay marriage in the technical sense. The real argument should be focused on giving equal rights to gay partners rather than on what's becoming a solely ceremonial issue. The importance of the debate about gay relationships is whether at the end I can have the same legal rights in relation to my partner rather than what box I tick on the census. I'm sure things are different in the US but here in Britain the civil union thing is already in place (which confers essentially the same rights as marriage) and the whinging is all about the legal nomenclature.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Originally posted by Deepblue
The truth is their is RIGHT and there is WRONG,

Sorry to nitpick, but you've used two words for the same purpose, and in the same context, in the space of one sentence, and I was wondering why.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by SadisticSid


If that's your definition of the human right of marriage then it seems ambiguous whether or not it is being denied. At first glance to me, it's only an endorsement of heterosexual marriage. If this right were meant to be extended to gays then surely this would have been qualified?

I don't care much for gay marriage in the technical sense. The real argument should be focused on giving equal rights to gay partners rather than on what's becoming a solely ceremonial issue. The importance of the debate about gay relationships is whether at the end I can have the same legal rights in relation to my partner rather than what box I tick on the census. I'm sure things are different in the US but here in Britain the civil union thing is already in place (which confers essentially the same rights as marriage) and the whinging is all about the legal nomenclature.

Well, if you want to pick on ambiguities, it doesn;t say that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman only that men and women may marry.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue
If you don't believe me go and check (it will do you a ton of good).

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I would read that as being that the government cannot make a law on the basis of religion.  As the only objection to same-sex marriage seems to be solely relgious, I don't see how a law could exist to prohibit it.

[beatspete]

Its not right that gay couples should be married under a Christian ceremony, as in my interpritation 'god' didnt intend same sex couples to exist.
Note that I am not a religious person, but Christianity is the 'main' religion in my country, and its the religion I had to put up with through the education system.

I do however think that same sex couples in a long term relationship should be given the same legal rights as 'traditional' couples.  It makes no sense not to.
Gay adoption I'm not opposed to in theory, but i know it won't work in this society and these times.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Deepblue


Seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution.

Yes it is - in legalese which is more more explicity - but less comprehensible to the simpleminded

Originally posted by Deepblue

In fact there are a few references to God in the constitution.

Oneword: BULL****

Originally posted by Deepblue

The reason America was created was primarily FOR religious freedom.

wrong again - the northern colonies were religiously-created -- not the rest -- and the ENTIRETY of them, of ALL religions from fundie christian to deist, to agnostic to atheist agreed RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT

Originally posted by Deepblue

The truth is their is RIGHT and there is WRONG, no one can deny that. And things that are WRONG should not become RIGHT.

Incorrect -  furthermore calling something which they are born "wrong" is the same as being a racist, just this time you're descriminating against sexual preferences instead of skin color (and yes the _VAST_ majority are _born_ that way.. a very small minority, tiny minority, are psychological cases, but trying to change those whould do more harm than good)

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Kazan
it's prohibited.. unless you choose not to read the constitution as the authors meant it

not to stir it up or anything, but i was just wondering.  if gay marriage is approved in every state (eventually)... what would be next?  what about a guy that wants to get married to two twin girls.  what about five people that want to all get married?  It sounds stupid, but what's in the constitution to deny it?

What about a man who wants to marry his dog?

What about a woman who wants to marry her son?

[Stealth]

calling something which they are born "wrong" is the same as being a racist

i'm completely on your side, by the way, but i thought i'd bring it out that it's been proven time and time again that gays are not born gay.  it's mental, they may have gotten molested as a child, etc.  one of my best friends was always cool, he had a fiance and was going to get married and everything.  then suddenly he turned gay and moved to canada.  i was like wtf.  his parents did some research, and as a child his uncle had molested him.  99.99% of the time it's not a "birth" problem

[Ghostavo]

Isn't there a religion somewhere that lets you have not one, but many wives? If a government is solely trying to put a law based on a single religion... isn't it just... wrong? Or am I way out of line?

[.::Tin Can::.]

*whew* They banned it. Good deal!

[jdjtcagle]

Just wow!!!

[Taristin]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
*whew* They banned it. Good deal!

Let me know one thing...

Why? Why does what two people do in the privacy of their own home bother you so much?

Why do you feel that you have the right to infringe upon others rights?

And if you truly believe that God will punish gay people in the afterlife, why must you insist on punishing them during this one?

Honestly, I hope God punishes for hipocracy as well.

[jdjtcagle]

Really, if you believe in God...
Let him do these things for whatever reason he has, don't try and change and/or influence it

Basically what Raa said

[Stealth]

Right.  I too believe that if/when God punishes gays, it's for no imperfect human to say what's right/wrong.  Gays should have the same freedoms any other human has.  they shouldn't live a persecuted, skewed life.

But does that mean you've got to redefine the definition of marriage for them?

Why? Why does what two people do in the privacy of their own home bother you so much?

Why do you feel that you have the right to infringe upon others rights?

no one cares what they do in their homes.  what's being discussed in this thread is not what they do in their homes, it's whether or not they should be able to legally marry.  at this point, many people couldn't care less if a gay couple's living in their apartment or wherever.

[Kamikaze]

Marriage is just some symbolic thing which shows two people are committed to each other in today's society. For some reason or other, people have some sort of value or comfort in being married to those who they love.

Is there any reason to deny gay people that? Any reason to care how marriage is defined? Don't pull out that slippery slope argument either, anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous, that doesn't justify anything.

[jdjtcagle]

Kamikaze, your are so right it isn't even funny

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
Marriage is just some symbolic thing which shows two people are committed to each other in today's society. For some reason or other, people have some sort of value or comfort in being married to those who they love.

Is there any reason to deny gay people that? Any reason to care how marriage is defined? Don't pull out that slippery slope argument either, anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous, that doesn't justify anything.

anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous?  if you went back 20 years and told people that twenty years from then gay people would have the same rights as heterosexual people, AND would even be allowed to marry in some states... 99.999999% would just laugh in your face.  things have changed, believe it or not.

marriage isn't a "symbolic thing".  it's been around since the beginning of mankind.  a man, and a woman (Note: not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman) express their love for each other by vowing to stay together etc. etc. etc.

Now as i said, i'm all for gay rights, but getting married isn't a "right" for gay people.  it's a definition of an arrangement that's been around long before there was a single gay person on the face of the earth.  live together, share assets, investments, and money, do anything a married couple would do, but don't go and make a mockery of the term "marriage" in an attempt to seem as normal as a heterosexual couple.  because ultimately that's all it is... trying to be as close to a heterosexual couple as possible. sharing the same rights as them, and now, even sharing the ultimate commitment a couple can make:  marriage.

[Taristin]

Marriage is a peagan ritual.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Stealth


anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous?  if you went back 20 years and told people that twenty years from then gay people would have the same rights as heterosexual people, AND would even be allowed to marry in some states... 99.999999% would just laugh in your face.  things have changed, believe it or not.

I don't think you understood. Saying "This is unallowable because we later may allow that to happen because of this" is ridiculous reasoning. If we go on that path of reasoning, no decisions can be made, no laws can be made, no action can be taken because we can try to apply the slippery slope to anything else. The slippery slope alone isn't useful in deciding about matters like this.

Definition: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
A whole paper on the matter: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm

marriage isn't a "symbolic thing".  it's been around since the beginning of mankind.  a man, and a woman (Note: not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman) express their love for each other by vowing to stay together etc. etc. etc.

You can't say that our current government-run, universal "marriage" thing is the same as it was when cavemen first started humping whatever gal they happened to see. Unless you want to claim the first cavemen were christian and did the whole christian marriage thing.

Now as i said, i'm all for gay rights, but getting married isn't a "right" for gay people.  it's a definition of an arrangement that's been around long before there was a single gay person on the face of the earth.

Gays go back to the time of the ancient greeks, are you saying christian marriage was present in ancient Greece?